Some YMWCK historical theorizing

[KPM]

Hey Rene!

---I thought I would break this out to another thread, since it is off-topic on the HFY thread.

You wrote:
That's a whole other kettle of politics. They were friends and neighbors in Foshan, and when Yip Man's house caught fire, YKS and YKS's sons helped put it out, and then gave Yip Man a place to stay while repairs were done.
There was an eventual falling out, though efforts were made to patch it up later, but YKS soon passed away.

---Which was exactly my point. They had a relationship in China and very likely did some training together. But you note they had a "falling out." This would be a good reason to not give YKS credit for the influence he had on YM's Wing Chun and instead change the name to "Leung Bik." I also understand that Sum Nun and Yip Man weren't on the best of terms. That might be another reason for not mentioning YKS in later stories.

(This is the period where Luk Sao was rumored to have been developed, with different factions claiming one taught the other or vice versa, or that they came up with it together. There was a large disagreement in the HK press about this back in the 70s, with Yuen Jo-Tong writing a letter and sending packets of historical info to New Martial Hero to present his side).

---Wasn't the conclusion that it had likely been YKS who had developed Luk Sao and shared it with Yip Man? And that Yip Man later developed the Dan Chi Sao on his own?

In my experience, however, the choreography is similar enough as to suggest shared ancestry at some point, but the method of power generation and general mechanics are different enough that I think this shared ancestry had to predate Yip Man or Chan Wah-Shun. I don't think it would have changed so much (even if both branches changed in different directions simultaneously) in that space of time.

---But how do you think Kenneth Chung's WCK compares to YKS/SN WCK? I find them similar, though I am not as familiar with YKS WCK as I would like. Do you think my theory is full of holes, or does it have some supporting evidence? You know the history and various systems of WCK much better than I do!

---As far as the WSL story goes......I understood it to say that the SNT Yip Man learned from "Leung Bik" had Tan to Chum to Tan, while the SNT he learned from CWS had it as Tan to Gan to Tan. The story was that LB, being a small man never needed to use a Gan much because he was so short while CWS, being a large man, needed the Gan to defend the lower gate against shorter opponents. How is it that the story doesn't add up? I'm afraid I didn't follow you.

Thanks!

[KPM]

Just in case anyone else is interesting in some "flights of fancy" and historical theorizing, I made the following post on the HFY thread that Rene responded to that lead this this thread:



Tony wrote:
Visible evidence of different styles emanating from one teacher exist in the chain of succession of but not limited to that of Leung Jan to Gulao in contrast to Leung Jan to Leung Bik to Yip Man to William Cheung and Leung Jan to Chan Wah Shun to Yuen Kay San. Something to think about do these originate from the same source do they each look and feel different.

---For what its worth.....Yuen Kay Shan did not learn from Chan Wah Shun as your post seems to suggest. But overall, I agree with your point.


Victor wrote:
Now accoding to Yip Chun, in one of his books I have, the title of which escapes me at the moment, his father did learn different refinements from Leung Bik....but that it did not constitute anything resembling TWC.
Is Yip Chun correct?

---I now tend to think "yes"! I recently watched Dave Peterson's SNT seminar video. On it he mentions that at nearly every SNT seminar he gave, Wong Shun Leung brought up the story of how the Gan Sao was added to the SNT form after he was struck by a low blow during a match. He tells that the version of SNT that Yip Man learned from Leung Bik did not include Gan Sao, while the one that he learned from CWS did. I used to think that the Leung Bik story was strictly a "marketing" story used to increase YMWCK's popularity back in the day. But there would be no obvious "marketing" reason for WSL to continue to tell this story years later.

---So I am leaning towards the idea that Yip Man really did learn something different from "someone" as compared to what he learned from CWS. I think that if you look at the WCK done by YM students from various stages of his career you can see a difference. Granted, he very likely blended together elements from both "styles" of WCK when he taught, but you can see a difference in some of his students. I tend to think that the "Leung Bik" style was a bit more evasive and "softer." More like what a small man or woman would do. I think this is represented the most clearly today through Leung Sheung's lineage in Kenneth Chung and Leung Ting. In contrast, I think the "Chan Wah Shun" style is more direct and powerful. More like what a large man would do. I think this is represented most clearly today through lineages such as Wong Shun Leung, Ho Kam Ming, etc. Some lineages seem to be more "blended" and hard to categorized either way. I note that the "Leung Bik" style as I see it, is more similar to mainland styles like Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nung WCK. So I also don't see it as too big of a stretch to think that "Leung Bik" may have been an invented story to cover for someone else. That "someone else" may very well have been Yuen Kay Shan. Yip Man is noted to have been friends with and trained with YKS while in China. He may not have wanted to claim to close a connection to YKS for various reasons. Maybe because YKS didn't approve use of his name or his WCK, or because YKS was the "competition." Regardless, Yuen Kay Shan could have easily become "Leung Bik" when stories were told in Hong Kong. I say write this because I do see two distinct "styles" in Yip Man's 1st generation students, and one of them bears some resemblance in biomechanics to YKS WCK.



But we do know this much: there's no evidence anywhere that Leung Bik taught this TWC system to anyone else...

---And this may very well be because "names were changed to protect the innocent" and Leung Bik is really Yuen Kay Shan!

and no evidence anywhere that Yip Man did anything with this TWC for all those years he was teaching except William Cheung's claim that he taught him privately.

---Exactly! I see two "styles" of WCK represented in YM's 1st generation students, and neither of them resemble TWC. So my version of things still leaves us wondering where TWC came from.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS PURE SPECULATION - OR WORSE YET - PETTY EGO POLITICS.

---Certainly what I have written is pure speculation! But when we apply Occam's Razor, some speculations seem more likely than others. But in the end, as Terence says, we are just speculating about Fairy Tales unless we can find some kind of real documentation. And how likely is that to happen????

[Liddel]

Wong Shun Leung brought up the story of how the Gan Sao was added to the SNT form after he was struck by a low blow during a match. He tells that the version of SNT that Yip Man learned from Leung Bik did not include Gan Sao, while the one that he learned from CWS did.

My Sifu told me of this story years ago. Prior to me joining this forum or me even speaking to people outside my own school. It was something id seen WSL students do and i asked him why.....
He was present at the fight where WSL was winded and discussed with WSL post fight the addition of Guarn Sao to his SLT with the 'old man' over dinner.

if you look at the WCK done by YM students from various stages of his career you can see a difference. Granted, he very likely blended together elements from both "styles" of WCK when he taught, but you can see a difference in some of his students. I tend to think that the "Leung Bik" style was a bit more evasive and "softer." More like what a small man or woman would do. I think this is represented the most clearly today through Leung Sheung's lineage in Kenneth Chung and Leung Ting. In contrast, I think the "Chan Wah Shun" style is more direct and powerful. More like what a large man would do. I think this is represented most clearly today through lineages such as Wong Shun Leung, Ho Kam Ming, etc. Some lineages seem to be more "blended" and hard to categorized either way.

My take is that both style elements were taught as one whole VT kuen. Different people took up and used what was good for them, based on physical preference and who actually taught them.....
The fact that YM had senior students and in typical tradition let them teach newer students as his assistant instructors, does muddy the waters in trying to piece together the origins of things.
Also many students were not martial art virgins....they had the bases from other styles they practiced before discovering VT.
YKS included from what im told....

But we do know this much: there's no evidence anywhere that Leung Bik taught this TWC system to anyone else... EDIT
and no evidence anywhere that Yip Man did anything with this TWC for all those years he was teaching except William Cheung's claim that he taught him privately. EDIT
I see two "styles" of WCK represented in YM's 1st generation students, and neither of them resemble TWC. So my version of things still leaves us wondering where TWC came from.

Ive been to other VT schools in my area and not said that i have any previous MA or VT experience to see what they had without them trying to 'show me up'.

I found it very hard to disguise my skill when doing the basic stuff and it certainly tests your patience...
Its reversing your natural actions, freakin difficult IMO.

So with this in mind, i personally find it hard to believe that someone could one,
-keep this awesome secret for so long and not tell one of your bros, and two
-not have elements of it surface when training with others that would make them curious

My Sifu knew Bill and his brother Cheung King Gong(sp?), who also did VT (bought from GM Ip) but no one talks about him Did he get TWC or VT ?

Where it came from is interesting, but irrelevant IMO - is it effective thats the key....

DREW

[reneritchie]

Hi Keith,

I believe Sum Nung and Yip Man were mostly on good terms. Sum Nung visited HK before China closed the borders, did a brief seminar on locks and throws, and had dinner with Yip Man sifu. It's my understanding that this is when a lot of stuff got patched up in terms of Mainland relations as well.

Since I wasn't there, I can't conclude who did what or how the credit pie gets sliced up for Luk Sao. Other branches (including Cho and Koolo) do the inside/outside hands for Chi Sao, Yip Man does Luk Sao, and Sum Nung does both. So, Luk Sao seems to have evolved (it's not that different from what came before, a logical extension in one direction sacrificing specificity and isolation of economy and combination) at some point after the Red Junks (where Cho split), after Leung Jan (where Koolo split), and before Yip Man's and Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung's students. That's as far as circumstantial evidence takes us, I think (and I don't want Terence to open up a can a whup@$$ on me if I start making speculation unlabeled as such

Ken Chung's (indeed, students of Leung Sheung in general, and I'd say Jack Ling in particular) tend to do most of the body postures more similar to YKS/SN than I've seen from other Yip Man branches. However, the bridge shapes (i.e. Tan Sao, Bong Sao) and the power generation (at least Chung sifu, I don't remember Ling sifu's method as well) is still different to an extent that there doesn't seem to be a direct connection.

And that is the problem with the WSL story -- YKS/SN uses Tun/Jum/Tun (no Gaun), as does most of Foshan WCK if memory serves. If Chan Wah-Shun hadn't taught it that way, I think the other version would have been the wide-spread one. It looks like if Yip Man had learned a version from CWS, it would have been the Tan/Chum/Tan as well...

[hunt1]

Just thought I would add that Yip Man did teach what Rene calls the inside/outside hands method to at least a small number of his students. I was first exposed to that method by one of Yips students that told me he learned it from Yip Man. This was many years ago.

[KPM]

Hey Drew!

My Sifu told me of this story years ago. Prior to me joining this forum or me even speaking to people outside my own school. It was something id seen WSL students do and i asked him why.....
He was present at the fight where WSL was winded and discussed with WSL post fight the addition of Guarn Sao to his SLT with the 'old man' over dinner.

---Interesting! Thanks for that feedback.


My take is that both style elements were taught as one whole VT kuen. Different people took up and used what was good for them, based on physical preference and who actually taught them.....

---Could be true to an extent. But the two "styles" that I see in what Yip Man taught have some pretty significant biomechanical differences. One pivots on the K1 point near the ball of the foot and does a 30/70 to 0/100 weight shift, while the other pivots on the heel and does a 50/50 weight shift. I could be wrong, but I tend to think that differences that big would come down to how one is taught more than personal preference.


I found it very hard to disguise my skill when doing the basic stuff and it certainly tests your patience...
Its reversing your natural actions, freakin difficult IMO.
So with this in mind, i personally find it hard to believe that someone could one,
-keep this awesome secret for so long and not tell one of your bros, and two
-not have elements of it surface when training with others that would make them curious

----I agree with you and have had the same thoughts over the years myself. I've always wondered how it could be that Yip Man knew a version of WCK that he taught only to William Cheung and yet elements of it did not show up in his WCK at other times. How do you "stifle" or hide biomechanics that....according to William Cheung....are superior to what you are doing and teaching everyone else on a daily basis? And why would you want to?

[KPM]

Hey Rene!

---Thanks for the reply!

I believe Sum Nung and Yip Man were mostly on good terms. Sum Nung visited HK before China closed the borders, did a brief seminar on locks and throws, and had dinner with Yip Man sifu. It's my understanding that this is when a lot of stuff got patched up in terms of Mainland relations as well.

---Thanks for that feedback.

Since I wasn't there, I can't conclude who did what or how the credit pie gets sliced up for Luk Sao. Other branches (including Cho and Koolo) do the inside/outside hands for Chi Sao, Yip Man does Luk Sao, and Sum Nung does both. So, Luk Sao seems to have evolved (it's not that different from what came before, a logical extension in one direction sacrificing specificity and isolation of economy and combination) at some point after the Red Junks (where Cho split), after Leung Jan (where Koolo split), and before Yip Man's and Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung's students. That's as far as circumstantial evidence takes us, I think (and I don't want Terence to open up a can a whup@$$ on me if I start making speculation unlabeled as such

---But that does narrow the list of candidates significantly. That essentially leaves.......Chan Wah Shun, Fok Bo Kuen, Yuen Kay Shan, and Yip Man. Did I leave anyone out?

Ken Chung's (indeed, students of Leung Sheung in general, and I'd say Jack Ling in particular) tend to do most of the body postures more similar to YKS/SN than I've seen from other Yip Man branches. However, the bridge shapes (i.e. Tan Sao, Bong Sao) and the power generation (at least Chung sifu, I don't remember Ling sifu's method as well) is still different to an extent that there doesn't seem to be a direct connection.

---But how direct is "direct"? Obviously they weren't taught by YKS or SN, so it would be by definition an indirect link. I think its likely that neither of the two "styles" that I'm proposing that YM taught were "pure" in the sense that one would be entirely what Leung Bik (or YSK) taught and the other entirely what CWS taught. I see what YM taught over his career as being a spectrum with the "softer/female/Leung Bik" version at one end of the spectrum and the "powerful/male/CWS" version at the other and shades of gray in between. Biomechanically I see it as those that pivot near the ball of the foot into a 0/100 weight distribution at one end of the spectrum and those that pivot on the heel with a 50/50 weight distribution at the other end.

And that is the problem with the WSL story -- YKS/SN uses Tun/Jum/Tun (no Gaun), as does most of Foshan WCK if memory serves. If Chan Wah-Shun hadn't taught it that way, I think the other version would have been the wide-spread one. It looks like if Yip Man had learned a version from CWS, it would have been the Tan/Chum/Tan as well...

---So then who would have been the one to invent the story that WSL told and why? Was Yip Man just pulling his leg?

[dfl]

---But that does narrow the list of candidates significantly. That essentially leaves.......Chan Wah Shun, Fok Bo Kuen, Yuen Kay Shan, and Yip Man. Did I leave anyone out?

Yes, you did. You left out Ng Chung So, who was YM's de facto teacher in the early years and his constant training partner since.

My Sifu knew Bill and his brother Cheung King Gong(sp?), who also did VT (bought from GM Ip) but no one talks about him Did he get TWC or VT ?

Based on this chum kiu from a grand student of Cheung King Gong, I would say it's closer to VT (assuming it's a reasonable facsimile of the original). Besides, wasn't William Cheung the only one to get the TWC transmission?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILw_jNI1iGk

There may be a simple explanation for the diversity in YM's students:
1. he did not teach everyone hands on, which means
2. he left a lot of the instruction to his more senior students around at the time. so these more junior students would more reflect the skill of their seniors than their supposed teacher
3. he did not care much about quality control
4. the students came with their own preconceived ideas and pursued WC with those ideas in mind
5. the students have their own insights during/after their instruction
6. all of the above

I don't know about you, but since the time I've been with my teacher, I have seen a lot of students come and go, and I can tell you while some are very good, others never got the right idea, or did not make the commitment necessary to be able to acquire the skill. And this is from a teacher who's known for his teaching skills. For someone less willing to share, it can be expected the results will vary all over the map.

I don't agree with Hendrik about these supposed different "male/female" versions. For one thing, Leung Yi Tai, despite his female sounding name, was described as a sailor, who, presumably, had some special muscles to guide the boats and wield the pole. Looking at that Pun Yu Cho video, if I haven't seen Hendrik's version, I might think Cho's WC is all "male". ;-)

I think there's only 1 version taught, it's the student who interprets it differently. When I look at someone who does WC descended from YM, I try to imagine YM himself doing it. And if a small (5'2"), old (60+), frail (110 lb.) man cannot make use of the motion, it most likely did not come from YM himself, but is something that person, or someone along the line, came up with that suits his own body attributes (I think that's what Hendrik calls "local evolution").

[reneritchie]

DFL makes the kind of sense that does.

Very good overview, Dan! Elderly men not in the best of shape or health making high-level use of something is very practical filter.

@KPM:

They all used to hang around the same smoke house and tea house (I believe the Cho's even visited Yip Man and Yuen Kay-San there on occasion). Small town, closed system, everyone with their own system and secrets (no video back then, so even if you both had the same stuff, if you never showed it, you might believe the other person didn't have it).

I know Jim and Hendrik like the female/male split, but I also think it depended on the individual. Cheung Bo did very macho WCK, but favored the flanking. IMHO, all facets of the same art.

[KPM]

Hey dfl!

Yes, you did. You left out Ng Chung So, who was YM's de facto teacher in the early years and his constant training partner since.

---Yes! You are absolutely right. And upon reflection, I should probably include Sum Nun on that list as well.

Based on this chum kiu from a grand student of Cheung King Gong, I would say it's closer to VT (assuming it's a reasonable facsimile of the original). Besides, wasn't William Cheung the only one to get the TWC transmission?


I don't know about you, but since the time I've been with my teacher, I have seen a lot of students come and go, and I can tell you while some are very good, others never got the right idea, or did not make the commitment necessary to be able to acquire the skill. And this is from a teacher who's known for his teaching skills. For someone less willing to share, it can be expected the results will vary all over the map.

---Yes. You could very well be right! But I tend to think that biomechanical aspects as different as K1 pivoting with 0/100 weight distro vs. heel pivoting with 50/50 weight distro would represent more than just personal preferences of individuals.

[reneritchie]

Like I said Keith, old joke is they dropped tiles:

K1 for you!
Heel for you!

Ha! I got 50/50.
Double Ha! I got inside wrist rotation!
Doh!

[drleungjohn]

Is that suppose to be David Cheung?

[Liddel]

Is that suppose to be David Cheung?

Its Williams Brother i was refering to, dont know his english name......

Cheung seems to be a popular name IMO... TWC peeps would know, i talked to phil about it a while back in a Jong thread.

[Liddel]

---Could be true to an extent. But the two "styles" that I see in what Yip Man taught have some pretty significant biomechanical differences. One pivots on the K1 point near the ball of the foot and does a 30/70 to 0/100 weight shift, while the other pivots on the heel and does a 50/50 weight shift. I could be wrong, but I tend to think that differences that big would come down to how one is taught more than personal preference.

Thats a fair call, although aspects like people 'learning by watching' rather than learning directly from a sifu could account for these things in Ips School at least, quite popular because of the lengthy learning duration, people get impatient...
as well as elements of peoples initial styles comming into play, being the origin of prefference

Yip told my sifu once that Leung Jan used to travel back to his home town for vacations and because he was so famous got bugged by everyone for tuition.

If you learnt from a teacher every time he was in town you may need to fill some gaps on your own when hes away etc etc and it may become habbit by the time he returns...speculation of course.....

----I agree with you and have had the same thoughts over the years myself. I've always wondered how it could be that Yip Man knew a version of WCK that he taught only to William Cheung and yet elements of it did not show up in his WCK at other times. How do you "stifle" or hide biomechanics that....according to William Cheung....are superior to what you are doing and teaching everyone else on a daily basis? And why would you want to?

Whats an even more stretch of the imagination is the "story" of Leung Jan teaching his own sons the 'wrong' way while CWS was secretly watching....

This suposes he purposly made his sons train incorrectly because someone was watching.....common sence would dictate hed just call him out and not waste everyones time

It just doesnt fly with me personally.

DREW

[hunt1]

Liddel, the Leung Jan teaching CWS differently only works if LJ only had his sons and CWS as students. However he had several other students in Fatshan as well.