Registered User
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally Posted by JPinAZ
William Cheung used what he had heard about there being a Leung Bik and used it to buttress his own TWC. Ok with me if people believe that or whatever they do about "history."
And the same old stories come in regular cycles.
Would it not be more fruitful to discuss what we do and why we do what we do?
Registered User
Hey JP!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
People will see what they want. I think Billy did a great job of already answering your questions. But to be direct, and no offence meant, it seems your mind is made up already regardless what anyone says. And, if your not going to be objective, nothing anyone says is going to change it.
I am trying to be objective. I think there is at least a superficial similarity between HFY and TWC that is stronger than the similiarities between HFY and YKS WCK or TWC and YSK WCK or between HFY and Ku Lo WCK or TWC and Ku Lo WCK, etc. Billy seemed to agree with that. Do you agree? No agenda here. Just a judgement that is as impartial as I can make it.
Now first, let me ask you, what do you base your conclusions on? As far as I know, there isn't too much to go on without experience in each or both.
I had spent some time studying TWC when I attended the "Friendship Seminar" in Dayton Ohio that was kind of informally HFY and Garret Gee's "coming out" to the public. I saw some HFY demo'd and even did some brief Chi Sao with Garret Gee. I've read the book he did with Benny Meng. None of that is to say I have any in-depth knowledge of HFY and I don't claim to. All I am claiming is that I have seen enough and know enough to recognize pretty strong similarities, superficial though they may be. I don't pretend to know the theories and concepts that are used by HFY.
So yeah, since they are both WCK and both come from the same source (as does all WCK) and clearly have a closer relation than other lines, they are going to look alike. But even if we just look at the SNT forms, we can clearly see there are a lot of differences! (if we are being objective of course). Have you seen both forms?
Yes I have. And again, being objective my logic goes like this......there are at least superficial similarities between HFY and TWC that are stronger than the similarities between them and other "Red Boat" WCK. If they simply split from a common ancestor over 100 years ago, why would they not have diverged as much as Yuen Kay Shan WCK has from HFY? Or Ku Lo WCK from HFY? How did TWC maintain such similarities to HFY all this time when other lineages did not? Logically, it seems unlikely that their shared source dates back over 100 years.
So again, while they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK, they are still distant cousins when compared to each other, whether you see it or not.
Whether they are "distant cousins when compared to each other" or not is irrelevant to this discussion. The important part is the fact that "they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK", and I would add "any of the Red Boat lineage WCK." In other words, there is a connection between TWC and HFY that is stronger than HFY's connection to Ip Man WCK and the others. You have explained that connection as saying that they came from the same source over 100 years ago. But Ip Man WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, and the others did as well. So why is the connection stronger for TWC? Why is the similarity stronger between HFY and TWC?
Without having any really understanding of concepts/principles/mechanics/strategy/tactics/etc of both arts, how can you say for sure what is what? To be fair, you simply can't.
I don't have to have in-depth knowledge of HFY's inner workings to recognize superficial similarities, and to realize that these superficial similarities are stronger than those that I see between HFY and other Red Boat WCK lineages. Its not rocket science after all.
Again, you feel they share visual more similarities if you compare to other Ip Man lineages. No one is denying that, but that's surface level stuff. Your question is why? Well it's obvious that at some point there is a connection to both of these lineages further up the WCK tree than some of the red boat Ip Man lineages,
Well, this is where I would point out that you seem to be veering off the path of objective logic. If the connection is "further up the WCK tree" (meaning further away in time and generations) than some of the other Red Boat lineages, wouldn't that make them less similar due to the progression and digression with time that Billy talked about? How does a more distant connection make them more similar than two lineages with a more recent connection?
On the other hand, if you are arguing that TWC and HFY are similar because they are both descendants of a common source that is NOT shared with the known Red Boat lineages, however distant that common source may be.....THAT I can agree with, and THAT is logical!
If you compare say just Leung Ting VT and Wong Shun Leung WC, while their SNT looks pretty much the same, they operate VERY differently and look VERY different in application, as well as different understanding of WC principles - and they both had the same teacher!
Great point! Look how different they have become in just one generation! How in the heck would HFY and TWC maintain even the superficial similarities they share that the other Red Boat lineages don't over 100 years and multiple generations of evolution and divergence?! It boggles the mind doesn't it!
Clearly they had the same source, no one argues that. All WC has the same source the further back you go. But given enough time, or even just one generation in the example of WSL WC and LT VT, things change.
I agree. But you are proposing that the obvious similarities between HFY and TWC have NOT changed over time and generations, yet these similarities HAVE changed between HFY or TWC and all of the other Red Boat WCK lineages over the same span of time. How do you explain that?
GM WC says that TWC came from Yip Man thru Leung Bik. Since there is no valid alternative that anyone has given as to where TWC came from besides Yip Man (except some stubborn guesses by outsiders that TWC and HFY shared info not too long ago), I'm willing to believe the story that it came from Yip Man.
Again, using objective logic: TWC and HFY are similar and therefore share a common root. The are more similar to each other than they are to other Red Boat lineages, therefore that common root must be different than the others, or more recent. So if we are to believe William Cheung's story, then Leung Bik taught Yip Man a version of WCK that was much different than what Leung Jan taught in Foshan or in Ku Lo Village. Where did Leung Bik learn it? All we have done is push back the "what the hell?" question one generation. We still don't know the link. But the problem with this is the related questions already discussed.
Lets just say William Cheung did learn TWC form Yip Man who learned it from any other Red Boat Sifu one chooses to believe if they don't believe the LB story. And we know HFY traces their lineage not thru the red boats, but mainland Boxer Societies. And these two lines (read boat/boxer societies) split at around 1850. That that would still put about 160 years between HFY and TWC and would make them 4th or 5th cousins - or more!
Exactly! So how in the world would they maintain even such superficial similarities over so much time and so many generations? But likewise, by what you just stated HFY and Yuen Kay Shan WCK would also be 4th or 5th cousins or more! So why do they NOT share these superficial similarities? Therefore I find it logically implausible that the link between HFY and TWC dates back to the pre-Red Boat era. That would require believing that TWC and HFY were able to maintain similarities that HFY and Yuen Kay Shan WCK did not. I think that is objective and logical reasoning. Is it not?
Registered User
I'll refer back to this comment from that old thread:
The only evidence we have of this is the Mok Poi-On interview, which at first I thought was conclusive Yip Man did mention it, but now have heard that it was actually a Leung Ting interview in Yip Man's name, and as Leung Ting himself has said, he was very fond of Lee Man (who Wang Kiu maintains came up with the Leung Bik story) and listened to his stories all the time.
Registered User
Yeah, well, I tried that. Hendrik ignored me. Some people agreed with me and seemed appreciative of what I had to say. You seemed to think that it was all bogus because you're convinced Leung Jan was just futzing around with some farm boys in his final years and not teaching any serious WCK.So you didn't bother to actually try and discuss it at all!
So you go right ahead and start a thread on Chi Sao or something.
Registered User
By Hunters account, not according to Jui Wan!
Registered User
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, well, I tried that. Hendrik ignored me. Some people agreed with me and seemed appreciative of what I had to say. You seemed to think that it was all bogus because you're convinced Leung Jan was just futzing around with some farm boys in his final years and not teaching any serious WCK.
So you go right ahead and start a thread on Chi Sao or something.
What? Futzing with farm boys etc? Misplaced attempt at sarcasm. I never said anything like that.
You are making up a narrative on what I said ex nihilo.
Leung Jan was at the end of his life when he moved to Gu Lao and got some young people started with some san sik drills.
The rest is evolution by the descendants. That is what it looks like to me.
It does NOT mean that Leung Jan was able to transmit his whole art in his last years.
If someone does Gu Lao wing chun- no problem. Has nothing to do with Ip Man's learning.
Registered User
got some young people started with some san sik drills.
The rest is evolution by the descendants. That is what it looks like to me.
It does NOT mean that Leung Jan was able to transmit his whole art in his last years.
Sounds like you think he was just "futzing around" to me!
If someone does Gu Lao wing chun- no problem. Has nothing to do with Ip Man's learning
I thought you weren't interested in any discussions about Ip Man's learning!
Registered User
Hi Keith,
A friend of mine on FB confirm that the “R” in Sifu Yung’s comment is definitely Robert Chu that was also referred to as one with “no ethics or sense” but he along with Hendrik and Sergio all abusing and misusing the knowledge from SCWC. Anyone here know how long Robert Chu is student of Sifu Yung? How much did he learn and is he recognized to speak for SCWC? It would appear not much and all these 3 guys only created more trouble and more mess. It is obvious Hendrik humiliate himself and burned bridges with SCWC and even though we all can see he LOVES to talk so much but he cannot speak as authority at all and did not even apologize or show respect. That is bad.
I trained with some of my friends in the NY Ving Tsun community over the weekend. I asked them about what they think on this stuff. One thing is no one care about Robert Chu but they also say nothing to do with emotion either but they see consistent behoavior and actions repeating again as before since 1980s. I asked them to clarify for me.
They really know about Robert Chu since the old days and have very low opinion about his training and his character. Lee Moy Shan and Moy Yat both said his skill was poor and incomplete need to start over to learn right. Many said Robert was too proud of himself to start over in the GSSA. Lee Moy Shan refused to allow Robert to use his name at all and so Robert never complete his training with them. Now they hear and see the same thing happening with Sifu Yung and Robert Chu. History is repeating itself again they tell me as they see. Incomplete training but big opinion and willing to do unethical actions based on the surface things, unfortunately it only show this guy is not responsible to trust with real knowledge.
I really starting to believe this new Leung Bik theory is just distraction not real research by him. I think this has to be all connected because hegoes beyond stating his opinion to lay false claim to attack Yip Man saying he made it all up. He attack William Cheung saying he made it all up, but it is Robert who never finish his own training and he has to be the one spreading rumor after rumor making every rumor up without knowing his stuff only scratching the surface. I don't see he can be an authority to speak about other groups really. That is not real research at all not even scientific just conjecture. Could I be wrong? The one thing is my friends are stating facts not opinion so I cannot ignore and have to consider. I think Robert is the one making these things up.
Andy
Registered User
---------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Futzing etc- your choice of words- not mine,
Leung Jan was a greatly respected master. Natural for some people to learn something about his art.
Not enough time for the retired master to teach the whole system in the last couple of years or so before his death.
Ip Man's teaching just before his death was also limited
Ip Man's learning was in his hands and his hands on teaching to those few who spent quality and lengthy learning time with him. I dont expect to learn much about
IM's learning from the average KFO-er... but I have met some of IM's top students, rolled with some and listen to what Ho Kam Ming, WSL, TST
have said about IM's wing chun and make my own informed judgements. KFO just keeps me abreast mostly about sometimes useful,
often uninformed, sometimes self advancing
but often irrelevant pub level chit chat about wing chun.
Registered User
Hi Andy!
A friend of mine on FB confirm that the “R” in Sifu Yung’s comment is definitely Robert Chu
Thanks for the clarification!
It is obvious Hendrik humiliate himself and burned bridges with SCWC and even though we all can see he LOVES to talk so much but he cannot speak as authority at all and did not even apologize or show respect. That is bad.
Hendrik seems to have certainly taken a beating on this thread! And he has disappeared rather than stick around and defend himself. But he'll be back!
Lee Moy Shan and Moy Yat both said his skill was poor and incomplete need to start over to learn right.
That would have been a long time ago! Hopefully we've all improved with time! And Robert did start over...with Hawkins Cheung.
I really starting to believe this new Leung Bik theory is just distraction not real research by him. I think this has to be all connected because hegoes beyond stating his opinion to lay false claim to attack Yip Man saying he made it all up. He attack William Cheung saying he made it all up,
Don't lay this all on Robert. He certainly isn't the only one that is or has in the past questioned the Leung Bik story and the William Cheung story!
I don't see he can be an authority to speak about other groups really. That is not real research at all not even scientific just conjecture. Could I be wrong?
I might have missed it, but where has Robert spoken as an authority on SCWC? It was Hendrik that translated and correlated the writings of Yik Kam and Snake Crane lineages.
The one thing is my friends are stating facts not opinion so I cannot ignore and have to consider. I think Robert is the one making these things up.
Saying that Robert is making things up is certainly an opinion!
Last edited by KPM; 03-31-2014 at 03:45 PM.
Registered User
I have never said anything of the kind anywhere! Never have I ever talked about what Ip Man did when he returned from St. Stephans. I hope you are confusing me with some one else.
Registered User
Keith,
This is realy starting to drag on down a road to nowhere. I suggest you reread my last post, and instead of snipping what I say out of context to reply, look at each paragraph individually (vs, nit picked segments which pulls things out of contect) and then the post as a whole. You may get a different idea of what I am saying here because a lot of what you are saying here either mimcs what I have been trying to say, or is ignoring what I have been saying to further what loks to be some strange witch hunt of yours against one or both of these great arts.
I'll make a few quick comments and then I'm bowing out.
Of course I agree. It makes me wonder if you really read my last post at all...
Simple, same idea of WSL & LT comparison - different teachings methods + different students = different outcomes.
LJ taught several different ways, and then so did his students, and so did YM and so did his students. It's easy to see, just pull up youtube, you'll see all sorts of 'styles' of WC out there. LJ clearly taught several different ways depending on a variety of factors thruout his lifetime. It's perfectly logical that WC's 'TWC' was just another 'version' he taught LB.
That's not what I said.
All WC comes from the same source and everything looked pretty much the same if we looked back before the 1850 split. Like all WCK, we see similarities between the 2 in question, but also differences, because after 1850 one version went thru the red boats (LJ/LB), and one version thru the Boxer Societies. And the 160 years in between is why we see 2 separate arts today that still share some common characteristics (as does all WCK - some more some less).
What I don't understand is why it's as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.
Simple answer - his father. Who has taught a multitude of different ways thru his life, none of which look exactly or sometimes even close to the other. Why couldn't today's TWC simply have come down the red boats thru LJ and just be another 'version' he taught his sons?
In the end of the day, what I don't understand is why any of this matters to you so much anyway since you clearly aren't interested in studying either art. And the fact that you went to workshops for both yet haven't wanted to study either further yet still are fighting this strange crusade tells me you aren't really interested in 'answers' or learning anything. No offense mean't, but you come off as only interested in continuing some unprovable gossip and calling a lot of people liars for no apparent reason. To be honest, I gave this a lot more attention that I should have and am not interseted in going down this road further.
Thanks & so long!
Last edited by JPinAZ; 03-31-2014 at 05:21 PM.
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
Registered User
Hold on Hunter, didn't you say this way back in post #3 of this thread?
Jui Wan knew YKS and his wing chun. Jui Wan was already a wing chun Sifu in his own right when he left Fatshan for Hong Kong. Jui Wan is the only credible source that knew and trained with Yip Man, Yui Choi, YKS and the other wing chun people in Fatshan.
Jui Wan said that in Fatshan Yip Mans wing chun was like everyone else's. However in Hong Kong Yip Man's wing chun was different and much better. So much so that Jui Wan studied under Yip Man. To this point in time every story teller I have heard talking about Yip Man learning advanced things from YKS and YKS really being Leung Bik has ignored the only person that was a wing chun sifu in both Fatshan and Hong Kong and knew Yip and his wing chun in both places. Yip may have trained with YKS but the wing chun that impressed Jui Wan was not YKS wing chun. Jui Wan was clear that whatever Yip was now doing with him was different that what was being done in Fatshan.
Am I missing something? You said that Jiu Wan knew and trained with Yip Man, Yiu Choi, and YKS in Fatshan and that he noted that Yip Man's Wing Chun was like everyone else's. But in Hong Kong Yip Man's Wing Chun was better. You did say that didn't you? Doesn't it follow then that if Yip Man had studied with Leung Bik while at St. Stephen's and that Leung Bik's influence was the big difference, that difference would have been noticeable when he returned to Fatshan? Isn't that a logical conclusion from Jiu Wan's testimony? I am giving Jiu Wan's word its just due and now you are denying it? Where have I misrepresented what you said?
And wouldn't Jiu Wan's testimony of Yip Man's Wing Chun being no different that YKS's and YC's in Foshan disprove JP's comment:
Actually, wasn't the story when he went back home? That he was besting all of his old sihings with what he had learned and the all accused him of having 'mixed something else into his WC'?
So again, where have I misrepresented you?
Last edited by KPM; 03-31-2014 at 05:28 PM.
Registered User
Ok I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying I said Yip Man returned from from st. Stephans and beat everyone.
Registered User
JP, I didn't intend this to go down the road to nowhere either. You and Billy chose to take it there. Look, I have nothing to prove, no vendetta, no agenda. I'm simply curious and interested in history. Please reread my responses. I didn't just selectively "snip" away. I was trying to show a certain logic that you seem to either have missed or for some reason are denying. Like I said before it kind of rankles with me when people on both the HFY and TWC side of things want to keep denying what seems fairly obvious to me. And I don't think I'm the only one. That's the only reason I chose to continue these discussions.
So let me make one more attempt to lay things out in a logical fashion. If anyone sees a flaw in my logic, please chime in.
1. TWC and HFY share many superficial similarities that they do NOT share with Yip Man WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK, and other Red Boat lineages. Anyone with a good background in Wing Chun can spot this. JP and Billy have both admitted to this.
2. All WCK share a common origin that pre-dates both the Red Boat era and the Hung societies. They come from the same root art. But with time and generations all lineages tend to evolve and change and diverge to an extent.
3. Yuen Kay Shan WCK and Ku Lo WCK would be just as many generations removed from that original ancestral WCK as HFY and TWC are. YKSWCK and KLWCK share superficial similarities just as HFY and TWC do. They have differences as well because of this divergent evolution, but they have similarities that can be attributed to their origins on the Red Boats. Likewise HFY and TWC have differences, but they also have similarities that can be attributed to their origins within the Hung societies. This is seen by the fact that HFY and TWC are more similar to each other than they are to either YKSWCK or KLWCK, and likewise YKSWCK and KLWCK are more similar to each other than they are to either HFY or TWC. Can everyone agree on that?
4. Therefore, it just makes logical sense that the connection between HFY and TWC has to be more recent than that original ancestral form of WCK. The argument that JP and Billy have used that TWC and HFY are superficially similar only because they share a common origin from that ancestral form of WCK just doesn't hold up. The logical conclusion is that HFY and TWC both have an origin of some sort from the Hung societies which makes them recognizably different than those lineages that came from the Red Boats.
5. So far no one can say what that shared origin between TWC and HFY may be. But there is something nonetheless, and to try and say there isn't and that they are only similar because they both come from that original ancestral Wing Chun is just denying the obvious. Is that so hard to follow?
In the end of the day, what I don't understand is why any of this matters to you so much anyway since you clearly aren't interested in studying either art.
Like I said, it matters to me because I am curious by nature, I am somewhat of a Wing Chun history buff, and it annoys me when people are trying to explain away the obvious.
And the fact that you went to workshops for both yet haven't wanted to study either further yet still are fighting this strange crusade
Its no crusade. I made a simple statement on this thread and Billy and yourself felt the need to go into this long explanation. I've only been pointing out where your explanations don't make logical sense.
tells me you aren't really interested in 'answers' or learning anything. No offense mean't, but you come off as only interested in continuing some unprovable gossip and calling a lot of people liars for no apparent reason.
Tell me where I have continued any "unprovable gossip" or called anyone a liar in my explanation above and my original responses to both you and Billy.
Last edited by KPM; 03-31-2014 at 06:26 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote