Registered User
Originally Posted by tc101
He avoids the real questions about results because he doesn't have an answer. Trying to get answers from Hendrik to any real questions is similar to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MK9jJzbBT8
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
Registered User
So you think these past masters really did not have high level of fighting skills? How about meeting with some local wing chun guys and having a sparring session that will be taped and put on YouTube? We can set it up on this forum. Why not show the world in one short tape what all your special knowledge and understanding will amount to? Isn't that better than producing hours and hours of lectures? If you are really concerned with evidence this is the best evidence. Or do you think that if people really see your performance they will know you are a fraud?
Registered User
What I think doesn't matter.
Who am I or what is my ability doesn't matter.
What is the Wck facts out there which could be track for past 100 years. Is the key .
That track record is the facts. If you choose to be blind. That is your personal issue .
For those like to know the facts, just doing research and dig into the facts track record.
Got nothing to do with me. And in fact, I encourage everyone to not trust me and only take what is a facture evidence from the track record.
Until you learn to distinguish the different between, think, believe , and facts. How can you understand history ?
Whatever I can do or what ever I cannot do, got zero to do with the facts in the track record. For no one can go back in time to change history , and no one represent history. Not me for sure.
Last edited by Hendrik; 03-15-2014 at 10:31 AM.
Registered User
This is one of your regular tricks to try deflect criticism. Hendrik is just the messenger of truth.
I do not care about tracking wing chun back 100 years. I do not care how they may and I stress may because I don't trust you at all have done things a 100 years ago. I don't care how they boxed or wrestled or whatever else from 100 years ago. None of those things get better as you go back in time they get worse. This is why it is called growth or evolution. Martial arts THAT ARE USED get better over time. Martial arts THAT ARE NOT USED get worse over time. This is true on a personal level and on a system level.What is the Wck facts out there which could be track for past 100 years. Is the key .
That track record is the facts. If you choose to be blind. That is your personal issue .
For those like to know the facts, just doing research and dig into the facts track record.
Got nothing to do with me. And in fact, I encourage everyone to not trust me and only take what is a facture evidence from the track record.
Until you learn to distinguish the different between, think, believe , and facts. How can you understand history ?
You are trying to sell that your way is the best right way and that anyone doing anything different is wrong. That sort of view carries it's own karma. Someone is going to step up and show you that they can beat you silly. You are wise to keep hiding and avoid meeting anyone who disagrees with you.
For you wing chun is a dogma. For me it is a skill. Like boxing, it is not how you learn it or who you learn it from or any of that stuff that matters. What matters is how you perform in the ring. Skill and understanding is only shown through performance. You are one of the guys who think yes they can all beat me silly but I know how things really should be done. It's so pathetic it's funny.Whatever I can do or what ever I cannot do, got zero to do with the facts in the track record. For no one can go back in time to change history , and no one represent history. Not me for sure.
Registered User
Good! Now say that looking into the mirror.
Registered User
Clues to the Puzzle:http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...-Mystery/page9
Registered User
EMEI "Tan Sao" : https://www.google.com/search?q=emei...m%3B1024%3B768
Registered User
Once again, good thread necromancy! Thanks for the link!Clues to the Puzzle:
Registered User
Please see this post for an explanation of that image's origin:
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...86#post1263586
aaron
Registered User
Thanks Aaron! This tells us where you got the photo, but not really where the photo actually came from. What book was it? What did the book say about the photo? As I pointed out earlier, this could have come from a book about fashion designers in China and the guy just happened to be named Leung Bik. It might have nothing to do with the Leung Bik of Wing Chun fame.
Registered User
[QUOTE=KPM;1263123]Hey hunt1!
KPM you think this structure is the same as this? Form starts about 55 seconds in.
Remember, I said "similar" not "same"!
I don't think they structure are similar. The YKS and Leung Sheung idea of the knees squeezing together is very different than the natural shoulder width stance . Leung Jan practiced medicine. What he passed down was in accordance to that basic practice. Closing the knees together blocks the chi flow around the legs in a similar way standing with the stance to wide also blacks the meridian running up the inside of the legs. While these stances may be used in some lines it is not the stance Leung Jan passed down. This goes to the question of differences according to Jui Wan.
I can not talk about all the differences because when I was shown them I was new to wing chun and really it wasn't until many years later that I got an understanding of the depth of the system.
However one the basic differences was the stance. look at what Yip taught his first students compared to later students. He clearly is using a different structure and different footwork
Registered User
I don't think they structure are similar.
"Similar" is a relative term.
The YKS and Leung Sheung idea of the knees squeezing together is very different than the natural shoulder width stance .
Yes I agree with you. I prefer the natural shoulder width stance. But sometimes PSWC is also taught with the "knees squeezing" stance as well. But I can't speak to which one would have been original to Leung Jan. The "knees squeezing" may have been picked up by someone at a later date because it is not done consistently from what I have seen.
Leung Jan practiced medicine. What he passed down was in accordance to that basic practice. Closing the knees together blocks the chi flow around the legs in a similar way standing with the stance to wide also blacks the meridian running up the inside of the legs. While these stances may be used in some lines it is not the stance Leung Jan passed down.
This is a good point. I don't know about the whole "blocking chi flow idea" (after all some Chi Gung practice is done sitting cross-legged!) but the natural shoulder width stance works the best from a biomechanical perspective.
However one the basic differences was the stance. look at what Yip taught his first students compared to later students. He clearly is using a different structure and different footwork
True. People haven't really admitted until recent years just how much Yip Man "tinkered with" and changed his Wing Chun over his teaching career. But were these changes from his own innovation and experience, or from the influence of different versions of Wing Chun he was exposed to? This is what's hard to know!
Registered User
Hey Hunt,
when doing YJKYM one's knees should never be squeezing together, that causes tension and energy blockage in the energy channels that run up and down along the inner thaighs. In order to emphasize rooting during early stages of YJKYM training. Some linages Sink in the YJKYM allowing their knees to sink forward together naturally converging towards a third point in the triangle . However again this is just to emphasize good basics during training, but of coarse you wouldn't necessarily fight this way. wing chun uses the 4 powers of float, sink, suck, and spit, sinking is but one of these. Generally when fighting one would be in a natural shoulder width stance allowing for equal opportunity to float, sink, suck, and spit. For example in a real self defence situation one will rarely have the opportunity to set up a formal stance, usually you will be attacked unexpectedly and have to respond from whatever position you are caught in, which should be generally in a position close to our every day natural shoulder width walking stance.
Of course there may be linages that actually do squeeze their knees together, but from my experience the proper way to do it is what I described above, which can sometimes be perceived as knees squeezing together is:
Last edited by kung fu fighter; 03-20-2014 at 08:33 AM.
Registered User
Hi keith thank you for the link. This is interesting. A bit puzzling to claim is the theory on Lueng Bik being Yun Kay San IMO. Why I think this is puzzling is because if Robert Chu story is remotely plausible then there should at least be some big connection or similarity between TWC and YKS gung fu styles but there is no connection no similarity though. But this new claim is kind of shocking to say that Leung Bik is actually Yuen Kay San. Why is William Cheung never credit YKS, never talk about YKS, and why is TWC and YKS not look the same then? If YKS is really Leung Bik then William Cheung TWC has to work like YKS on some level but is not the case.Who has read the newest issue of Wing Chun Illustrated? All dedicated Wing Chun people should subscribe to this. This is a great thing for Wing Chun and needs everyone's support to continue to thrive.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, go here:
http://www.wingchunillustrated.com/
Lots of good articles this month, but I wanted to comment on the ones by or featuring Robert Chu and his comments on Wing Chun history.
Robert stated what many of us have concluded....that the "Leung Bik" story was fabricated and the likely "real" Leung Bik was actually Yuen Kay Shan. Yip Man could not acknowledge Yuen Kay Shan as the sources for his departures from the Wing Chun of his Chan Wah Shun classmates because Yuen had been his childhood friend and was not his primary teacher.
Yip Man's version of Wing Chun was his own in that he innovated some things and adopted some things from others people such as YKS, Chu Chong Man, and others.
Robert also backed up what Hendrik has been telling us recently. Robert noted that he has seen the documents that Hendrik has been referring to, that he has personally trained with the Snake/Crane WCK guys, and that he believes the basic history that Hendrik has researched and laid out. To me, this gives a lot of credibility to Hendrik's research, knowing that someone else very knowledgeable in Wing Chun as well as martial art and Chinese history has checked it out and "vetted it".
I know that won't be enough for a lot of you. But its enough for me! Good going Hendrik! Keep up the good work!
Now go buy the latest issue of WCI to see what I'm talking about!
Robert Chus theory also means that Yip Man could have only lie to everyone about where he learning such stuff which can be very insulting to those families. If this is Robert’s case, then is he also rejecting Yip Man, Yip Chun, William Cheung report about leung Bik? Or something like this could be starting more rumors between these Yip Man, TWC and YKS families? What he says is just conjecture not research would you agree? That is a very strong claim or statement I think he needs to prove connection for any credibility.
I do like what Robert Chu try to do with mixing things up with boxing and wrestling in what he teaches. I enjoy those things too and think that is good and modern. I even like some of his writing but this is just odd and strange theory IMO on Leung Bik = Yuen Kay San. I must disagree against his theory.
If he claim Leung Bik is Yuen Kay San must means he concludes TWC is from Yuen Kay San Wing Chun? Then he also conclude Yip Man make up his own gung fu and is not legit? What to say about these implications to his theory?
Andy
Registered User
Hi Andy!
I think you are taking the whole Leung Bik story too literally. Robert Chu's (and others) theory is not that there was a person that fits William Cheung's story that was actually Yuen Kay Shan rather than Leung Bik. Rather the theory is that the Leung Bik story is a fabrication to explain changes in Yip Man's Wing Chun that were derived from Yuen Kay Shan's influence. The alternative theory (that is more of a speculative stretch) is that there actually was a physical person that gave rise to the story, but that person was actually Fung Wah and not Leung Jan's son. But we don't know what Fung Wah's Wing Chun was like.
there should at least be some big connection or similarity between TWC and YKS gung fu styles but there is no connection no similarity though.
Not to open a whole can of worms that has been rehashed multiple times in the past, but the only Wing Chun that TWC resembles is Hung Fa Yi. But no one knows what that connection is. Its likely that Yip Man had very little to do with the development of TWC. I say this because you can see Yip Man's Wing Chun change a bit throughout his teaching career and this is reflected in his students at various phases. And none of them do things similar to TWC.
But this new claim is kind of shocking to say that Leung Bik is actually Yuen Kay San.
Again, that's not what they are saying.
Robert Chus theory also means that Yip Man could have only lie to everyone about where he learning such stuff which can be very insulting to those families.
Origin stories were always a bit exaggerated or fabricated and it wasn't really considered "lying" by the culture of the day. While modern times uses "new and improved" as the slogan to sell things, back then the slogan was "old and traditional." So things often were attributed to some famous ancestor of the past.
What he says is just conjecture not research would you agree? That is a very strong claim or statement I think he needs to prove connection for any credibility.
Not conjecture, and not so much of a stretch of logic. It is a well known fact that Yuen Kay Shan, Yip Man, and Yiu Choi were friends and training partners in Foshan. They were known as the "three heroes of Foshan." Yuen Kay Shan was the senior in both age and Wing Chun training/experience. Therefore it is logical that Yip Man made changes in the Wing Chun taught to him by Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So that were from Yuen Kay Shan's Wing Chun. Then later on the story of Leung Bik was created to explain why Yip Man's Wing Chun was different from what he learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So. That is the theory. On the other hand, no one has ever shown the existence of Leung Bik to be factual. There is no trace of him in the historical record. Neither Yip Man's sons or any of his Hong Kong students were around when he would have studied with Yuen Kay Shan or Leung Bik.
I do like what Robert Chu try to do with mixing things up with boxing and wrestling in what he teaches.
Robert does not mix boxing and wrestling into his Wing Chun. I'm not sure where you got that idea!
If he claim Leung Bik is Yuen Kay San must means he concludes TWC is from Yuen Kay San Wing Chun?
Actually, I think he concludes that TWC was largely made up by William Cheung! ;-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote