To be or not to be!!!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

You asked me what foundation of Chan Wah Shun do I have to support the statements I've made..?

The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

Whereas the almost 20 years spent with William Cheung qualifies me to say: Leung Bik-Yip Man-William Cheung (TWC).

The fact that you choose to believe that Leung Bik may not have taught anything to Yip Man, much less TWC...is your problem. As far as I'm concerned, Yip Man learned TWC from Leung Bik and passed it on to William Cheung.

It's up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

As for the Yang Taiji story...I'll look into it and if I find anything
significant in terms of this dicussion I'll get back to you.

But in the meantime: What about you responding to my reasoning concerning the fact that Yip Man needed no publicity by trying to connect himself to Leung Bik? Which is why I said that the Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story about there being no Yip Man-Leung Bik connection is false. Any feedback?

What about responding to Yip Chun's comments that not only did his father learn from Leung Bik but that ..."as for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it. So frankly, GM Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he was older, he studied with Leung Bik.Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun..." What about this, Rene?

And what about what I said concerning the 5' man vs. the 6' man.
Any comments on that...now?

Or the fact that in TWC we do square up and fight on the horizontal centerline after gaining the superior position. Anything to say?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence:

You're right about the role of the "individual" when learning martial arts.....

I have some comments and questions about an individual named: Terence....

You're always implying either covertly or overtly that William Cheung is a total liar about TWC ; that TWC is just one big marketing ploy; that we're all a bunch of clones ; we really can't bring it in the street; we should take on the likes of Rickson Gracie, or Tank Abbott, or Robert Chu, etc.

But what about Terence? Could it be that Terence is looking to tangle with someone? Someone who is, say, a skilled, resisting opponent? Is it Terence who would like to come out of the schoolyard and into the world of "individuality"?

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Rene:

You asked me what foundation of Chan Wah Shun do I have to support the statements I've made..?

The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

Not really. Moy Yat admitted he never touched Yip Man's hands. Basing your knowledge of Yip Man Wing Chun on his teaching lacks credibility. Your obvious unfamiliarity with and misimpressions of other YM lines shows you haven't gotten around much and cannot speak with authority as you claim.

I am not taking sides in the argument, but instead suggest that you have to provide more facts to buttress your side.

Regards,

[desertwingchun2]

Hey John,

I didn't mention anything about convincing anyone of anything. I was responding to your post where you asked ...

"What are the nature of these tests and challenges?" John W.

Train suggested you go directly to the source. Sounds like a good recomendation to me. So I agreed with him and offered my personal experience regarding GM Gee answering questions.


I'll consider going to the Garrett Gee school after the get-together. - John W.

Great!

But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more. John W.

Well, hopefully after consideration you'll decide to go to the source rather than ask questions about HFYWC on the forum. Again, I don't think anything but good could come from such a meeting.

-David

[Train]

John said: (I'll consider going to the Garrett Gee school after the get-together. But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more.)

From this comment i already know you answer. I don't know about you John. Sounds a little close minded but that's ok. For me, i would go to any school just to pay some respects and talk to the people there. About the WC get together, from some of the post i've seen up to this point, i wouldnt go to it hehehe J/K

[yuanfen]

John W.

sez:But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more.)

They have not been intriguing to me.

But if they enjoy it- their business.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Train, does that mean you will stop by the get together in San Jose?

Victor, I don't know if Leung Bik existed or not. Doesn't really matter. If Yip Man said he existed, that is good enough for me. Unfortunately we have some of his students that said Yip Man said he was taught by him. You have other students that say it was a made up story. You also have different accounts as to if he existed, or even knew Wing Chun. I am wondering how good his wing chun could be if Chan Wah Shun beat him up as the story goes. So much for a better system. LOL But if he existed, and if Yip Man did attend an english speaking school, how would he have learned so much from Leung Bik in such a short time? Obviously Yip Man had his studies and English to learn. But seriously, is it possible to learn the details in such a short time? If so, why can no one else get that good in such a short time. If Chan Wah Shun wasn't that good, then he probably wouldn't be any better than any other student of Yip Man. I would suggest, if I follow, that I could spend a few years learning Chan Wah Shun wing chun, then visit William Cheung in a year or two and become incredible, if I was dedicated.

Just trying to figure this all out. Just dosn't make sense.
Tom
________
The Cigar Boss

[Train]

Hi Tom,

Unfortunatly, I am unable to make it there that day becuase i already made plans and at night i have training... Sounds cool though... maybe the next time you guys have it again i might be able to come. So, what school is most of the people coming from anyways? Is any of Criss Chan's people going?Is Hendrik going? Just Curious.

[Rolling_Hand]

<<I am wondering how good his wing chun could be if Chan Wah Shun beat him up as the story goes. So much for a better system. LOL But if he existed,>>Tom

**Tom, What are you saying? That person who touched hands with Chan Wah Shun was Leung Chun, not Leung Bik.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Train
I don't know about you John. Sounds a little close minded but that's ok. For me, i would go to any school just to pay some respects and talk to the people there. About the WC get together, from some of the post i've seen up to this point, i wouldnt go to it hehehe J/K

So your refusal to discuss the details of what you do and to attend a get-together to show it is Ok for you. But after some dubious online behavior, unsupported historical claims, and inside/out roundabout reasoning, you expect me to have an open mind? Ok, you've sold me. I'll come up. I think SF HFY people should try to attend this though. At least we can be friends if not in agreement.

Originally posted by Train
Hi Tom,

Unfortunatly, I am unable to make it there that day becuase i already made plans and at night i have training... Sounds cool though... maybe the next time you guys have it again i might be able to come. So, what school is most of the people coming from anyways? Is any of Criss Chan's people going?Is Hendrik going? Just Curious.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but to answer the question about the April 27 get-together:

This particular event stemmed from PlanetWC, Hendrik, Roger Rollinghand, all apparently being Silicon Valley workers, and suggesting a lunchtime visit. I said I'd come if it happened. Then KJ said she'd come, then Joy (Yuanfen), and Aelward, and the idea kind of snowballed. Hendrik, unfortunately, was unable to make it, and Roger has not responded to the invitation.

Attendees include:

Tom Parker

John Kang (Aelward)'s Oakland/SF school www.wingchun-sf.com

At least one Chris Chan student that I know of.

Hoping to see David Williams/PlanetWC there www.wingchun.com

KJ-Kathy Jo www.rochesterwingchun.com

Joy Chaudhuri http://www.azwingchun.com

Sifu Michael Nederman plus three students from Sacramento

Union City Wing Chun http://128.32.250.15/~sjeung/wingchun/instructors.html

Stanford Wing Chun Students Association http://wingchun.stanford.edu/

Students of Ken Chung http://www.bawcsa.org/
Ken will attend the get-together after brunch

Students of Ben Der---That includes me

The total will be 30 or more folks meeting to exchange pleasantries over brunch followed by meeting to exchange Wing Chun at whateve levels attendees feel comfortable.

Although we will try to continue these get-togethers, someday folks will be talking about the good old days when this happened.

Regards,

[KPM]

---Hey Victor: I'm not Rene, but since I've asked you some of the same questions, here is my reply:

You asked me what foundation of Chan Wah Shun do I have to support the statements I've made..?
The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

---That's interesting because I have seen Benny Meng and his students do Moy Yat's WCK first hand and on video. They didn't look anything like what those old articles from years ago defined as "modified" WCK. I have seen Benny Meng very effectively deal with boxing hooks and Choy Li Fut style "rounding" blows with no problem....something you said Chan Wah Shun WCK couldn't do. I have seen Benny Meng use very effective footwork to avoid being "flanked". Something you said Chan Wah Shun WCK couldn't do. And Meng Sifu was doing his Moy Yat WCK at the time, not HFY. As I've said before, what those old articles illustrated and defined as "modified WCK" is something that ALL of the YMWCK people I have encountered would consider VERY poorly done WCK. Those articles were inacurrate then and the idea is still inaccurate today.

The fact that you choose to believe that Leung Bik may not have taught anything to Yip Man, much less TWC...is your problem. As far as I'm concerned, Yip Man learned TWC from Leung Bik and passed it on to William Cheung. It's up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

---It sounds like you have chosen to believe the Leung Bik story regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Which is fine. But realize that there are people that take a more open-minded approach and consider evidence towards what is more likely and what is less likely. When we are dealing with stories rather than verified history that is all that we can do. When evidence is pointing us towards the "less likely" in regards to the Leung Bik/TWC story, then it is up to you to prove it is true if you want us or anyone else to believe it. So I can turn your statement around on you just as easily. As far as I am concerned, based upon what I have seen and read, the Leung Bik/TWC story seems much "less likely" than the alternative versions. Its up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

But in the meantime: What about you responding to my reasoning concerning the fact that Yip Man needed no publicity by trying to connect himself to Leung Bik? Which is why I said that the Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story about there being no Yip Man-Leung Bik connection is false. Any feedback?

---I think this would depend on the timeline. How early on did the Leung Bik story originate? When Yip Man first got to Hong Kong and was down on his luck, Lee Man convinced him to begin teaching WCK openly. Lee Man could have come up with the story at that time in order to promote Yip Man's classes. Everyone starts somewhere. He didn't necessarily have a crowded kwoon right from the beginning.

What about responding to Yip Chun's comments that not only did his father learn from Leung Bik but that ..."as for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it. So frankly, GM Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he was older, he studied with Leung Bik.Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun..." What about this, Rene?

---Rene may not have said anything, but I responded to this already. Did you miss it? My comment was that Yip Chun as well as Yip Ching both tell this story. But they were both "late-comers" to Hong Kong after the story was already well-established. They may be retelling it for several reasons. First, because in good Chinese tradition, they are reluctant to contradict something that is so widely believed. Second, the implication is that their father has passed on this "advanced learning" to them. Therefore the story gives them added validity as "Grandmasters" and helps their own ricebowl. Neither of them say anything about an entire different version of WCK coming from Leung Bik...only an expanded understanding of the concepts and theories behind all WCK.

Keith

[t_niehoff]

Victor, Victor, Victor, . . .

Ultimatewingchun wrote:

Terence:

You're right about the role of the "individual" when learning martial arts.....VP

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't believe in the superiority of any art. If Rickson beats you does it prove Rickson is better than you or BJJ is better than TWC? TN

I have some comments and questions about an individual named: Terence....VP

Ah, I see . . . once again when folks can't respond intelligently on the issue it becomes personal. TN

You're always implying either covertly or overtly that William Cheung is a total liar about TWC ; that TWC is just one big marketing ploy; VP

Not entirely accurate. I think TWC is Cheung's interpretation of Yip Man WCK and that he has "modified" the curriculum to try to pass on WCK as he understands it (just as every other teacher does). The "story of TWC" he stole from Tai Ji to market his method. Not that he is any worse or better than most folks that sell their art. TN

that we're all a bunch of clones ; VP

What would you think if you went to a boxing gym run by Joe Frazier and everyone there was trying to box just in the same style as Smokin' Joe? I'll tell you what I would think: that what they were missing is that a good boxing coach tries to bring out the best boxer from the individual he's training, to give him the fundamentals of boxing, to help him develop those fundamentals, and then let him develop along the lines best suited for him (to build on the individual). It is easy for someone to see if they are a clone: are they and their training partners/students all trying to apply their skills in the same way? TN

we really can't bring it in the street; VP

Whenever I hear "on the street" I think folks really mean "as seen on TV." Do you really think a measure of your skill is that you can deal with the average Joe "on the street" -- a guy who is out-of-shape, with little skill, etc. BJJ'ers don't guage their performance on their ability to submit some poor sap "on the street" -- they measure their personal level of skill by what quality of skillful opponent they can submit. Think about it. TN

> we should take on the likes of Rickson Gracie, or Tank Abbott, or Robert Chu, etc. VP

Oh, so now we bring my sifu into the discussion too? Look Victor, it is one thing for a person to claim, for example, that they have groundfighting in their WCK and to demonstrate it against folks that have no skill in groundfighting; it is quite another thing to make it work against someone truly skilled in groundfighting. In the first instance, it may work or it may have all sorts of weaknesses but you'll never know because you didn't really put it to the test; in the second instance, you'll have a much better idea. My point is the only way to really develop the skill is by facing those persons that can put what you are trying to do to the test. Is that really such a threatening proposition? TN

But what about Terence? Could it be that Terence is looking to tangle with someone? Someone who is, say, a skilled, resisting opponent? Is it Terence who would like to come out of the schoolyard and into the world of "individuality"? VP

Personal stuff again? I train all the time against skilled, resisting opponents -- this experience is what informs my opinion. And it is from this experience that I know that there is no superior lineage or MA system, and that as MAs we stand or fall on our own. I live in "the world of individuality" -- and that's why I don't call myself "ultimatewingchun" or spout "party-line propoganda". TN

Terence

[Jim Roselando]

Wow!


What a conversation!


ROFLMAO


All this talk about this and that and who got what etc..


The one thing I keep noticing is this:

Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man


Hmmm?

I think some need to remember that Chan Wah Shun was supposed to have taken a stroke some 6 months after the very young teenager started and then Ng Chung So was responsible for the bulk of Yip's schooling.


So:

Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Ng Chung So-Yip Man


Oh yeah!


Please try to remember that Wong Wah Bo had more than one pupil! THAT IS THE MAIN THING TO THINK OF IN THIS WHOLE LEUNG BIK SPECIAL STORY.


Wong Wah Bo-Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun & Wong Sam etc..

Wong Wah Bo-Fok Bo Chuen-Yuen Kay San & Yuen Chai Wan etc..

So, since all we need to do is cross check the lineages to find similarities we can see what sounds highly unlikely or likely. Especially since the Koo Lo preservation and Yuen's preservation is so so so similar. For the TWC story to be accurate that would mean Wong Wah Bo would have had to teach Leung Jan TWO versions (one correct and one incorrect) and teach his other pupil just the incorrect one?


You decide!


Regards,

[reneritchie]

Hey Victor,

The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

That's Yip Man Wing Chun Kuen, *one* of the branches of Chan Wah-Shun WCK. Have you experienced Chan Yiu-Min, Ng Jung-So, Lui Yiu-Chai, or any of the branches of Yip Man's sihing so that you have a well rounded and cross-referenced idea of what Chan Wah-Shun taught?

The fact that you choose to believe that Leung Bik may not have taught anything to Yip Man, much less TWC...is your problem.

That's doubly fallacious. First, I don't choose to believe that, I choose to keep an open mind and am honest enough to admit there doesn't seem to be a clear answer either way. Second, its not my problem. It doesn't effect me one way or another. If, however, one day conclusive evidence is found that there was no Leung Bik connection, it will certainly be problematic to others.

It's up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

The burden of proof shifts from the claiment only when they've made their own (reasonable) case.

As for the Yang Taiji story...I'll look into it and if I find anything

I respect that, thank you.

What about you responding to my reasoning concerning the fact that Yip Man needed no publicity by trying to connect himself to Leung Bik?

I'm not sure I understand it. Yip Man surely needed publicity. HK was a highly competitive market and he no longer had his ancestral wealth to rely on. Teaching became a matter of rice in the bowl for him, and he needed a good crop of initial students to show he could teach, a good group of fighters to show what he offered was better than others, and good publicity so word would get out.

What about responding to Yip Chun's comments that not only did his father learn from Leung Bik but that

Yip Chun, as several people have heard him say directly over the years, respects not only his father, but all the stories that surround them and would never disrespect them in public.

What about this, Rene?

I find it balanced by accounts from the Mainland that Leung Bik knew little or no Wing Chun Kuen, and/or was not very good at what he knew. If that was the case, what would he have to teach? By contrast, Chan Wah-Shun won many challenge fights, and produced a number of very good students, including Ng Chung-So and Yip Man. His legacy is undoubtable, his teachings verifiable, his family still around.

And what about what I said concerning the 5' man vs. the 6' man.

We have differences in belief/experience wrt what is advanced application for smaller/larger people.

Or the fact that in TWC we do square up and fight on the horizontal centerline after gaining the superior position. Anything to say?

To what? Good, you follow standard WCK concepts? 8) We have the Jing San (Straight Body) and the Pien San (Side Body) in all branches, we have facing and flanking in all branches, which one we use depends on relative skill and personal style.

Here's some food for thought. What's "Side Neutral Stance" in Cantonese? How do you differentiate between "Center Line" and "Central Line" in Cantonese? In an art priding itself on being *more* traditional, it should be easy to relate the traditional (Cantonese) terms, as Cheung sifu would have learned them.

From this comment i already know you answer. I don't know about you John. Sounds a little close minded but that's ok. For me, i would go to any school just to pay some respects and talk to the people there. About the WC get together, from some of the post i've seen up to this point, i wouldnt go to it hehehe J/K

Train,

Why haven't you gone to James Lacy to learn White Tiger Wing Chun? Why haven't you gone to Mr. Chan to learn Tibetain Wing Chun? Why haven't you gone to Australia to learn Leung Chun Wing Chun? Are you closed minded?

**Tom, What are you saying? That person who touched hands with Chan Wah Shun was Leung Chun, not Leung Bik.

LOL! From http://www.cheungswingchun.com

"After Dr. Leung died, the two sons and Chan Wah Shun argued over who would become the next grandmaster. Chan challenged the two sons, and because he was so much bigger, he was still able to defeat them. Chan then chased the two sons out of the Fatshan area."

[Scott Powers]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KPM
[B]Hi Scott!

---I think I will have to respectfully disagree.

Nice to here from someone who has trained in each art form and can give first hand experence.

---Not with this part! :-) It is good to hear from someone that has experience in both systems.

To look at each system from a distance, sure people would compare at first apearance the systems simular step they take. But to compare without experence training in each system is foolish. It is disrespectful to both Grand Masters W.Cheung & G.Gee to say that we can look at their systems without experence training in them and know just what they are doing.

KPM wrote
---This I disagree with. Anyone with an eye trained in WCK can look at something as superficial and obvious as choreography of the forms and point out similarities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist nor a master of each respective system. And comparing something as straight-forward as choreography of the forms is neither disrespectful or foolish. It is no different that a WCK person looking at arts like Southern Mantis or Pak Mei and being able to point out that both fall into the category of being a "Southern Chinese In-fighting" method and for what reasons.

Scott wrote
--- I disagree with you on this. I think the point is that William Cheung & Garrett Gee Wing Chun may have similarities but are different systems. Just because they both have SLT,CK,BJ, means that you will get the same results. Anyone with Wing Chun experence can tell what the similarities are, but what makes them different? Chango has said he spent time training with both Masters. Hands on experence in their systems gives him insites over someone who is from a different system.
Just because people on the Forum have experence in Wing Chun does'nt mean you can tell what( Every System is Teaching.)

Only the Sifu of these Masters will be able to understand them completely. Speculating and or guessing does nothing but waste time. If you want to know what their system is about, them I suggest spending time with the Masters and get first hands on experence. If not then Chango should be the only person qualified to answer question on both system and there similarities or differences. If someone else has first hand experence in both system I would love to here there opinion.

KPM wrote
---Again, one doesn't have to be a master of the method to recognize similarities in something as straight-forward as form choreography. Its that simple. It doesn't take a genius or a master.

Scott wrote
---Again, all you see is similarities between the systems not what different information each one presents. Sure there forms look a like but, there identity and concepts are not.


KPM wrote
Chango:
---You've have told us that you see very little similarities between TWC and HFY at the theory level. But you didn't comment on the forms. How similar do you find the choreography between the forms? Are the HFY and TWC forms more similar to each other than either are to YMWCK? Thanks!

[Phil Redmond]

You wrote;

"Hmmm?
I think some need to remember that Chan Wah Shun was supposed to have taken a stroke some 6 months after the very young teenager started and then Ng Chung So was responsible for the bulk of Yip's schooling.
So:
Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Ng Chung So-Yip Man
Oh yeah!" JR

Oh No! If Ng Chung So was Chan Wah Shun's student, he was Yip Man's Sihing and not Yip Man's Sifu. Therefore his name can't be counted in the lineage you wrote above. It would be against Chinese MA tradition to say that Ng was Yip Man's Sifu.
Phil