# Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?



## DanT

We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke. 

From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.

At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.

At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.

At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?

We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong? 

Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?


----------



## wckf92

...this should make for an interesting and lively discussion!


----------



## geezer

That he practiced with and exchanged knowledge with Yuen Kay San is often discussed these days, but Yuen Kay San has never been listed as Yip Man's _teacher_ ...except by some in _that_ lineage.

Now the "Leung Bic" story was, for a while discounted, but recently has been revived with evidence that he, at least actually existed. Beyond that, little is certain.

My personal guess is that like many martial artists, Yip Man discussed WC and CMA with many colleagues over tea, sparred with a fair number, and probably had a few friends he trusted and respected well enough to privately practice with during those years. Yuen Kay San may have been one of those. The others will probably never be known to us.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wckf92 said:


> ...this should make for an interesting and lively discussion!


That seems an understatement, brother.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> My personal guess is that like many martial artists, Yip Man discussed WC and CMA with many colleagues over tea, sparred with a fair number, and probably had a few friends he trusted and respected well enough to privately practice with during those years. Yuen Kay San may have been one of those. The others will probably never be known to us


I think this is most likely where the additional techniques may have come from.  We all talk to each other and learn from each other.  Sometimes it's not so much as a "teacher student" relationship as it is as a "friendship"   If I share my knowledge with you and it fits well with your system, then I'm really not a teacher as much as a fellow CMA colleague sharing information, which happened to be of working value in what you train.  

I don't think the Martial Arts teachers of the past were as much of a purist as many of the people are today.


----------



## Xue Sheng

wckf92 said:


> ...this should make for an interesting and lively discussion!





gpseymour said:


> That seems an understatement, brother.


----------



## wckf92

DanT said:


> We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?



Has anyone seen Yuen Kay San's knife form?


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Has anyone seen Yuen Kay San's knife form?


Its similar to Yu Choi's and Chai Wan's. I think Sum Nung may have altered it a bit, don't know for sure. Either way, not like Yip Man's, but, his lineage has several versions. If you dig around on YouTube there are some videos of Guangzhou Wing Chun knife form.


----------



## wckf92

Xue Sheng said:


>



Nice. Hahaha... except I have chips, salsa, and beer


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Its similar to Yu Choi's and Chai Wan's. I think Sum Nung may have altered it a bit, don't know for sure. Either way, not like Yip Man's, but, his lineage has several versions. If you dig around on YouTube there are some videos of Guangzhou Wing Chun knife form.



Cool thx dude...ill search around for it


----------



## Nobody Important

DanT said:


> We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke.
> 
> From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.
> 
> At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.
> 
> At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.
> 
> At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?
> 
> We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?
> 
> Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?


Yip Man was only at Mulberry Gardens (Yuen Family Estate) for a short while. He stayed there after his family estate burned down (family friends of Yip family). My impression was that Yip Man headed off to St. Stephen's college when he was 18 or 19. Family tradition says that Chai Wan and Kay San tutored Yip Man in Wing Chun on bequest of their fathers. I doubt much was exchanged if this is true, at that time due to the Yuen brother's needing permission from their own sifu, they would have been hesitant to secretly teach another. If anything was exchanged it would have been minimal IMO. Most legends state that any training was centered around Chi Sau and the possible construction of the rolling hands platform.


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> My personal guess is that like many martial artists, Yip Man discussed WC and CMA with many colleagues over tea, sparred with a fair number, and probably had a few friends he trusted and respected well enough to privately practice with during those years. Yuen Kay San may have been one of those. The others will probably never be known to us.


Yeap!
I for one have discussed, played around with, sparred, exchanged, viewed, been in attendance during, with a host of martial artists from many different arts. Gained a lot of insight and new perspectives that have found there way into my personal teaching methods and personal art.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Its similar to Yu Choi's and Chai Wan's. I think Sum Nung may have altered it a bit, don't know for sure. Either way, not like Yip Man's, but, his lineage has several versions. If you dig around on YouTube there are some videos of Guangzhou Wing Chun knife form.



something like this?


----------



## Brmty2002

This may be the start of a great ongoing the thead!


----------



## Eric_H

My first WC teacher once credited Yip Chun/Ching for telling him that Yip Man credited some of his Wing Chun skill to a man named Leung Bik. They've never said anything publicly about it (unless i missed it), I guess maybe because that would lend more credence to the TWC story?

Edit: Then again, Yip Chun did play him in a movie....


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> something like this?


Yup, someone from Sum Nung's line would have to verify though. That form shown is about 70% similar to my Yuen Chai Wan branch, sequences are in different order though and Chai Wan branch does not flip knives for reverse grip.


----------



## KPM

*At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San*.

---He moved to HK to attend St. Stephens.  I've never heard that we was there any more than 2 or 3 years.  Certainly not 7.  I've never heard that Yeun Kay Shan was in HK.  What I've heard is that Ip Man and Yeun Kay Shan and Yiu Choi were all friends in Foshan.  They hung out together and so likely trained together and exchanged some ideas and techniques.

---What Ip Man taught in HK was different from what he had taught in Foshan and from what his fellow Chan Wah Shun/Ng Chung So students taught.  I've read that since he "broke" from the lineage teaching he had to come up with a good explanation to save face.  So the Leung Bik story was invented because Leung Bik would out-rank both Chan and Ng.  In truth, Ip Man was probably like a lot of us today....passionate about martial arts....so he checked out as many people as he could, picked up on things he thought was good, and innovated a lot of good things on his own. We know he visited and was friends with the Weng Chun guys at Dai Duk Lan.  But back then it wasn't good to go against Chinese tradition and declare "I created this!"  So the Leung Bik story was a convenient cover.   He likely picked up a lot from Yuen Kay Shan because Yeun was older and more senior in Wing Chun than him.  But I doubt they ever had a formal student-teacher relationship.  

*
We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong? *

---More likely that he created his own version of the knives.

*Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?*

----I doubt anyone has any information like that.  And if they say they do I would be suspicious.  After Bruce Lee made Ip Man famous, it just stands to reason that another lineage might want to cash in on some of that interest and glory by maintaining that their Sigung taught Ip Man.


----------



## Jens

DanT said:


> We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke.
> 
> From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.
> 
> At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.
> 
> At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.
> 
> At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?
> 
> We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?
> 
> Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?



here is footage of the Yuen Kay Shan knife set, very short in comparison to Yip Man's knife set


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> here is footage of the Yuen Kay Shan knife set, very short in comparison to Yip Man's knife set



Wow that was cool! Thanks Jens!!!


----------



## Jens

DanT said:


> We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke.
> 
> From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.
> 
> At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.
> 
> At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.
> 
> At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?
> 
> We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?
> 
> Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?



It was well known at the time in Foshan that Yuen Kay Shan and his brother Yuen Chai Wan only knew Siu lin tao, some san sik techniques and bamboo dummy prior to hanging out at Ng Chung So's school,  Yiu Choi spent 10 years learning from Yuen Chai Wan, and only learnt Siu lin tao, some san sik techniques and bamboo dummy, Yuen Kay Shan and Yuen Chai Wan most likely learnt Chum Kiu and Biu Jee from Ng Chung So, but not the dummy or 2 weapons. Later in Foshan, Yip Man specifically told his student Gwok fu not to practice the wooden dummy in front of Yuen Kay Shan being concerned that YKS would steal his wooden dummy techniques.


----------



## geezer

Jens said:


> It was well known at the time that Yuen Kay Shan and his brother Yuen Chai Wan only knew Siu lin tao, some san sik techniques and bamboo dummy before they started hanging out at Ng Chung So's school... Later in Foshan, yip Man specifically told his student Kwok fu not to practice the wooden dummy form in front of Yuen Kay Shan being concerned that YKS would steal his wooden dummy techniques.



Interesting! What is the source of this information?


----------



## Nobody Important

Jens said:


> It was well known at the time that Yuen Kay Shan and his brother Yuen Chai Wan only knew Siu lin tao, some san sik techniques and bamboo dummy before they started hanging out at Ng Chung So's school,  Yiu Choi spent 10 years learning from Yuen Chai Wan, and only learnt Siu lin tao, some san sik techniques and bamboo dummy, it is believed that Yuen Kay Shan and Yuen Chai Wan later learnt Chum Kiu and Biu Jee from Ng Chung So, but not the dummy or 2 weapons. Later in Foshan, yip Man specifically told his student Kwok fu not to practice the wooden dummy form in front of Yuen Kay Shan being concerned that YKS would steal his wooden dummy techniques.


I won't speak for Yuen Kay San branch, but will for Yuen Chai Wan branch. They learned more than just first form, San Sik & bamboo dummy. Ng Chung So is not listed as a teacher of either Yuen family branch, but they did know each other. Yiu Choi did not study under Chai Wan for that length of time, more like 3-4 years. It's true he only learned first form, some san sik, bamboo dummy and some pole work (if I'm not mistaken) from Chai Wan, but this was because Chai Wan left for Vietnam. Yiu Choi finished his training under Chai Wan's friend Ng Chung So. Your story is an old smear campaign told by students of Yip Man to bolster their lineage.


----------



## geezer

It seems to me that a lot of people get pretty worked up over old stories that nobody can prove or disprove. I've had experience with several WC groups, and they all tell a story that makes them look great and everybody else is portrayed as wanting. Maybe this is why WC in general could benefit from a competitive format that would let people test out their stuff. Then people might start worrying less about the old stories and more about what works.


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> It seems to me that a lot of people get pretty worked up over old stories that nobody can prove or disprove. I've had experience with several WC groups, and they all tell a story that makes them look great and everybody else is portrayed as wanting. Maybe this is why WC in general could benefit from a competitive format that would let people test out their stuff. Then people might start worrying less about the old stories and more about what works.


^^^^^^ This!
Stop being concerned with everyone else. Who train with who and for how long. Get with your training partners and Train, Practice, Test. Find others who are willing to test as well and test under real pressure. If you get smashed tell them thanks, ask what allowed them to smash you. Learn from it. Practice more and test again. Help others get better as well. If you are good...Great, keep training and practicing. If you aren't so good...Great, keep training and practicing. If you aren't good at all...Great, keep training and practicing.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> It seems to me that a lot of people get pretty worked up over old stories that nobody can prove or disprove. I've had experience with several WC groups, and they all tell a story that makes them look great and everybody else is portrayed as wanting. Maybe this is why WC in general could benefit from a competitive format that would let people test out their stuff. Then people might start worrying less about the old stories and more about what works.


I agree, I liked what Danny T had to say as well. I find it amazing how these old stories seem to keep reappearing from time to time. It's just as you stated one lineage bulking up their reputation by tearing another's down. It's prevalent in TCMA, not just Wing Chun specifically, although it does seem that Chunners are more public about it.

Now, I know I've been guilty of it a time or two, I won't deny that. I've done it unwittingly, I've also done it on purpose to illicit a specific response, or, just because I'm sometimes an asshat because the internet allows me to be one..

I'll go on the record here, I don't come here looking for validation for anything, to promote anything, I don't care about anyone's background or their organizational politics. To an extent we all have an agenda of one sort or another, I suppose, but I come here to read and chat with individuals that share a common interest. Sometimes the discussions become heated, we become invested and get a bent nose, we're only human. Some will read what we have to say and take it as the gospel truth (hopefully not anything I say, I'm generally full of sh!t), others will disregard it as fallacy or outright lying.

At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of faceless names on a internet forum. What really matters is what you believe about yourself, your family and your art. When you post on a public forum you have to take the good with the bad, if you can't handle criticism don't post. The internet isn't a friendly place because we can be mean to one another without fear of repercussion, if we were all face to face, you can bet our interactions with one another would be more civil. The possibility of a hard right to the side of the head, or a rear naked choke, is a great deterrent to abhorrent behavior. Many Wing Chun schools have become isolated and cling to these old feuds that generally have nothing to do with the present generation, but because of ignorance, loyalty to their sifu and organization the feuding continues. If, as Geezer stated, we would just physically interact with one another in a public competition a lot of this petty nonsense would disappear. Rant over.


----------



## Yuen Kay Jun

DanT said:


> We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke.
> 
> From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.
> 
> At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.
> 
> At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.
> 
> At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?
> 
> We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?
> 
> Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?




Yuen Kay San never lived in Hong Kong.  Foshan/Fatshan.  Yuen and Yip were neighbors, Kay San and Chai Wan were older than Yip. 
YKS/SN WCK did not arrive in Hong Kong until an early student of Sum Nung moved there (forgot the name) , then Kwok Wan Ping (from my line) moved to HK.


----------



## Yuen Kay Jun

Nobody Important said:


> Yip Man was only at Mulberry Gardens (Yuen Family Estate) for a short while. He stayed there after his family estate burned down (family friends of Yip family). My impression was that Yip Man headed off to St. Stephen's college when he was 18 or 19. Family tradition says that Chai Wan and Kay San tutored Yip Man in Wing Chun on bequest of their fathers. I doubt much was exchanged if this is true, at that time due to the Yuen brother's needing permission from their own sifu, they would have been hesitant to secretly teach another. If anything was exchanged it would have been minimal IMO. Most legends state that any training was centered around Chi Sau and the possible construction of the rolling hands platform.



Tutoring was actually happening. but I do not believe it was in a Teacher/Student type scenario.  YKS taught YM chi sao/luk sao.


----------



## Yuen Kay Jun

wckf92 said:


> something like this?



The YKS/SN knife form does NOT look like this.


----------



## Yuen Kay Jun

YKS and YCW did know the entire system.  Yip Man developed his Dummy form and evolved it in HK.
It my understanding, not factual - but consistently upheld by documents and 1st hand account, Yip did learn various things from the Yuen's.  Aside from luk sao/chi sao, who knows.  

Possible that Yip said don't perform dummy in front of Yuen.  NO ONE knows this to be the true reason.  I know both of these forms and they are DRASTICALLY different.  Different jings, methods and choreography. Also, the YKS dummy is much longer and more intricate than YM.  Not saying one is better than the other, just that they are very different.  as are the knives.

 I have studied and completed BOTH YM and YKS systems, I teach both.  I can say first hand that ALL WCK is similar.  The differences come from methodology, jings, center, issuance and shapes.  I have my personal preference of which is better, but that is for me.  BOTH have their place(s).  being able to adapt and move between the two methods has served me well.

Here is a clip of Kwok Wan Ping, my line of YKS.  Keep in mind, the gross motor skills and methods are correct.  its just not as exact and tight as I'm sure it once was. 






Not trying to FLAME.  Just give more insight since I'm from the line.


----------



## wckf92

Yuen Kay Jun said:


> YKS and YCW did know the entire system.  Yip Man developed his Dummy form and evolved it in HK.
> It my understanding, not factual - but consistently upheld by documents and 1st hand account, Yip did learn various things from the Yuen's.  Aside from luk sao/chi sao, who knows.
> 
> Possible that Yip said don't perform dummy in front of Yuen.  NO ONE knows this to be the true reason.  I know both of these forms and they are DRASTICALLY different.  Different jings, methods and choreography. Also, the YKS dummy is much longer and more intricate than YM.  Not saying one is better than the other, just that they are very different.  as are the knives.
> 
> I have studied and completed BOTH YM and YKS systems, I teach both.  I can say first hand that ALL WCK is similar.  The differences come from methodology, jings, center, issuance and shapes.  I have my personal preference of which is better, but that is for me.  BOTH have their place(s).  being able to adapt and move between the two methods has served me well.
> 
> Here is a clip of Kwok Wan Ping, my line of YKS.  Keep in mind, the gross motor skills and methods are correct.  its just not as exact and tight as I'm sure it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to FLAME.  Just give more insight since I'm from the line.



Some familiar elements. Thx for posting!


----------



## wingerjim

JowGaWolf said:


> I think this is most likely where the additional techniques may have come from.  We all talk to each other and learn from each other.  Sometimes it's not so much as a "teacher student" relationship as it is as a "friendship"   If I share my knowledge with you and it fits well with your system, then I'm really not a teacher as much as a fellow CMA colleague sharing information, which happened to be of working value in what you train.
> 
> I don't think the Martial Arts teachers of the past were as much of a purist as many of the people are today.


I don't think we today are as purest as those in the past, or at least my view of them.


----------



## wingerjim

wckf92 said:


> ...this should make for an interesting and lively discussion!


I agree and often find the variety in this form to be as much more different than any other version of Wing Chun forms.


----------



## ShortBridge

JowGaWolf said:


> ...
> I don't think the Martial Arts teachers of the past were as much of a purist as many of the people are today.





wingerjim said:


> I don't think we today are as purest as those in the past, or at least my view of them.



I think that this itself would make for a very interesting discussion on it's own, specifically with Chinese martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ShortBridge said:


> I think that this itself would make for a very interesting discussion on it's own, specifically with Chinese martial arts.


I tend to think there's likely some truth in both of the statements you quoted. In the past, martial arts were a means of clan/group survival. It would be important, therefor, to keep what you can of them secret from warring opponents (or possibly future ones). This would lead to more vertical development, rather than so much sharing between groups as can easily (and safely) done today. At the same time, I think there are some today who are purists for the sake of the purity of an art, where in those same warring times, I suspect they'd have gladly stolen ideas from each other to get an upper hand.


----------



## ShortBridge

gpseymour said:


> I tend to think there's likely some truth in both of the statements you quoted...



I do too, but I think it's probably worth it's own thread if we really want to get into it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ShortBridge said:


> I do too, but I think it's probably worth it's own thread if we really want to get into it.


What? And stick to a single topic in a thread? What are you thinking??


----------



## ShortBridge

gpseymour said:


> What? And stick to a single topic in a thread? What are you thinking??



I don't know...I may have been hit on the head with a coconut recently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ShortBridge said:


> I don't know...I may have been hit on the head with a coconut recently.


There are no coconuts in Chi Sao. You're doing it wrong.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wingerjim said:


> I don't think we today are as purest as those in the past, or at least my view of them.


I don't know about that.  I can recognize same or similar techniques that I learned and used in Jow Ga in other martial art systems and the only way that could have happened is through mixing, combining, and evolving systems.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I tend to think there's likely some truth in both of the statements you quoted. In the past, martial arts were a means of clan/group survival. It would be important, therefor, to keep what you can of them secret from warring opponents (or possibly future ones).


 It would keep the techniques safe from your enemies and potential enemies but not your allies.   The same way that people from different villages / clans can be friends and even marry someone from a different village /clan is the same way that martial arts can spread.  You will always want a strong ally because a weak one would be of no use to you, so that in itself would be valid enough reason to share martial arts with each other.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> It seems to me that a lot of people get pretty worked up over old stories that nobody can prove or disprove. I've had experience with several WC groups, and they all tell a story that makes them look great and everybody else is portrayed as wanting. Maybe this is why WC in general could benefit from a competitive format that would let people test out their stuff. Then people might start worrying less about the old stories and more about what works.


I'm all for this. 
*Person 1*:  Your kung fu sucks
*Person 2*:  Only one way to find out.  
_Person 1 & Person 2 enter the ring._
I know some say violence isn't the answer, but it sure would stop a lot of the nonsense.  We will learn 3 things from competitive formats.
1. If a technique works or not
2. If the person was skilled enough to work the technique
3. If the person was skilled enough to even comment on what's best or not.

Some people comment on "what's best" without actually having any ability to do what they claim.  This is a problem simply for the that they do not have the experience to know a technique beyond what someone has told them.  For the longest Jow Ga has always said how great one technique is.  No matter what school you'll go to, it will always be the same.  My first time trying the technique resulted in me getting punched multiple times.  I probably ate about 50 punches in the learning process before I learned that there was some stuff the Sifu was leaving out.  I see a lot of this especially in Wing Chun and TKD hand techniques.  I see the technique but I can also see that some stuff was left out and the only way a person will know what was left out is if they spent time "eating punches to learn."  I don't have to be an expert to know this, I just need to see someone who knows how to use WC vs someone who only knows the "demo mode" of WC.  You can see the level of understanding when they spar against someone outside of the WC system.

A good example was that post a few months ago with someone that was using WC principles and techniques against a grappler on the ground.  Sparring against another system brings out the truth of how much a person understands about their system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Danny T said:


> If you get smashed tell them thanks, ask what allowed them to smash you. Learn from it. Practice more and test again. Help others get better as well. If you are good...Great, keep training and practicing. If you aren't so good...Great, keep training and practicing. If you aren't good at all...Great, keep training and practicing.


Best thing I've read since being on MT.  That statement is a conversation killer because there's nothing to add to it.  Very good perspective.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm all for this.
> *Person 1*:  Your kung fu sucks
> *Person 2*:  Only one way to find out.
> _Person 1 & Person 2 enter the ring._
> I know some say violence isn't the answer, but it sure would stop a lot of the nonsense.  We will learn 3 things from competitive formats.
> 1. If a technique works or not
> 2. If the person was skilled enough to work the technique
> 3. If the person was skilled enough to even comment on what's best or not.
> 
> Some people comment on "what's best" without actually having any ability to do what they claim.  This is a problem simply for the that they do not have the experience to know a technique beyond what someone has told them.  For the longest Jow Ga has always said how great one technique is.  No matter what school you'll go to, it will always be the same.  My first time trying the technique resulted in me getting punched multiple times.  I probably ate about 50 punches in the learning process before I learned that there was some stuff the Sifu was leaving out.  I see a lot of this especially in Wing Chun and TKD hand techniques.  I see the technique but I can also see that some stuff was left out and the only way a person will know what was left out is if they spent time "eating punches to learn."  I don't have to be an expert to know this, I just need to see someone who knows how to use WC vs someone who only knows the "demo mode" of WC.  You can see the level of understanding when they spar against someone outside of the WC system.
> 
> A good example was that post a few months ago with someone that was using WC principles and techniques against a grappler on the ground.  Sparring against another system brings out the truth of how much a person understands about their system.


We are talking about martial arts though, which are ultimately (with some exceptions) about violence. Who can do it better, who can do it best, who can do it when it counts?

The answer to those questions is violence too. Or rather, that's how to answer them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> We are talking about martial arts though, which are ultimately (with some exceptions) about violence.


I agree completely with you.  I don't have a hang up on Violence like some people.  To be violence is not bad or good by default.  Some people think violence is evil and should never be done.  Some of the best times in my life was me being violent with my brother and friends "wrestling as kids" and me being violent in a kung fu class during sparring.

This is the definition of violence that I found on the internet - "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."  The "or kill someone or something" is extreme.  The other part of the definition has degrees of hurt and damage.  The word violence just has so many perspective that many just automatically think that it's this malicious thing where you are trying to take someone out with cruel and uncaring intention.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> It would keep the techniques safe from your enemies and potential enemies but not your allies.   The same way that people from different villages / clans can be friends and even marry someone from a different village /clan is the same way that martial arts can spread.  You will always want a strong ally because a weak one would be of no use to you, so that in itself would be valid enough reason to share martial arts with each other.


Perhaps, unless there was a lot of changing of alliances. If today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy, the idea of sharing becomes less tenable.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Perhaps, unless there was a lot of changing of alliances. If today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy, the idea of sharing becomes less tenable.


I just look at today's history and I multiply today's occurrences.  For example, The us trains other countries how to fight and use military weapons, Governments are over thrown, defections occur, sometimes defections move to allied countries, sometimes defections move to the enemies. Then you have people for hire.  The founder of Jow Ga kung fu was commissioned to train China's army after he won a competition of 100 fighters.  Then you have those who sought refuge at the Shaolin Temples.  Friends form different villages or clans.  There's just so many ways military information and knowledge could have been shared.

At one time Japan and the U.S. were enemies now they do military drills with each other.  One time Iraq and the U.S. were enemies now the U.S is training them.  The U.S. helped trained people in the middle east only for them to turn around and use that same knowledge against the U.S.  Depending on the size of a clan or village, ossible for that group to have a split now they are fighting against each other and creating alliances with other to defeat their own "brother."  Which was the case in the American civil war.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> I just look at today's history and I multiply today's occurrences.  For example, The us trains other countries how to fight and use military weapons, Governments are over thrown, defections occur, sometimes defections move to allied countries, sometimes defections move to the enemies. Then you have people for hire.  The founder of Jow Ga kung fu was commissioned to train China's army after he won a competition of 100 fighters.  Then you have those who sought refuge at the Shaolin Temples.  Friends form different villages or clans.  There's just so many ways military information and knowledge could have been shared.
> 
> At one time Japan and the U.S. were enemies now they do military drills with each other.  One time Iraq and the U.S. were enemies now the U.S is training them.  The U.S. helped trained people in the middle east only for them to turn around and use that same knowledge against the U.S.  Depending on the size of a clan or village, ossible for that group to have a split now they are fighting against each other and creating alliances with other to defeat their own "brother."  Which was the case in the American civil war.



I think "back in the day" in China there was distinction between military arts and village arts.   Sure, military arts may have had wider dissemination and therefore more "mixing and matching", just as in your example above.  But the village arts tended to be more secretive and limited.  They didn't share what they knew because they may need to use it to defend their village against local bandits or from people for the next village up the valley.  These village arts were often based upon a "family" model....that's how we got traditional terms like "Sifu", "Sidai", "Sihing" etc, rather than military terms based on rank.   So if you see your fellow martial arts students as brothers and family members with a bond, then you aren't likely to share your art with others that are outside of the family.   A military art would not necessary have the same attitude.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I just look at today's history and I multiply today's occurrences.  For example, The us trains other countries how to fight and use military weapons, Governments are over thrown, defections occur, sometimes defections move to allied countries, sometimes defections move to the enemies. Then you have people for hire.  The founder of Jow Ga kung fu was commissioned to train China's army after he won a competition of 100 fighters.  Then you have those who sought refuge at the Shaolin Temples.  Friends form different villages or clans.  There's just so many ways military information and knowledge could have been shared.
> 
> At one time Japan and the U.S. were enemies now they do military drills with each other.  One time Iraq and the U.S. were enemies now the U.S is training them.  The U.S. helped trained people in the middle east only for them to turn around and use that same knowledge against the U.S.  Depending on the size of a clan or village, ossible for that group to have a split now they are fighting against each other and creating alliances with other to defeat their own "brother."  Which was the case in the American civil war.


Oh, I'm not arguing at all that there was no sharing. Just that they would have been more cautious about it, possibly keeping sections of what they know only for their own group. There were reasons for doing so that were more pertinent back there (a matter of life and death) and it was easier to do (nobody releasing YouTube videos of the battle). I think the social structure in the history CMA is different - I'm not as familiar with Chinese history as Japanese - so the influences would be different, too.


----------



## Danny T

JowGaWolf said:


> Best thing I've read since being on MT.  That statement is a conversation killer because there's nothing to add to it.  Very good perspective.


Why thank you.
Even a broken clock is right on every now and then.


----------



## Jicjeung

geezer said:


> Interesting! What is the source of this information?


There are several sources orally in Foshan. You Can see Kwok Fu's interview on youtube (it is in Cantonese so you will need someone to translate assuming you can not understand Cantonese). Lun Gai was another source. Leung tings Book Roots and branches book repeats these. All the info on Yuen Kay San wee have came from Sum Nung (who is not unbiased himself). Numerous people in Foshan know that Yuen was a student of Ng Chun so primarily. Here is a source with no skin in the game from the Yiu Choi lineage Wing Chun Fok Chiu USA note Yuen as being a student of Ng Chun so. Yes,  I believe He did train with both Fok Bo Chun and Fung siu ching as a boy, (which Leung ting repeats in his book)however the other Fung siu ching stories are likely bogus and the timeline doesn't fit, ( look at the Tang Family Weng Chun History... note Fung siu Ching was retiring when Tang Yik was Born (this would be in 1911) Tang Suen already took over teaching from Fung siu Ching) so to claim that Yuen began learning from Fung (when he lived at his home?) was put forth by Sum nung in response to critics, According to the dates given 1933 to 1936 would mean Yuen (born 1889) trained supposedly many years under Fok Bo Chun and became a student of Fung siu Ching in 1933 til 1936 (when he was 44 thru 47yrs old) yet regarded Fung as his teacher???? and this somehow made him senior to Yip man makes no sense if you really look at it. Most people don't look into Sum's statements and take them at gospel (Yes people do this with Yip man's and others as well). Honestly I think they were both great at what they did but grand students and students of a lineage tend to promote and market their own lineage and they count on people not being able to verify what is said. While there is no concrete proof of most things, analysis of the statements themselves often points the way to logical interpretation for the individual. In short like him or not I think Leung Ting's was fairly accurate.


----------



## Jicjeung

DanT said:


> We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke.
> 
> From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.
> 
> At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.
> 
> >>>>As has been pointed out, Yuen Never lived in Hong Kong. All that is known is that his skills improved significantly upon his return to Foshan. Verbally Yip Man attributed this to leung Bik according to many of his students. As he was formally accepted as a student of Chan wah shun, Ip man could never claim Leung Bik was his Sifu traditionally but rather as he did, that he learned from him (his sibok). Evidence has been put forward as to the existence of Leung Bik in Hong kong. Many want to dismiss this (without evidence to the contrary) however a source for the existence of Leung Bik from another style which not only corroborates his existence but that he trained Wing Chun under his father Leung Jan would be The late master Chu Chong Man (He wrote recounting his training under big mountain Shu (who for a time was a leung Jan student) and who passed on to him an incident where He was doing Chi sau with Leung Bik and pushed him over the bed in the family home breaking the bed. He had no reason to make this up. FWIW.
> 
> At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.
> 
> At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?
> 
> We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?
> >>>>I do not know where your information comes from but with all due respect, as stated Yuen is never known to have lived there. While Leung Gai did not learn the knives in Foshan, Kwok Fu family members assert he did, Yip man stayed with him for a period of three years after the class he taught at the factory broke up.
> 
> Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?



>>>There is zero evidence Yip man learned anything from Yuen, it is likely that they exchanged much during classes as both were likely students under Ng Chun so (as noted by many sources). This is also the likely reason BTW that when Yuen Chai Wan left Foshan for Vietnam he sent Yiu Choi to Ng Chun so instead of his brother (who was likely training with Ng). Many Foshan lines regarded Yuen as an excellent senior student of Ng Chun so (believe it or not but it is the other side of the story).


----------



## Jicjeung

Nobody Important said:


> I won't speak for Yuen Kay San branch, but will for Yuen Chai Wan branch. They learned more than just first form, San Sik & bamboo dummy. Ng Chung So is not listed as a teacher of either Yuen family branch, but they did know each other. Yiu Choi did not study under Chai Wan for that length of time, more like 3-4 years. It's true he only learned first form, some san sik, bamboo dummy and some pole work (if I'm not mistaken) from Chai Wan, but this was because Chai Wan left for Vietnam. Yiu Choi finished his training under Chai Wan's friend Ng Chung So. Your story is an old smear campaign told by students of Yip Man to bolster their lineage.


>>>>Well, that would come from Leung Ting's roots and Branches Book however if you look at Vietnamese wing chun via the net there was no Chum kiu or Biu tze taught, Many of the lineages claim he did study with Chan Wah shun and one even claimed Leung Jan (unlikely due to Leung Jan's presumed death date).


----------



## Jicjeung

Yuen Kay Jun said:


> YKS and YCW did know the entire system.  Yip Man developed his Dummy form and evolved it in HK.
> It my understanding, not factual - but consistently upheld by documents and 1st hand account, Yip did learn various things from the Yuen's.  Aside from luk sao/chi sao, who knows.
> >>>>I don't know of any "Documents" other then the writings of Sum Nung which Coroberate this but of course it is possible, As I stated in another post Yuen and Yip both (likely trained under Ng Chun So with Yuen Kay san as Ng's senior student so there would still have been a good amount of exchange but that would have been under the teaching of Ng at the time). As to Chi Sau/luk sau this may have been the influence of Ng Chun so. We do not know exactly what Yuen's Chi sau/Luk sau looked like except via Sum Nung. Sum Nung is known to have trained with many people outside his lineage ro improve himself (not a criticism, I think it's great! However we can not tell what sum Attributed to Yuen and what he added himself. Again according to Kwok Fu (who was living in Guangzhou in 1948 He and Sum trained and exchanged together and he told him to look up Yip man if he got to Hong kong and there are senior who claim Sum then around 30 years old spent two weeks and visited Yip man training with his group on a restaurant roof top) true or not, we can not say whether Yip got his Luk sau from Yuen or Sum got his luk sau from Yip but attributed it to Yuen? Who knows for sure? We can't say. IT's a matter of who we chose to believe or not.
> 
> Possible that Yip said don't perform dummy in front of Yuen.  NO ONE knows this to be the true reason.  I know both of these forms and they are DRASTICALLY different.  Different jings, methods and choreography. Also, the YKS dummy is much longer and more intricate than YM.  Not saying one is better than the other, just that they are very different.  as are the knives.
> >>>Agreed, Yip could have even been working on his own dummy version. Who knows both are of value!
> 
> I have studied and completed BOTH YM and YKS systems, I teach both.  I can say first hand that ALL WCK is similar.  The differences come from methodology, jings, center, issuance and shapes.  I have my personal preference of which is better, but that is for me.  BOTH have their place(s).  being able to adapt and move between the two methods has served me well.
> >>>>Bravo. This is a great attitude in my opinion.
> Here is a clip of Kwok Wan Ping, my line of YKS.  Keep in mind, the gross motor skills and methods are correct.  its just not as exact and tight as I'm sure it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to FLAME.  Just give more insight since I'm from the line.


>>>Understood and appreciated, me neither. Just offering the other side of the coin as people tend to accept silence as confirmation to historical claims. Regards!


----------



## geezer

_Jicjeung_-- Welcome to Martialtalk and specifically, the WC forum. I see you just joined Tuesday! Thanks for your informative posts, and I hope you will continue posting here.


----------



## Feitianwu

Being as how he was from Foshan, as was Huang Fei Hong, the Legendary Hero of China, whose master was Huang QiYing, one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, who also taught Liang Zan (the Sifu of Ip Man), whose Sifu was Lu A Cai, whose Sifu was Reverend Jee Sin, who was one of the Legendary 5 Elders of Shaolin who escaped the Purging of the Shaolin Monastery, his lineage is therefore to the Shaolin Elders


----------



## Jicjeung

geezer said:


> _Jicjeung_-- Welcome to Martialtalk and specifically, the WC forum. I see you just joined Tuesday! Thanks for your informative posts, and I hope you will continue posting here.


>>>Thank you for the warm welcome, I will certainly post as much as time permits. Thank you for having me.


----------



## Jicjeung

Feitianwu said:


> Being as how he was from Foshan, as was Huang Fei Hong, the Legendary Hero of China, whose master was Huang QiYing, one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, who also taught Liang Zan (the Sifu of Ip Man), whose Sifu was Lu A Cai, whose Sifu was Reverend Jee Sin, who was one of the Legendary 5 Elders of Shaolin who escaped the Purging of the Shaolin Monastery, his lineage is therefore to the Shaolin Elders


>>>>With all due respect, Leung Jan was not Ip Man's Sifu , and Wong Fei Hung does not have a known Gung fu Connection to leung jan, you appear to be confusing Wong Fei hung's father (Wong Qi ying} with Wong Wah Bo one of the reputed teachers of Leung Jan (the other being Leung yi Tai or Liang er di if you prefer) Ip Man was officially a student of Chan Wah Shun, continuing to learn after his death from Ng Chun so and possibly Leung Bik. There was a family story however from Chan Gouji (Great x3 grandson of Chan wah shun) Does however tell a story where Wong Fei Hung went to find Leung Jan after hearing about his skill with the pole. To Paraphrase and sum up, Leung jan was too Old, Chan wah Shun stepped in besting Wong with the pole and impressing Wong. As a result they had a pleasant exchange and were friends with Wong added parts the Luk Dim boon guan into one of his pole forms(if memory serves the 5 brothers 8 trigram set) and Chan Yiu Min (Chan wah Shun's son who also was allegedly present) coming away with a version of Fuk Fu (Taming the Tiger set) which is still seen in his lineage today. As to the Five elders story , IMO this is just a creation myth that is likely based off the older creation myths of the secret societies which in turn adopted stories from folk literature at the time. I would advise you to read Meir Shahar;s excellent work on the Shaolin Monestary, Dian Murray;s book on the Tihandhui is also very useful as well. Regards


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Jicjeung said:


> >>>>With all due respect, Leung Jan was not Ip Man's Sifu


I don't know if you've been following his rants on the other threads today, but FeitanWu's grasp on history (and reality in general) is not something you need to give that much due respect to.

Good job being informative for other readers, though.


----------



## Feitianwu

Jicjeung said:


> >>>>With all due respect, Leung Jan was not Ip Man's Sifu , and Wong Fei Hung does not have a known Gung fu Connection to leung jan, you appear to be confusing Wong Fei hung's father (Wong Qi ying} with Wong Wah Bo one of the reputed teachers of Leung Jan (the other being Leung yi Tai or Liang er di if you prefer) Ip Man was officially a student of Chan Wah Shun, continuing to learn after his death from Ng Chun so and possibly Leung Bik. There was a family story however from Chan Gouji (Great x3 grandson of Chan wah shun) Does however tell a story where Wong Fei Hung went to find Leung Jan after hearing about his skill with the pole. To Paraphrase and sum up, Leung jan was too Old, Chan wah Shun stepped in besting Wong with the pole and impressing Wong. As a result they had a pleasant exchange and were friends with Wong added parts the Luk Dim boon guan into one of his pole forms(if memory serves the 5 brothers 8 trigram set) and Chan Yiu Min (Chan wah Shun's son who also was allegedly present) coming away with a version of Fuk Fu (Taming the Tiger set) which is still seen in his lineage today. As to the Five elders story , IMO this is just a creation myth that is likely based off the older creation myths of the secret societies which in turn adopted stories from folk literature at the time. I would advise you to read Meir Shahar;s excellent work on the Shaolin Monestary, Dian Murray;s book on the Tihandhui is also very useful as well. Regards




Huang Qi Ying was one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, and was also Huang Fei Hong's Father. And in China, 90% of Gong Fu secrets are kept within a family or close relationships, particularly amongst the Cantonese in Guangdong Foshan.

Chan Wah Shun was the Student of Liang Zan, and I think I omitted Chan Wah Shun from the pedigree in my last post.

Liang Zan was also taught by Huang Qi Ying, Huang Fei Hong's father

Huang Qi Ying was taught by Lu A Cai, a disciple of Reverend Ji Sin of the 5 Elders  which is not even close to old enough to be myth. Its a clear succession.

The only ambiguity is which of the Shaolin Monasteries he was originally from.

Therefore, Huang Fei Hong, Ip Man, and Bruce Lee all have a lineage to Shaolin, as do all Foshan Martial Arts

You have a very Hong Kong view, or overseas Hong Kongese view. Which is simply very Ip Man-centric and wanting to seem separate from the Shaolin monks in Henan or even Fujian. A story from his great great great grandson is likely not the most neutral study.


----------



## Jicjeung

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't know if you've been following his rants on the other threads today, but FeitanWu's grasp on history (and reality in general) is not something you need to give that much due respect to.
> 
> Good job being informative for other readers, though.


>>>>Thank you, I regret I have not read them. I always try to keep in mind I was also young once upon time! We talk exchange idea's to consider we learn, it's the way of Life! LOL Thank you for your kind comments.


----------



## Jicjeung

Feitianwu said:


> Huang Qi Ying was one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, and was also Huang Fei Hong's Father. And in China, 90% of Gong Fu secrets are kept within a family or close relationships, particularly amongst the Cantonese in Guangdong Foshan.
> 
> Chan Wah Shun was the Student of Liang Zan, and I think I omitted Chan Wah Shun from the pedigree in my last post.
> >>>Yes you did, thanks for the update.
> 
> Liang Zan was also taught by Huang Qi Ying, Huang Fei Hong's father
> 
> >>>That would be an interesting find! If you please, What is the source of this information? I have never even Heard it from friends of the Hung Ga lineage of Wong Fei Hung.
> 
> Huang Qi Ying was taught by Lu A Cai, a disciple of Reverend Ji Sin of the 5 Elders  which is not even close to old enough to be myth. Its a clear succession.
> 
> >>>Again I suggest Meir Shahar book Shaolin Monestary. Meir spent some Ten years in China and abroad researching remaining texts, tablets and Documents at the Shaolin Temple.
> 
> The only ambiguity is which of the Shaolin Monasteries he was originally from.
> 
> >>>>See above, there was only ever one shaolin temple. The Southern temple is the stuff of myth with various locations desiring to be it's official home to draw Tourists. Sorry to say.
> 
> 
> Therefore, Huang Fei Hong, Ip Man, and Bruce Lee all have a lineage to Shaolin, as do all Foshan Martial Arts
> 
> >>>Some wing chun/ weng chun lines claim descent from Jee Shin others Ng Mui none claim to have been taught in the temple itself. Yim Wing Chun and all that. Even IF you buy the Myth the most common of which is that Jee Shin reworked the art to fits the opera folks on the boat it was technically not a shaolin art created in the temple. During the Ming Period many people of shall we say a rebellious nature, traveled disquised as Monks (it was common among secret society members in fact) and did so under assumed names as the punishment for membership was severe.
> 
> You have a very Hong Kong view, or overseas Hong Kongese view. Which is simply very Ip Man-centric and wanting to seem separate from the Shaolin monks in Henan or even Fujian. A story from his great great great grandson is likely not the most neutral study.



>>>Well Thank you! LOL In fact I go where the where the path leads in coming to my conclusions. You may want to examine the Tihandhui myths and notice how close they are to the martial arts 5 elders stories. The names are changed but the storyline is spot on. Again I would advise reading Dian Murray, david Ownby etc.... read some academics and then consider what they have to say before forming your conclusions. I do not get offended because you don't agree, that's your opinion, I just don't see anything bearing it out and a ton of corroborating stories and documents to support the alternative. As to Chan Gouji, of course not, everyone has a bias or preference if you will. I only mentioned it as it was germain to your previous comments. You are of course free to accept or dismiss it as you chose. Regards!


----------



## geezer

Man, Jicjeung you are both well informed and _patient with foolishness _..an example to us all. I especieally appreciate ypur listing of additional academic sources. One more that folks may want to refer to is Ben Judkins and his "Kung fu Tea" blog.


----------



## Feitianwu

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't know if you've been following his rants on the other threads today, but FeitanWu's grasp on history (and reality in general) is not something you need to give that much due respect to.
> 
> Good job being informative for other readers, though.


You have a point to argue? Argue it. Troll


----------



## Feitianwu

Jicjeung said:


> >>>Well Thank you! LOL In fact I go where the where the path leads in coming to my conclusions. You may want to examine the Tihandhui myths and notice how close they are to the martial arts 5 elders stories. The names are changed but the storyline is spot on. Again I would advise reading Dian Murray, david Ownby etc.... read some academics and then consider what they have to say before forming your conclusions. I do not get offended because you don't agree, that's your opinion, I just don't see anything bearing it out and a ton of corroborating stories and documents to support the alternative. As to Chan Gouji, of course not, everyone has a bias or preference if you will. I only mentioned it as it was germain to your previous comments. You are of course free to accept or dismiss it as you chose. Regards!



Well, honestly that's all right on Wikipedia. Sources are cited.

Good luck with your search though


----------



## Jicjeung

geezer said:


> Man, Jicjeung you are both well informed and _patient with foolishness _..an example to us all. I especieally appreciate ypur listing of additional academic sources. One more that folks may want to refer to is Ben Judkins and his "Kung fu Tea" blog.


>>>>Thank you, that is kind of you to say. Yes, I am familiar with his writing in fact here is a relevant Piece.
Did Ip Man Invent the Story of Yim Wing Chun?

Additionally for Chinese history and Culture for the times in question Frederick Wakeman is another good source.

Regards


----------



## Jicjeung

Feitianwu said:


> Well, honestly that's all right on Wikipedia. Sources are cited.
> 
> Good luck with your search though



>>>Ah I was hoping for something a bit more academic then something anyone can edit. BTW If you read the entry you Cite, Wong Qi ying is listed in lineage however Clicking on Wong mentions nothing about Leung jan at all. The only reference at the bottom being Leung Ting's Fighters of Fatshan....reading this you will further find no mention of Leung Jan Learning from Wong Qi ying. So there is in fact no reference to who added the name to Leung Jan's lineage or any corroboration (written or Oral stories) ie....Gulao Village Leung Jan retired to taught (what is known by some as slant body Wing Chun) and where he passed away leaving personal affects makes no mention (to my knowledge) of Wong Qi ying as his Sifu. Unless new information comes to light my search is over, thank you for your attempt to assist though! Regards


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Feitianwu said:


> You have a point to argue? Argue it. Troll


Sure. I'd argue that you tipped your hand a little too soon and were a little too obvious for your intended purpose.

You came in to an established community of experienced and knowledgeable martial artists and jumped in right away stating nonsensical claims about martial arts history, insulting forum members at random, and telling fantastical tall-tales about your own prowess that no one above the age of 10 is likely to believe.

You were probably hoping to provoke a storm of angry responses to your nonsense. I'm not sure why playing such games is emotionally rewarding to some people, but apparently it is.

The problem, however, is that you've been so obvious with your ploys that most of us have figured out that your silliness isn't sincere. You're just looking for reactions. As a result, the general inclination is to mostly ignore you and wait until you get yourself banned by the moderators.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sure. I'd argue that you tipped your hand a little too soon and were a little too obvious for your intended purpose.
> 
> You came in to an established community of experienced and knowledgeable martial artists and jumped in right away stating nonsensical claims about martial arts history, insulting forum members at random, and telling fantastical tall-tales about your own prowess that no one above the age of 10 is likely to believe.
> 
> You were probably hoping to provoke a storm of angry responses to your nonsense. I'm not sure why playing such games is emotionally rewarding to some people, but apparently it is.
> 
> The problem, however, is that you've been so obvious with your ploys that most of us have figured out that your silliness isn't sincere. You're just looking for reactions. As a result, the general inclination is to mostly ignore you and wait until you get yourself banned by the moderators.


Either that or have fun with it. I had a great time last night engaging him.


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung, Leung Jan didn't pass away in Gulao - he died and was buried (somewhere) in Fatsaan.


----------



## jlq

Also, it is not generally said in Fatsaan circles that Yeun Kei learnt from Ng Chun So. What is in fact generally said is that YM, YKS, Yiu Choi (and others) trained together at Ng Chun So's school and that they learnt from each other, because they were all good friends. I have personally asked quite a few of the seniors in Fatsaan about this, but no one said explicitly that YKS was a student of Ng Chun So. When drawing conclusions, one has to be careful with English translations, as they are often not good or inaccurate. Fwiw Gwok Fu's son related a rather detailed version of the story about YKS visiting YM's class, and he mentioned that YKS was from another lineage. So apparently, Kwok Fu, who had known YKS personally, believed that YKS was not a Tung Muhn of Yip Man... 
As far as Yuen Kei Saan learning from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Siu Ching, it is not only Sum Nung telling this story - Leung Ngau Sifu (only living disciple of YKS), Yuen Jotong (YKS's grandson) and the Wong Jing (friend and student of YKS) descendants such as Wong Wufong ("Mai Gei Wong") also do...


----------



## APL76

Yuen Kay San only had one disciple, and that was Sum Nung.


----------



## jlq

APL, that is what Sum Nung's descendants say...


----------



## APL76

Sum Nung is my Si Gung, I'll take his word for it over anyone else. Regardless of what anyone says, it's the Wing Chun is what speaks.

Though Yuen Kay San did teach one other student, though he wasn't his disciple. He only lasted a few months before he gave up.


----------



## jlq

Well, APL76, in Fatsaan there is no dispute that YKS had more students than what you have heard. The most senior of YKS students told me just recently that including him, YKS had nine students. It is also corroborated by multiple other sources that there were more than just Sum Nung. Of course, as a loyal follower of the style, whatever Sifu/Sigung says must be true - however, if one looks into things, one will see a totally different picture and turning a blind eye to the evidence just means that one doesn't want to accept that Sifu/Sigung was just human...  To put things into perspective, many people believe YM was the grandmaster of the entire Wing Chun pai, and when pointed out to them that this is not exactly the truth, they will make a statement just like yours... What would you say to such persons?  As far as your comment about the Wing Chun speaking... That is really a hollow statement in this context and doesn't say anything about Sum Nung being the only disciple of Yuen Kei Saan.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Jicjeung, Leung Jan didn't pass away in Gulao - he died and was buried (somewhere) in Fatsaan.



>>>Then we have been told conflicting information. 
Leung Jan's Pin Sun Wing Chu Boxing - Kulo Village, China

regards


----------



## APL76

Yuen Kay San did show a few people a thing or two about wing chun, including Yip Man, but the only disciple he had was Sum Nung. The wing chun speaks for itself, there is nothing hollow about it, most of them cant even get the fundamentals right, its obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at. And where were these people when Sum Nung was alive? Its all good and well to make claims when he is dead. the same thing happened in the Yip Man style, once the big name guy dies they all come out of the woodwork making all sorts of claims. They didn't dare do it while Sum Nung was alive.


----------



## wckf92

Just a thought...but maybe you guys ( @jlq and @APL76 ) are talking about two different things? I.E. one of you is saying "students"; the other is saying "disciples"...?


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Also, it is not generally said in Fatsaan circles that Yeun Kei learnt from Ng Chun So.
> >>>Well not in yks/sum nung lineage it wouldn't be, It is however stated in others...Naturally believe as you wish but I did post one example (which you can see rather then take my word for, that Yuen Kay san was considered primarily a student of Ng by senior student of Yiu Choi lineage who lived in the time period) naturally you are free to disagree.
> 
> What is in fact generally said is that YM, YKS, Yiu Choi (and others) trained together at Ng Chun So's school and that they learnt from each other, because they were all good friends.
> >>>>Yes, that is generally said. Are we assuming it is/was common for an someone from another lineage (then Ng CHun So)to just show up and train on a regular basis? because he was friends with two students there (Yip Man and Yiu Choi)? Not likely in my opinion unless Yuen was also a student. Just my opinion based on what is stated prior.
> 
> I have personally asked quite a few of the seniors in Fatsaan about this, but no one said explicitly that YKS was a student of Ng Chun So.
> >>>Yes, they tend to tread lightly on these things and don't want to get into feuds over things which can be argued either way,
> 
> When drawing conclusions, one has to be careful with English translations, as they are often not good or inaccurate. Fwiw Gwok Fu's son related a rather detailed version of the story about YKS visiting YM's class, and he mentioned that YKS was from another lineage. So apparently, Kwok Fu, who had known YKS personally, believed that YKS was not a Tung Muhn of Yip Man...
> >>>Yes, we must be careful with translations but also in delicate politics and the way people phrase things. Kwok Fu has made statements and was there he passed in 2011. It is natural Kwok Wai Jarn would not wish to eb embroiled in arguments, He just enjoys teaching and is a wonderful person. It is also possible he was describing the end result ie.... YKS melding the teachings of Fok Bo Chun and Ng Chun so to his own system. Who knows. We come to the conclusions we do based on available information and what we are told. It gives us a base to view our own wing chun world. Its all good.
> 
> As far as Yuen Kei Saan learning from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Siu Ching, it is not only Sum Nung telling this story - Leung Ngau Sifu (only living disciple of YKS), Yuen Jotong (YKS's grandson) and the Wong Jing (friend and student of YKS) descendants such as Wong Wufong ("Mai Gei Wong") also do...


>>>Yes, I have seen an interview done with him but as I stated, the Timeline as put forth by Sum Nung does not fit. Fung siu Ching teaching Yuen at family home 1933 to 1936 Yuen Kay san would have been 44 to 47 when training and Yuen Chai wan was 12 years older? then his younger brother. If Fung Siu Ching was there at that time and they officiated at his funeral (as Sum said) why does no one know where Fung Siu Ching was buried? It also seems to be strange etiquette for the Yuen Brothers to spend so many years under Fok Bo Chun to then in their 40's and 50's claim Fung as Their wing chun Sifu (when they spent 3 years with him) Unless maybe Fok bo chun did not teach wing chun? Perhaps Snake set as some speculate? I don't know....
What is an interesting thought , now that I think of it is (Speculating out loud about wing chun history in general) According to the stories passed via Sum nung Fok Bo Chun taught the Yuen brothers for many years. Allegedly Fok taught them Wing Chun (not snake style sets) the three wing chun hand sets etc...etc.... then reffered them both to Fung siu Ching (who trained alongside him under Dai fa min Kam and who was doing the same system according to the story)... If Fung was 73 when he died in 1936 then he would only have been born around 1863 so he was not training on the Red Boats Dai fa min Kam prior to the uprising, so assuming Dai Fa min Kam brought Fung out of the tailor shop and to the red boat as an apprentice (let us guess as early as early age 10 years old) this would have been 1873. Fung reputedly learned 6 years before going out to teach so this would be around 1879 so we have a much later generation then Leung Jan learning in the mid 1850s by the mid 1870s Chan wah was likely learning the three sets of leung jan....Not a criticism but just wondering,,,Why Fung siu Ching a later generation Never taught Siu Lim tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Tze to any of his first students (See lineages of Chu chong man, tang yik etc..or look up Tang family weng chun history which states Leung Jan lineage was only one using the three sets pao fa lien , Fung siu ching others all different)...but according to this Fung for some reason decided to learn and teach slt, chum kiu and biu tze in his 70's? Also IF ..Fung and Fok bo chun were allegedly doing same system why Fung early students do not have bamboo Dummy or pronounced snake hands motions? Now forgive me, I do not mean to insult, There may be very good explanations I have over looked but I am always eager to learn more. Thank you in advance.


----------



## jlq

These people were all around when Sum Nung was around, too...  Most of them even before. Just because you never heard about them, doesn't mean that they weren't. Don't be so naive and blindly believe all your hear from just one source... Wing Chun speaks for itself... That is again a supremely arrogant attittude, by people who are ignorant about the broader scope of things. Who are you to judge whether anyone is doing their basis correctly? You know, SN changed stuff himself, taught people different things at different times during his teaching career - do you know why that is? There is at least one very specific reason... So which group is doing it the "correct" way, say his early students from ca. 1946-48 or the later ones? They don't do things the same way, sometimes even by far... The world is not as simple and dogmatic as you believe it is. Of course, I understand that you will not accept this, however, if you truly want to know, instead only relying on Sifu says, I recommend you to go to Fatsaan and talk to various people there. You will be surprised...


----------



## jlq

Jic Jeung,

Jim's article is from 2007...


----------



## jlq

[Yes, I have seen an interview done with him but as I stated, the Timeline as put forth by Sum Nung does not fit. Fung siu Ching teaching Yuen at family home 1933 to 1936 Yuen Kay san would have been 44 to 47 when training and Yuen Chai wan was 12 years older?

PARDON THE CAPITALS, I AM NOT SHOUTING!!! 

REMEMBER, IT IS NOT JUST SUM NUNG, WHO PUT OUT THIS STORY OR TIMELINE. ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER, IF WE GO INTO NITPICKING, FSC IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAUGHT THE YUEN BRO.S FOR TWO YEARS, SO CA. 1935-1936 OR 1934-1936, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT DATES HE WAS HIRED TO TEACH AND DIED. SO YES, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN YKS WAS IN HIS MID TO LATE 40S, YCW EVEN OLDER. NOW, THE BROTHERS DID NOT, AS YOU SAY, LEARN FROM FOK BO CHUEN FOR A LONG TIME, BUT A FEW YEARS WHEN YKS WAS YOUNG. FBC WAS NOT A WING CHUN EXPONENT, BUT A (FIVE PATTERN) HONG KUEN PRACTICIONER FROM YAMCHOW IN GONGSAI, SPECIALIZING IN THE SNAKE STYLE. SO THE STORY ABOUT HIM LEARNING FROM EITHER LAW MAN GONG OR EVEN DAI FA MIN GAM AND (AS SOME GROUPS PUT IN THEIR LINEAGE TREE) WONG WAH BOU, IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. UNLESS... BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY... HAHA 
FONG SIU CHING IS A MYSTERY, EVEN TO REAL NATIVE, FATSAAN MARTIAL ARTS RESEARCHERS, AS IT SUPPOSEDLY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUT ANY TANGIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HIM. GIVEN THE DATES OF THE OFFICIAL YUEN KEI SAAN ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR LAW BENG JEUNG (THE VICEROY OF SEICHUEN) AS THE LATTER DIED WHEN THE FORMER WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 YEARS OLDS OR SO. BUT GIVEN THAT HE IS NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME, HE SURELY EXISTED, BUT YKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT ...LIBERAL... WHEN IT CAME TO EXTOLL HIM. ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES YUEN CHAI WAN AND YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T GROW UP TOGETHER, YUEN CHAI WAN CAME TO FATSAAN MUCH LATER AND STAYED THERE FOR A FEW YEARS (IT WAS DURING THIS PERIOD HE TAUGHT YIU CHOI) UNTIL HE WENT TO VIETNAM. IIRC SOME SN/YKS GUYS SAY THAT HE MOVED TO VIETNAM IN 1939, BUT - AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD - ACCORDING TO YCW'S SON (WHO IS STILL ALIVE) IT WAS IN 1936. GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, BOTH YUEN KEI SAAN AND HIS OLDER BROTHER HAVE QUITE LEARNT WING CHUN (FROM WHOEVER...  ) IN FATSAAN, AND ALSO FROM FONG SIU CHING. ACCORDING TO YKS FAMILY LORE, HE JUST TAUGHT THEM SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS, NOT THE SAAM TOU KUEN.

 then his younger brother. If Fung Siu Ching was there at that time and they officiated at his funeral (as Sum said) why does no one know where Fung Siu Ching was buried? It also seems to be strange etiquette for the Yuen Brothers to spend so many years under Fok Bo Chun to then in their 40's and 50's claim Fung as Their wing chun Sifu (when they spent 3 years with him) Unless maybe Fok bo chun did not teach wing chun? 

IT IS VERY STRANGE INDEED THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHERE FONG SIU CHING IS BURIED, GIVEN THE YUENS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OFFICIATED, ETC. BUT WHO KNOWS IF THAT PART IS ACTUALLY TRUE. ALSO, GIVEN THE DIFFULTY FINDING THE GRAVES OF PEOPLE IN CHINA - THEY TEND TO MOVE THE GRAVES AROUND AND THE NAMES OF LOCATIONS GET LOST, AS IS THE CASE FOR LEUNG JAN'S GRAVE IN FATSAAN - THAT MAY VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THAT. LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT.  

Perhaps Snake set as some speculate? I don't know....
What is an interesting thought , now that I think of it is (Speculating out loud about wing chun history in general) According to the stories passed via Sum nung Fok Bo Chun taught the Yuen brothers for many years. Allegedly Fok taught them Wing Chun (not snake style sets) the three wing chun hand sets etc...etc.... then reffered them both to Fung siu Ching (who trained alongside him under Dai fa min Kam and who was doing the same system according to the story)... If Fung was 73 when he died in 1936 then he would only have been born around 1863 so he was not training on the Red Boats Dai fa min Kam prior to the uprising, so assuming Dai Fa min Kam brought Fung out of the tailor shop and to the red boat as an apprentice (let us guess as early as early age 10 years old) this would have been 1873. Fung reputedly learned 6 years before going out to teach so this would be around 1879 so we have a much later generation then Leung Jan learning in the mid 1850s by the mid 1870s Chan wah was likely learning the three sets of leung jan....

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME COMMENTS RELATING TO THIS. AS FAR AS CHAN WAH SHUN GOES, HE DIDN'T START LEARNING FROM LEUNG JAN UNTIL HE WAS 39 YEARS OLD (ACCORDING TO HIS FAMILY) THIS WAS CA. LATE 188OS, GIVEN THAT LEUNG JAN RETURNED TO GULAO - AND THEN TO FATSAAN AGAIN, WHERE HE DIED IN 1894 (ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGY OF HIS FAMILY), HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEARN TOO LONG UNDER LEUNG JAN.

Not a criticism but just wondering,,,Why Fung siu Ching a later generation Never taught Siu Lim tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Tze to any of his first students (See lineages of Chu chong man, tang yik etc..or look up Tang family weng chun history which states Leung Jan lineage was only one using the three sets pao fa lien , Fung siu ching others all different)...

IF YOU REFER TO THE SERIES OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MR. HOI (FOR THE HK NEWSPAPER) MANY MOONS AGO, YOU NEED TO APPLY A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING. IF YOU STUDY TANG YIK WENG CHUN, YOU WILL KNOW SOME OF THE PARTS I AM REFERRING TO IN PARTICULAR. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, THAT IT IS A MIX OF STORIES MR. HOI (HIMSELF A STUDENT OF NG CHUN SO) HAD HEARD IN FATSAAN AND THEN CREATED A VERY INTERESTING STORY OFF. SO SOME OF IT IS TRUE, OTHERS FICTICIOUS - CAVEAT EMPTOR...  

NOW, IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY FONG SIU CHING DIDN'T TEACH SAAM TOU KUEN - HE WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY. ACCORDING TO TANG YIK - AND OTHER SOURCES - HE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO TEACH, ACTUALLY. SO HIS EARLY STUDENTS LEARNT A WOODEN DUMMY FORM, A SORT OF "HONG JONG" CALLED "CHONG KUEN" AND MAYBE SOME SAN SAU. YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T LEARNE ANY OF THESE BUT RATHER SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS.

but according to this Fung for some reason decided to learn and teach slt, chum kiu and biu tze in his 70's? Also IF ..Fung and Fok bo chun were allegedly doing same system why Fung early students do not have bamboo Dummy or pronounced snake hands motions? 

THEY DIDN'T, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. FOK BO CHUEN WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY EITHER...  SO THE GREAT MYSTERY IS: WHERE DID YKS GET THE SAAM TOU KUEN FROM? AND HIS BROTHER, TOO... THEY CAN ONLY HAVE GOTTEN THOSE FROM A VERY LIMITED GROUP OF PEOPLE EITHER FORMALLY, OR INFORMALLY (CURRENTLY, I AM OF THE OPPINION THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMAL LEARNING AND EXCHANGING GOING ON BETWEEN VARIOUS PEOPLE)

Now forgive me, I do not mean to insult, There may be very good explanations I have over looked but I am always eager to learn more. Thank you in advance.[/QUOTE]

INSULT? HOW DO YOU GET THAT IDEA? NOTHING INSULTING IN ANYTHING YOU WROTE - NOT TO ME, AT LEAST. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY PROUD ABOUT HIS LINEAGE AND TAKES THE HISTORY AS GOSPEL TRUTH WILL OBVIOUSLY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT I AM NOT IN THAT CATEGORY.


----------



## Nobody Important

Fok Bo Chun was a student of Wong Wah Bo according to my branch of Yuen Chai Wan's lineage, that's where the 3 forms came from. Fung Siu Ching (student of Dai Fa Min Kam) was a 5 Pattern Hung Kuen practitioner and passed on Chong Kuen which is the mother form (I learned this form along with the 3 standard). This is where the Vietnamese 5 Animal forms came from. These specific forms were "developed" from Chong Kuen after Yuen Chai Wan left the patriots association and went to south Vietnam. Old Hung Kuen, White Crane & Wing Chun have a shared ancestry and were often taught alongside each other, much intermingling that led to creation of specific systems based on preference of technique, tactic and personal preference.


----------



## APL76

jlq said:


> These people were all around when Sum Nung was around, too...  Most of them even before. Just because you never heard about them, doesn't mean that they weren't. Don't be so naive and blindly believe all your hear from just one source... Wing Chun speaks for itself... That is again a supremely arrogant attittude, by people who are ignorant about the broader scope of things. Who are you to judge whether anyone is doing their basis correctly? You know, SN changed stuff himself, taught people different things at different times during his teaching career - do you know why that is? There is at least one very specific reason... So which group is doing it the "correct" way, say his early students from ca. 1946-48 or the later ones? They don't do things the same way, sometimes even by far... The world is not as simple and dogmatic as you believe it is. Of course, I understand that you will not accept this, however, if you truly want to know, instead only relying on Sifu says, I recommend you to go to Fatsaan and talk to various people there. You will be surprised...




There is nothing arrogant about saying some are not doing the fundamentals properly, I'm sure the people not doing them properly would claim it's arrogant, but for anyone who knows what they  are doing its a no brainer. For example. There are three points of the body that MUST be coordinated to do wing chun (id say probably any martial art) properly, its a thing that a good number of the sup yi sik are designed to inculcate. Yet most of the people coming out and claiming they learned from both Yuen Kay San, and Sum Nung, appear to not even have knowledge that these three things need to be coordinated. So when I see that, and when I have seen Sum Nung himself say these things need to be coordinated, and seen what he can do, I'll take his word for it over someone who cant even get the fundamentals right.

People can make all the claims they want, what I know however is where many of these people actually did learn their wing chun from. Just because people in China tell you stuff doesn't mean its true.


----------



## jlq

APL76 said:


> There is nothing arrogant about saying some are not doing the fundamentals properly, I'm sure the people not doing them properly would claim it's arrogant, but for anyone who knows what they  are doing its a no brainer. For example. There are three points of the body that MUST be coordinated to do wing chun (id say probably any martial art) properly, its a thing that a good number of the sup yi sik are designed to inculcate. Yet most of the people coming out and claiming they learned from both Yuen Kay San, and Sum Nung, appear to not even have knowledge that these three things need to be coordinated. So when I see that, and when I have seen Sum Nung himself say these things need to be coordinated, and seen what he can do, I'll take his word for it over someone who cant even get the fundamentals right.
> 
> People can make all the claims they want, what I know however is where many of these people actually did learn their wing chun from. Just because people in China tell you stuff doesn't mean its true.



It certainly doesn't, but the same goes for blindly believing in what you hear from your Sifu/Sigong, etc. If you want to find out how things really were, then you need to look at multiple datapoints. Now, in this case there are so many of these contradicting what you are believing... As I said, you need to go out with an open mind and collect and evaluate information objectively, just hearing one side and its spin on things doesn't give a clear picture of the situation.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> Fok Bo Chun was a student of Wong Wah Bo according to my branch of Yuen Chai Wan's lineage, that's where the 3 forms came from. Fung Siu Ching (student of Dai Fa Min Kam) was a 5 Pattern Hung Kuen practitioner and passed on Chong Kuen which is the mother form (I learned this form along with the 3 standard). This is where the Vietnamese 5 Animal forms came from. These specific forms were "developed" from Chong Kuen after Yuen Chai Wan left the patriots association and went to south Vietnam. Old Hung Kuen, White Crane & Wing Chun have a shared ancestry and were often taught alongside each other, much intermingling that led to creation of specific systems based on preference of technique, tactic and personal preference.



That is very interesting.  Which lineage of the Vietnamese style are you from? Because what you are saying contradicts quite a few of the other lineages coming out of Vietnam... A problem with that story is that Fong Siu Ching - according to Tang Yik - and other sources in Fatsaan - didn't have much to teach. And hence had to invent this Chong Kuen (which is basically the techniques of his dummy form performed with footwork) on the request of some of his students because they wondered why he didn't have more to teach. The Chong Kuen form as taught by the Dong, Tang and Tam families don't look like anything which could inspire the five animal forms the Vietnamese Wing Chun people do today. If Yuen Chai Wan did in fact learn from Fong Siu Ching, alongside YKS and a handful of others, why is it then that YCW would have Chong Kuen and the others not? This also contradicts the information from the YKS lineage - and others - as to what was taught by Fong Siu Ching when he was teaching after his retirement. 
Now, in Fatsaan there are people who said YkS and YCW learnt the same things, so the little problem discussed above aside, what you are saying makes absolute sense to me and has been something matching ealier speculations of mine. However, the Vietnamese Sifus descending from YCW will of course object strongly to this 
Fong Siu Ching being a Hong Kuen practicioner is not an idea strange to me either, for certain reasons. Although, this doesn't match up very well with the stories of the other lineages which claim Dai Fa Min Kam as their ancestor and still have Saam Tou Kuen...


----------



## wckf92

jlq said:


> ...Saam Tou Kuen...



What is saam tou kuen?


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> That is very interesting.  Which lineage of the Vietnamese style are you from? Because what you are saying contradicts quite a few of the other lineages coming out of Vietnam. A problem with that story is that Fong Siu Ching - according to Tang Yik - and other sources in Fatsaan - didn't have much to teach. And hence had to invent this Chong Kuen (which is basically the techniques of his dummy form performed with footwork) on the request of some of his students because they wondered why he didn't have more to teach. The Chong Kuen form as taught by the Dong, Tang and Tam families don't look like anything which could inspire the five animal forms the Vietnamese Wing Chun people do today. If Yuen Chai Wan did in fact learn from Fong Siu Ching, alongside YKS and a handful of others, why is it then that YCW would have Chong Kuen and the others not? This also contradicts the information from the YKS lineage - and others - as to what was taught by Fong Siu Ching when he was teaching after his retirement.
> Now, in Fatsaan there are people who said YkS and YCW learnt the same things, so the little problem discussed above aside, what you are saying makes absolute sense to me and has been something matching ealier speculations of mine. However, the Vietnamese Sifus descending from YCW will of course object strongly to this
> Fong Siu Ching being a Hong Kuen practicioner is not an idea strange to me either, for certain reasons. Although, this doesn't match up very well with the stories of the other lineages which claim Dai Fa Min Kam as their ancestor and still have Saam Tou Kuen...


The majority of the Vietnamese branches are a mess with a lot of material added to fill the voids and created history to match. My line descends from the Doan (Duan) family. My Dai Sigung was a Chinese expat living in North Vietnam, he was also supposedly a student of Ng Chung So prior to learning from Yuen Chai Wan. Yuen initially taught his Chinese & Vietnamese students differently. The Chong Kuen form passed on from Fung Siu Ching is officially named Chong Sin Jeung (Heart Penetrating Palm). You will see different versions of it in all of Fung Siu Ching's descendants including Yiu Choi branch. My version is nothing like Tang or Dong family version (choreography wise) but has similarity to Lam family Red Boat Wing Chun and Yiu Choi post form. Each branch/version has evolved, muddying what the original material may have looked like, my own included. For example, I have a good friend who studies Hung Kuen, his Dai Sigung was a student of Wong Fei Hung and training brother of Lam Sai Wing. His Hung Kuen looks nothing like Lam family Hung Kuen, because Lam Sai Wing changed the material by adding his family's Wing Chun to it. Yet, world wide, people accept Lam family as the standard and epitome of Wong Fei Hung's boxing method, it is not, just the most popular. Again, legends state that Hung Kuen, Pak Hok & Wing Chun share a common ancestry. Wing Chun was a term used to describe arts derived from crane boxing, much like Hung Kuen was used to describe arts derived from southern Siu Lam tiger boxing. N'g Chung So also passed on a version of this 4th form as well as others. The legends of 2 methods of Wing Chun, 1 male 1 female, speak to the 2 approaches, Siu Lim and Dai Lim (Big and Small Training), or Snake & Crane and 5 Animals. The Siu Lim Tau and Dai Lim Tau naming conventions are also found in various Hung Kuen methods, this is not by coincidence, it's because they are two aspects of the same art. Oral legends surrounding Wing Chun state it was a theory developed by 5 Ancestors, each diseminating that theory in their own manner, and this is why we see arts that share similar concepts, techniques and history called Wing Chun and Hung Kuen. It was a theory developed in Siu Lin (Little Training) temple in Fukien, passed on by Hung society members and rose to fame in Wing Chun county during the Red Turban Rebellion.. Fok Bo Chun learned from Wong Wah Bo who passed on Wing Chun (Snake & Crane). Fung Siu Ching learned from Dai Fa Min Lam who passed on Hung Kuen (5 Animal). This coincides with the oral legends surrounding Wing Chun history and accounts for the differences in the branches coming from Wong Wah Bo and Dai Fa Min Lam, and the whole reason for the Wing Chun vs. Weng Chun debate. That is what I was told, any research I've done hasn't been able to dispute it, take it with a grain of salt. For me the explanation is good enough, others are free to dispute and believe what they want.


----------



## Poppity

wckf92 said:


> What is saam tou kuen?



The three fist forms, most likely.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Jic Jeung,
> 
> Jim's article is from 2007...



And this means it is no longer vaild? Leung Jan didn't retire to Gu lao village and teach (what is now called slant body wing chun) until he died? Well for what its worth, Here is another entry in English. Gary has visited Gu lao many times Wing Chun in China - Dr. Leung Jan King of Wing Chun

Regards


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung,

if you go to Dongbin Village today and read the historical information there - and check the dates of Leung Jan's statue, you will some other information.

Mr. Baniecki's information is also out of date, yes. 

What many in the West are not aware about is that Wing Chun has been quite thoroughly reseaerched by local researchers for many years, it is just that their findings never trickled through to the West. Also, what information Westerners visiting China got might be anything from complete and just from one source...

As far as Leung Jan's death and other information, a couple of years ago a researcher of a museum in Fatsaan was presented with the original genealogy of Leung Jan's descendants and other family documents by Leung.Bik's grandson. This is now on display in the Yip Man Tong in Luochun (built in 2015). Seems like not too many Westerners go there and even of they do, just parts of the documents are translated. 

So, the information of your sources are not up to date... If you want to know more about the state of the art information about Leung Jan, O suggest you contact Jim Roselando Sifu, who has been an avid researcher of the subject for many years. He is probably the Westerner who knows most about this matter.


----------



## jlq

Also, it is not only the dates which are outdated and inaccurate...


----------



## Jicjeung

PARDON THE CAPITALS, I AM NOT SHOUTING!!! 

REMEMBER, IT IS NOT JUST SUM NUNG, WHO PUT OUT THIS STORY OR TIMELINE. ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER, IF WE GO INTO NITPICKING, FSC IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAUGHT THE YUEN BRO.S FOR TWO YEARS, SO CA. 1935-1936 OR 1934-1936, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT DATES HE WAS HIRED TO TEACH AND DIED. SO YES, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN YKS WAS IN HIS MID TO LATE 40S, YCW EVEN OLDER. NOW, THE BROTHERS DID NOT, AS YOU SAY, LEARN FROM FOK BO CHUEN FOR A LONG TIME, BUT A FEW YEARS WHEN YKS WAS YOUNG. FBC WAS NOT A WING CHUN EXPONENT, BUT A (FIVE PATTERN) HONG KUEN PRACTICIONER FROM YAMCHOW IN GONGSAI, SPECIALIZING IN THE SNAKE STYLE. SO THE STORY ABOUT HIM LEARNING FROM EITHER LAW MAN GONG OR EVEN DAI FA MIN GAM AND (AS SOME GROUPS PUT IN THEIR LINEAGE TREE) WONG WAH BOU, IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. UNLESS... BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY... HAHA
FONG SIU CHING IS A MYSTERY, EVEN TO REAL NATIVE, FATSAAN MARTIAL ARTS RESEARCHERS, AS IT SUPPOSEDLY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUT ANY TANGIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HIM. GIVEN THE DATES OF THE OFFICIAL YUEN KEI SAAN ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR LAW BENG JEUNG (THE VICEROY OF SEICHUEN) AS THE LATTER DIED WHEN THE FORMER WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 YEARS OLDS OR SO. BUT GIVEN THAT HE IS NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME, HE SURELY EXISTED, BUT YKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT ...LIBERAL... WHEN IT CAME TO EXTOLL HIM. ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES YUEN CHAI WAN AND YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T GROW UP TOGETHER, YUEN CHAI WAN CAME TO FATSAAN MUCH LATER AND STAYED THERE FOR A FEW YEARS (IT WAS DURING THIS PERIOD HE TAUGHT YIU CHOI) UNTIL HE WENT TO VIETNAM. IIRC SOME SN/YKS GUYS SAY THAT HE MOVED TO VIETNAM IN 1939, BUT - AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD - ACCORDING TO YCW'S SON (WHO IS STILL ALIVE) IT WAS IN 1936. GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, BOTH YUEN KEI SAAN AND HIS OLDER BROTHER HAVE QUITE LEARNT WING CHUN (FROM WHOEVER...  ) IN FATSAAN, AND ALSO FROM FONG SIU CHING. ACCORDING TO YKS FAMILY LORE, HE JUST TAUGHT THEM SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS, NOT THE SAAM TOU KUEN.

>>>>I understand, the only other sources I am aware of were simply recounting what Sum Nung wrote in his manuscript. My information stated earlier was in regard to the writings of a man claiming to be a sum nung disciple name Yun Hoi and what he said Sum told him Fok same system and trained many years then Fung etc....As to Fok Bo Chun, YES, I agree and some in Foshan held this theory as well further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing/Weng Chun kuen. 


IT IS VERY STRANGE INDEED THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHERE FONG SIU CHING IS BURIED, GIVEN THE YUENS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OFFICIATED, ETC. BUT WHO KNOWS IF THAT PART IS ACTUALLY TRUE. ALSO, GIVEN THE DIFFULTY FINDING THE GRAVES OF PEOPLE IN CHINA - THEY TEND TO MOVE THE GRAVES AROUND AND THE NAMES OF LOCATIONS GET LOST, AS IS THE CASE FOR LEUNG JAN'S GRAVE IN FATSAAN - THAT MAY VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THAT. LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT.  

>>>Yes, I agree. Leung may have been under a street or parking garage now! LOL

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME COMMENTS RELATING TO THIS. AS FAR AS CHAN WAH SHUN GOES, HE DIDN'T START LEARNING FROM LEUNG JAN UNTIL HE WAS 39 YEARS OLD (ACCORDING TO HIS FAMILY) THIS WAS CA. LATE 188OS, GIVEN THAT LEUNG JAN RETURNED TO GULAO - AND THEN TO FATSAAN AGAIN, WHERE HE DIED IN 1894 (ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGY OF HIS FAMILY), HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEARN TOO LONG UNDER LEUNG JAN.

>>>>Well as for a friend who travels and trans with Chan Gouji he speculated he was in his 30's I did not hear 39 specifically but it seems about right. I did not bring up the age of the Yuen brothers training under Fung siu ching to imply they were too old to learn but rather Fung's Weng Chun seems to stem from the older patterns when wing chun was not yet structured (if you will) and later evolved in the three sets.

IF YOU REFER TO THE SERIES OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MR. HOI (FOR THE HK NEWSPAPER) MANY MOONS AGO, YOU NEED TO APPLY A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING. IF YOU STUDY TANG YIK WENG CHUN, YOU WILL KNOW SOME OF THE PARTS I AM REFERRING TO IN PARTICULAR. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, THAT IT IS A MIX OF STORIES MR. HOI (HIMSELF A STUDENT OF NG CHUN SO) HAD HEARD IN FATSAAN AND THEN CREATED A VERY INTERESTING STORY OFF. SO SOME OF IT IS TRUE, OTHERS FICTICIOUS - CAVEAT EMPTOR... 

>>>Of Course, take everything with a grain of salt but that doesn't not mean to throw the baby out with the bath water! Inaccuracies, Bias and preference are all around in any story, we seek to corroborate as best we can to make sense of the history ourselves.

NOW, IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY FONG SIU CHING DIDN'T TEACH SAAM TOU KUEN - HE WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY. ACCORDING TO TANG YIK - AND OTHER SOURCES - HE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO TEACH, ACTUALLY. SO HIS EARLY STUDENTS LEARNT A WOODEN DUMMY FORM, A SORT OF "HONG JONG" CALLED "CHONG KUEN" AND MAYBE SOME SAN SAU. YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T LEARNE ANY OF THESE BUT RATHER SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS.

>>>Yes, the Weng Chun Kuen set came from Tang Suen and as is a big debate now with them about Saam pai fut however they did not deny his wing chun training under Sun Gum for allegedly 6 years. 

THEY DIDN'T, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. FOK BO CHUEN WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY EITHER...  SO THE GREAT MYSTERY IS: WHERE DID YKS GET THE SAAM TOU KUEN FROM? AND HIS BROTHER, TOO... THEY CAN ONLY HAVE GOTTEN THOSE FROM A VERY LIMITED GROUP OF PEOPLE EITHER FORMALLY, OR INFORMALLY (CURRENTLY, I AM OF THE OPPINION THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMAL LEARNING AND EXCHANGING GOING ON BETWEEN VARIOUS PEOPLE)

>>>Here we both agree (though we may come to different conclusions in regard to Ng Chun so etc...)...But that is fine. We can only speculate.



INSULT? HOW DO YOU GET THAT IDEA? NOTHING INSULTING IN ANYTHING YOU WROTE - NOT TO ME, AT LEAST. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY PROUD ABOUT HIS LINEAGE AND TAKES THE HISTORY AS GOSPEL TRUTH WILL OBVIOUSLY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT I AM NOT IN THAT CATEGORY. [/QUOTE]

>>>I am glad to hear that, some people claim to be open minded and yet get very insulted when they look at their own lineages. I have trained with many people in different lineages over the years. Many have different stories (they can't all be right!  Thank you for the discussion!


----------



## KPM

*I understand, the only other sources I am aware of were simply recounting what Sum Nung wrote in his manuscript. My information stated earlier was in regard to the writings of a man claiming to be a sum nung disciple name Yun Hoi and what he said Sum told him Fok same system and trained many years then Fung etc....As to Fok Bo Chun, YES, I agree and some in Foshan held this theory as well further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing/Weng Chun kuen.*

---Just to clarify...... Yun Hoi is a white guy in Australia.  He also goes by the Buddhist name of  Zopa Gyatso.  In the past he told me that he did travel to China and spend some time with Sum Nung, but he never lived there.  I would not call him a "disciple".  I also doubt that he is fluent in Cantonese.  So his knowledge of the subject is likely no better than any other visitor to China that spent some time there on holiday.


----------



## Nobody Important

When it comes to the Yuen brothers, Yip Man and Yiu Choi, and whom they learned from and what they learned is all speculative. All their stories are filled with gaping holes when it comes to what training is attributed to what ancestor. There is a common link though, and that is Ng Chung So. Ng was senior to all of them but he was, for some reason, not very popular or well known. Perhaps the Yuen brothers and Yip Man decided it looked better to align themselves with more popular individuals (Fung Siu Ching & Leung Bik) for alterations they made to the art or marketing reasons, or perhaps, Ng Chung So didn't want the publicity and be known as their teacher. I find it interesting that Ng Chung So is comparable to Aragaki Seisho in that both were respected and sought after instructors of their perspective arts (Wing Chun & Shuri Te) yet no one claims either as their primary teacher. Is this because they looked at Ng as a big brother more than Sifu? Technically speaking, each began their studies under Fok Bo Chun (Yuen brothers), Chan Wah Shun (Yip Man) & Yuen Chai Wan (Yiu Choi), but how much did they learn? Most of Yip Man's training came at the hands of Ng Chung So, so did Yiu Choi's. I'd speculate that The Yuen brothers didn't learn much from Fok Bo Chun, seeing how Yuen Chai Wan never passed on Chum Kiu or Biu Jee, most likely because he never learned them. In my lineage these forms come from my Dai Sigung also learning from Ng Chung So. Yet lineage is claimed from Yuen Chai Wan even though Ng was his first teacher. This brings up the question, why is Ng Chung So not considered a lineage head when he obviously was responsible for instructing the 3 kings of Wing Chun? Was he extremely modest, was he an a55hole, or does custom dictate that their first teachers receive credit even though they taught very little?


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung,

a few interesting points:

1. Weng Chun Kuen is unique to the Tang family, it was passed on to Tang Bun at Fei Loi Ji near Zengyuen and thus was not from Tang Suen. Tang Suen brought in other stuff, though...

2. There is actually only limited information available in English in comparison what you can actually learn if you speak to people face to face in Gongjaau and Fatsaan, etc. You cited some (one rather bad) examples a your sources... The problem is that when such articles written by people with best intentions but exposed to limited sources and views are accepted as the baseline truth, the more accurate information is happily dismissed or seem as to be just as speculative as the information put forth in certain articles (see below).

3. I just happened to have lunch with Chan Gok Gei Sifu, his brother and another very Senior CYM Siulam Weng Chun student just yesterday. Chan Sifu is an extremely busy man and doesn't teach, unfortunately. We were very lucky to have this opportunity to spend a few hours with him. He was very happy to explain and demonstrate concepts of his style - he has really great Gung Fu! - but rejected to answer any questions about the history of his style. He was in fact very upset with journalists and reporters whom he had granted interviews to in the past because they didn't present the information he gave them accurately, even some of his grandstudents are guilty of this. So next year he is going to release all the original and correct information about his lineage next year at the grand opening of the "Chan Wah Shun Memorial Hall" which will be a major event in Seundak. 
I could mention some other examples, where information in an article is wrong but people use this as some authoritative piece of evidence. For example and old article about Tang Yik in New Martial Hero... If you don't really train in the style and know the background of the article, you would never know the information is not correct...
The point is - one should be careful trusting information in articles and from people too far removed from the source. This is why, when I have the chance, I always try to ask the most senior guys available.

4. There is a discussion going on in Weng Chun circles - but the issue is not the Saam Bai Fut form, this is a "sub issue" amongst a certain group of people. The issue amongst the Weng Chun Community is what he taught, not how long he learnt and such.


----------



## jlq

This Yuenhoi's claims cannot be verified - as I have heard, according to both of Sum Nung's sons and Sum Nung's wife, Sum Nung never had any Western "disciple". If Yuenhoi had indeed been to China at the time he would have, a foreigner learning Wing Chun would have been a huge thing and someone would have bound to know. He seems to avoid answering questions about exact details pertaining to his stay in China... No doubt there would be pictures too... but none have turned up thus far...


----------



## Poppity

This thread has been very interesting for me as a couple of us in the Shing Lee lineage have noticed certain similar nuances in our wing chin and that of some videos of yks wing chun. As Shing Lee had (so I am told) extensively studied Hung kuen before learning wing chun, the hung kuen reference in the yks history, was of particular interest.

I don't know if it has any bearing on how Ng Chung So may have viewed himself, but after our sifu passed  a number of SiHings are continuing to teach their master's art, but the really experienced and knowledgeable ones teach us as SiHings, I guess classing themselves as conduits of our sifus teachings. It may be that Ng Chung So adopted a similar modest approach.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Jicjeung,
> 
> a few interesting points:
> 
> 1. Weng Chun Kuen is unique to the Tang family, it was passed on to Tang Bun at Fei Loi Ji near Zengyuen and thus was not from Tang Suen. Tang Suen brought in other stuff, though...
> 
> >>>This may well be true there is debate amongst them about this as I know of some rather heated arguments about how much Tang Bun learned at Fei Loi. As you know Tang Yik did an interview new martial hero and favored Tang Family history they use on website. later he wrote a manuscript which attributed to Tang Family arts and what was passed on by Tang bun that was not the same as in earlier interviews. I believe Sunny and maybe Michael have this. There is an argument as well (I am sure you know about Saam pai fut) between Michael and others (apollo I think) anyway. Originally I heard it was created by Tang Suen from what he learned from Fung siu ching (and the feel of the Kuen feels like old Weng Chun kuen). Just FYI.
> 
> 2. There is actually only limited information available in English in comparison what you can actually learn if you speak to people face to face in Gongjaau and Fatsaan, etc. You cited some (one rather bad) examples a your sources... The problem is that when such articles written by people with best intentions but exposed to limited sources and views are accepted as the baseline truth, the more accurate information is happily dismissed or seem as to be just as speculative as the information put forth in certain articles (see below).
> 
> >>>Yes, I know this. It is also hard for people if they do not speak Guandong hua going through a translator things aren't always correctly translated. What are bad sources versus good are often subjective.
> 
> 3. I just happened to have lunch with Chan Gok Gei Sifu, his brother and another very Senior CYM Siulam Weng Chun student just yesterday. Chan Sifu is an extremely busy man and doesn't teach, unfortunately. We were very lucky to have this opportunity to spend a few hours with him. He was very happy to explain and demonstrate concepts of his style - he has really great Gung Fu! - but rejected to answer any questions about the history of his style. He was in fact very upset with journalists and reporters whom he had granted interviews to in the past because they didn't present the information he gave them accurately, even some of his grandstudents are guilty of this. So next year he is going to release all the original and correct information about his lineage next year at the grand opening of the "Chan Wah Shun Memorial Hall" which will be a major event in Seundak.
> 
> >>>I look forward to this! Well friend who told me is from Russian group of students of Chan Gouji I have seen his video's training with him and instruction so he is not lying about training with him. What he was told about history is how he understood it. I take nothing as gospel.
> 
> I could mention some other examples, where information in an article is wrong but people use this as some authoritative piece of evidence. For example and old article about Tang Yik in New Martial Hero... If you don't really train in the style and know the background of the article, you would never know the information is not correct...
> 
> >>>As I have said before we should take everything with a grain of salt. Some parts accurate others not likely. I am not a Tang Yik student but know and have trained with many of them over the years Victoria park and other places.
> 
> The point is - one should be careful trusting information in articles and from people too far removed from the source. This is why, when I have the chance, I always try to ask the most senior guys available.
> >>As do like anything sometimes people tell you what they think you want to hear, other times when you know them well they are more candid about their thoughts.
> 
> Regards


----------



## Jicjeung

KPM said:


> *I understand, the only other sources I am aware of were simply recounting what Sum Nung wrote in his manuscript. My information stated earlier was in regard to the writings of a man claiming to be a sum nung disciple name Yun Hoi and what he said Sum told him Fok same system and trained many years then Fung etc....As to Fok Bo Chun, YES, I agree and some in Foshan held this theory as well further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing/Weng Chun kuen.*
> 
> ---Just to clarify...... Yun Hoi is a white guy in Australia.  He also goes by the Buddhist name of  Zopa Gyatso.  In the past he told me that he did travel to China and spend some time with Sum Nung, but he never lived there.  I would not call him a "disciple".  I also doubt that he is fluent in Cantonese.  So his knowledge of the subject is likely no better than any other visitor to China that spent some time there on holiday.



>>>>Ah this makes sense. In some of the articles (which a Student brought to my attention) he claimed to be a disciple of Sum since 1960's. This sounded strange. He also quoted Sum in his personal interviews with him as well. 

Thank you and regards


----------



## jlq

Snark, Yuen Kei Saan's Wing Chun is more like YM and Yiu Choi Wing Chun than anything else. I think looking for more Hong Kuen in his Wing Chun than that of the other Wing Chun practicioners I mentioned to piece some puzzle together is seeing too much, IMHO of course.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Jicjeung,
> 
> if you go to Dongbin Village today and read the historical information there - and check the dates of Leung Jan's statue, you will some other information.
> 
> Mr. Baniecki's information is also out of date, yes.
> 
> What many in the West are not aware about is that Wing Chun has been quite thoroughly reseaerched by local researchers for many years, it is just that their findings never trickled through to the West. Also, what information Westerners visiting China got might be anything from complete and just from one source...
> 
> >>>>I posted Mr, Baniecki (who trains Pin sun and makes many trips there with his wife) as you seemed to want a newer source then 2007. His was Jan 2017 if memory serves.
> 
> As far as Leung Jan's death and other information, a couple of years ago a researcher of a museum in Fatsaan was presented with the original genealogy of Leung Jan's descendants and other family documents by Leung.Bik's grandson. This is now on display in the Yip Man Tong in Luochun (built in 2015). Seems like not too many Westerners go there and even of they do, just parts of the documents are translated.
> 
> So, the information of your sources are not up to date... If you want to know more about the state of the art information about Leung Jan, O suggest you contact Jim Roselando Sifu, who has been an avid researcher of the subject for many years. He is probably the Westerner who knows most about this matter.



>>>The original post I believe was Written by Jim Roselando and I believe his is webmaster of the site, Maybe he will update it soon?

Thank you for your thoughts,
Regards


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,
it is pretty clear who YM actually learnt from and who he exchanged with - there are a few stories which are wildly exaggerated, such ha him "learning" from the Weng Chun people, Yuen Kei Saan, and some even claim that he learnt some from the wife of a former superior officer in his KMT unit... Stories abound... Knowing what I do about the Chinese Gong Fu community showing/explaining sth to someone at Yam Cha suddenly becomes "teaching".. 
The real mystery is Fok Bo Chuen and even more so, Fong Siu Ching. Because the stories about them are totally inconsistent and there is nothing but oral tradition which defies actual historical events. 
Ng Chun So was - according to Leung Ngau Sifu (one of the most senior practicioners of Wing Chun alive today both in terms of age and generation - 95 years old and a direct disciple of Yuen Kei Saan), among others, and local martial arts reseaerchers - very famous and respected in the Fatsaan Mo Lam. While he didn't have an actual school, he was teaching out of Yiu Choi's Opium Hall and had quite a few wealthy students. It was a kind of social club for rich guys and most of the affluent Wing Chun people came there to discuss martial arts. There were plenty of students who called Ng Sifu, but not any more. Unfortunately, the only active descendants of Ng Chun So are Fohk Chiu and the Yiu Choi Lineage. These are quite proud to be descendants of Ng and always point this out when asked about their lineage. One also has to remember that unknown or little known outside of Fatsaan doesn't really reflect the situation locally. 
As you say, who is called Sifu depends very much on tradition - there is an old saying, "one Sifu in one Pai", so while you can  have only one Sifu, you can have many Gong Fu uncles, who might teach you much more than your Sifu. This is/was rather the norm. So, Yip Man could not call Ng Chun So Sifu, f.ex. Yuen Kei Saan would not call Ng Chun So sifu if he was not a formal student, as far as how Yiu Choi referred to Ng, that is an interesting question. I will ask around and let you guys know.


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung said:


> >>>The original post I believe was Written by Jim Roselando and I believe his is webmaster of the site, Maybe he will update it soon?
> 
> Thank you for your thoughts,
> Regards



Who knows?

But why does he need to update it, now I told you the information?



It seems like you are not willing to accept what I told you?


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung said:


> further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing



Who exactly theorizes this?


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> it is pretty clear who YM actually learnt from and who he exchanged with - there are a few stories which are wildly exaggerated, such ha him "learning" from the Weng Chun people, Yuen Kei Saan, and some even claim that he learnt some from the wife of a former superior officer in his KMT unit... Stories abound... Knowing what I do about the Chinese Gong Fu community showing/explaining sth to someone at Yam Cha suddenly becomes "teaching"..
> The real mystery is Fok Bo Chuen and even more so, Fong Siu Ching. Because the stories about them are totally inconsistent and there is nothing but oral tradition which defies actual historical events.
> Ng Chun So was - according to Leung Ngau Sifu (one of the most senior practicioners of Wing Chun alive today both in terms of age and generation - 95 years old and a direct disciple of Yuen Kei Saan), among others, and local martial arts reseaerchers - very famous and respected in the Fatsaan Mo Lam. While he didn't have an actual school, he was teaching out of Yiu Choi's Opium Hall and had quite a few wealthy students. It was a kind of social club for rich guys and most of the affluent Wing Chun people came there to discuss martial arts. There were plenty of students who called Ng Sifu, but not any more. Unfortunately, the only active descendants of Ng Chun So are Fohk Chiu and the Yiu Choi Lineage. These are quite proud to be descendants of Ng and always point this out when asked about their lineage. One also has to remember that unknown or little known outside of Fatsaan doesn't really reflect the situation locally.
> As you say, who is called Sifu depends very much on tradition - there is an old saying, "one Sifu in one Pai", so while you can  have only one Sifu, you can have many Gong Fu uncles, who might teach you much more than your Sifu. This is/was rather the norm. So, Yip Man could not call Ng Chun So Sifu, f.ex. Yuen Kei Saan would not call Ng Chun So sifu if he was not a formal student, as far as how Yiu Choi referred to Ng, that is an interesting question. I will ask around and let you guys know.


I can't find anything here to dispute and find myself in general agreement with your assumptions. Though many of the stories I've heard are filled with holes, I still find that they do contain kernels of truth, though exaggerated over time. One interesting one I've heard is that Fok Bo Chun was a White Crane practitioner and and possible student of Lee Man Mao, to me this would still be Wing Chun. Though I've found nothing to substantiate this claim, I do find it very interesting that Wing Chun Pak Hok has a form called Baat Sao Sam Chien (8 Hands 3 Battles) of which the main section is identical to the Flower Fist section of Yuen Chai Wan's Siu Lim Tau I learned. Its all speculation, but i think it most plausible that the Yuen's recieved the most training from Ng Chung So, especially as someone else pointed out, why send Yiu Choi to him and not to his brother Kay San if he (Ng Chung So) wasn't important to him (Yuen Chai Wan). The 3 forms either came from Fok Bo Chun who really was a student of Wong Wah Bo or, more likely, from Ng Chung So with stylizations coming from the teaching of Fok Bo Chun & Fung Siu Ching who learned "Old Wing Chun". One thing we have to take into consideration is that the term Wing Chun, as used to describe the art today, didn't come into use until after Leung Jan. I suspect that the terms Wing Chun, Hung Kuen and Pak Hok were quite interchangeable until methods and lineages were more formally codified. Wing Chun certainly didn't come out of the box looking like it does today, it has gone through numerous changes.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> I can't find anything here to dispute and find myself in general agreement with your assumptions. Though many of the stories I've heard are filled with holes, I still find that they do contain kernels of truth, though exaggerated over time. One interesting one I've heard is that Fok Bo Chun was a White Crane practitioner and and possible student of Lee Man Mao, to me this would still be Wing Chun. Though I've found nothing to substantiate this claim, I do find it very interesting that Wing Chun Pak Hok has a form called Baat Sao Sam Chien (8 Hands 3 Battles) of which the main section is identical to the Flower Fist section of Yuen Chai Wan's Siu Lim Tau I learned. Its all speculation, but i think it most plausible that the Yuen's recieved the most training from Ng Chung So, especially as someone else pointed out, why send Yiu Choi to him and not to his brother Kay San if he (Ng Chung So) wasn't important to him (Yuen Chai Wan). The 3 forms either came from Fok Bo Chun who really was a student of Wong Wah Bo or, more likely, from Ng Chung So with stylizations coming from the teaching of Fok Bo Chun & Fung Siu Ching who learned "Old Wing Chun". One thing we have to take into consideration is that the term Wing Chun, as used to describe the art today, didn't come into use until after Leung Jan. I suspect that the terms Wing Chun, Hung Kuen and Pak Hok were quite interchangeable until methods and lineages were more formally codified. Wing Chun certainly didn't come out of the box looking like it does today, it has gone through numerous changes.



There is no evidence that Fok Bo Chuen was a student of Wong Wah Saam, in fact, very few - if any - of the many Sum Nung/YKS schools have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Wong Wah Bou (if I am not mistaken, that might come from Rene Ritchie's book). I have many pictures from various Mo Goons' lineage charts. And what you will find is that most of the lineage charts have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong - just like the Yiu Choi guys - and a few Dai Fa Mien Gam... Fok Bo Chuen was from Yamchow, just like Law Man Gong, and Yiu Choi actually also learnt from him, according to his descendants. It makes little sense that he would have learnt from Wong Wah Bo, if he was indeed from Yamchow and given the nature of the actual opera "lifestyle". If Fok Bo Chuen had learnt from Wong Wah Bo, he would have had to learn it in Fatsaan, but then he wouldn't have been a "Snake style boxer" as the stories claim - he would have been a gong fu brother of Leung Jan, which he by all accounts wasn't... So, Fok Bo Chuen being a student of Wong Wah Bo... Doesn't sound very plausible at all. And thus does the claim that the three forms came from him... Ng Chun So - and the other Gong Fu friends seem a much more plausible source.
The term Wing Chun did definitely exist with Leung Jan, not after him - his students called it Wing Chun (lets leave out Chan Yu Min's Siulam Weng Chun) in Fatsaan and Gulao Seui Heung. In Gulao the students were taught "Wing Chun" by him not "Weng Chun" or sth else. This applies both to Wong Wah Saam and the Gus, Leis, etc. Also, as proven by the Leung family documents, Leung Jan taught his sons Wing Chun quite early on.
Who said that YC was "sent" to Ng? The exact wording would be interesting... Another interesting question...  Anyway, there is a much better and plausible reason, given the situation: YKS was extremely reluctant to take students, he didn't even want to teach his own sons!
Lei Man Mao was - according to researchers in Fatsaan a Hong Kuen practicioner, not a Baak Hok stylist. And according to historical documents from the Ching dynasty, he was notes as an actor/singer, not a boxer or someone who was known for his great fighting skills...
If you leave out the Baak Hok, I think your idea has quite a bit of merit.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> There is no evidence that Fok Bo Chuen was a student of Wong Wah Saam, in fact, very few - if any - of the many Sum Nung/YKS schools have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Wong Wah Bou (if I am not mistaken, that might come from Rene Ritchie's book). I have many pictures from various Mo Goons' lineage charts. And what you will find is that most of the lineage charts have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong - just like the Yiu Choi guys - and a few Dai Fa Mien Gam... Fok Bo Chuen was from Yamchow, just like Law Man Gong, and Yiu Choi actually also learnt from him, according to his descendants. It makes little sense that he would have learnt from Wong Wah Bo, if he was indeed from Yamchow and given the nature of the actual opera "lifestyle". If Fok Bo Chuen had learnt from Wong Wah Bo, he would have had to learn it in Fatsaan, but then he wouldn't have been a "Snake style boxer" as the stories claim - he would have been a gong fu brother of Leung Jan, which he by all accounts wasn't... So, Fok Bo Chuen being a student of Wong Wah Bo... Doesn't sound very plausible at all. And thus does the claim that the three forms came from him... Ng Chun So - and the other Gong Fu friends seem a much more plausible source.
> The term Wing Chun did definitely exist with Leung Jan, not after him - his students called it Wing Chun (lets leave out Chan Yu Min's Siulam Weng Chun) in Fatsaan and Gulao Seui Heung. In Gulao the students were taught "Wing Chun" by him not "Weng Chun" or sth else. This applies both to Wong Wah Saam and the Gus, Leis, etc. Also, as proven by the Leung family documents, Leung Jan taught his sons Wing Chun quite early on.
> Who said that YC was "sent" to Ng? The exact wording would be interesting... Another interesting question...  Anyway, there is a much better and plausible reason, given the situation: YKS was extremely reluctant to take students, he didn't even want to teach his own sons!
> Lei Man Mao was - according to researchers in Fatsaan a Hong Kuen practicioner, not a Baak Hok stylist. And according to historical documents from the Ching dynasty, he was notes as an actor/singer, not a boxer or someone who was known for his great fighting skills...
> If you leave out the Baak Hok, I think your idea has quite a bit of merit.


The problem I have with this is that Law Man Gung is a relatively newly "discovered" ancestor who wasn't originally in the Sei Hok Wing Chun lineage of the Law family from my understanding, he is the one in essence that has replaced Fok Bo Chun, or in some cases was Fok's teacher. Personally I find this curious and can't help but think this is just a case of seniority hopping to prop up a lineage. Law family is the one who first made this claim and it was originally propagated by Hendrik Santos to support his narrative, others latched on because it cleaned things up for them. All legends and written accounts I have heard & seen suggest Lee Man Mao was a Wing Chun White Crane practitioner. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that Lee Man Mao and Law Man Gung aren't the same person. Lee was a leader of the uprising, lead the Red Turban Army and was most likely the inspiration for the Hung Gun Biu legend. There is so much intermingling of the creation legends surrounding Wing Chun, White Crane and Hung Kuen with shared forms, technique & theory its hard to dismiss the notion that they all sprang from the same source, yet went on to evolve differently. With the physical intermingling, it's not a big leap to assume the characters involved were "borrowed" along with everything else. All in all, nothing will ever be substantiated, it's all speculation and all this new "research" is nothing more than an attempt to clean up inaccuracies and gaps in lineage legends in an attempt to make them more cohesive. I have no issue with this as long as it makes logical sense and doesn't outright erase oral legends simply for the purpose of seniority hopping that makes it look like a system is older and purer than it really is. Unfortunely, IMO, this is more often than not the case. A lot of these stories we hear today weren't even whispered rumors 30 years ago. Since researching the roots of Wing Chun has become a popular pastime with the various lineages, all sorts of claims are being made with sketchy or no supporting evidence. Just lots of assumption based on narrative and educated guessing.


----------



## jlq

No, that is not correct! Law Man Gong is not at all a new character inserted, a you think.

The schools I am talking about are all in Fatsaan, all YKS/SN lineage and have nothing to do with Snake and Crane Wing Chun whatsoever - most definitely they didn't change their history because of, say Hendrik Santo, or other modern day people's machinations.They never even heard of such people.

He has also been a figure of the YC lineage at least since the story was passed on to his students such as Yiu Kay, Fohk Chiu, Lam Soi Man, Gor Bing, etc.


So, what written legends have you heard about Lei Man Mao? What are the sources? 

The information I have is from my own looking into things here in China and what I have learnt from a local, expert researcher of Wing Chun here in Fatsaan who actually spent a lot effort looking into the matter. 

And as I said, Ching records don't say anything about his boxing and fighting skills - but do list other members of the TPTG specifically as boxers.

As far as the rest of your post, about people's motivations, etc. I think you are spot on.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> No, that is not correct! Law Man Gong is not at all a new character inserted, a you think.
> 
> The schools I am talking about are all in Fatsaan, all YKS/SN lineage and have nothing to do with Snake and Crane Wing Chun whatsoever - most definitely they didn't change their history because of, say Hendrik Santo, or other modern day people's machinations.They never even heard of such people.
> 
> He has also been a figure of the YC lineage at least since the story was passed on to his students such as Yiu Kay, Fohk Chiu, Lam Soi Man, Gor Bing, etc.
> 
> 
> So, what written legends have you heard about Lei Man Mao? What are the sources?
> 
> The information I have is from my own looking into things here in China and what I have learnt from a local, expert researcher of Wing Chun here in Fatsaan who actually spent a lot effort looking into the matter.
> 
> And as I said, Ching records don't say anything about his boxing and fighting skills - but do list other members of the TPTG specifically as boxers.
> 
> As far as the rest of your post, about people's motivations, etc. I think you are spot on.


Ok, so let's say Law Man Gung is an ancestor of Yuen Family instead of Wong Wah Bo, it changes nothing, it simply replaces one ancestor for another. Now, according to you, you now have an uncontested verified Wing Chun ancestor who apparently didn't teach Wing Chun to Fok Bo Chun who in turn didn't teach Wing Chun to the Yuen family, leaving them to learn Wing Chun solely from Ng Chung So. 

I've already stated my assumptions that Ng Chung So probably did teach the Yuen's a fair amount, but I don't for one minute believe that they learned absolutely no Wing Chun prior to learning from Ng. That presumption smells very fishy to me and sounds a lot like bolstering one lineage above another in a legitamacy claim. Ive seen abosolutely no proof of this and would very much like to see any supporting documentation.

I've no doubt Yuen Kay San taught others, but he had only one confirmed disciple, Sum Nung.  Kay San was a prolific writer and and the majority of any information about Yuen family as far as Wing Chun is concerned comes to us from Sum Nung. None of this new information was floating around when he was still alive, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there were contradictions and inconsistencies, however what I'm seeing is now that he's gone there is no authority and this has left a void. One that information, because information is power, can fill.

I am all for knowing the truth, no matter how much it differs from my own understanding, I am not omnipresent. But it has to be supported with verifiable facts and supporting evidence. The scientific method must be used. Using plausibility and assumption based on "because it makes sense" is not good enough, this only creates a different yet equal outcome and does nothing to further the search for truth.

You have made a lot of claims,  some I view as very plausible, yet you have offered no difinative proof that would sway me from my opinion, which I state as my opinion and do not present as fact. I say this because your scenario has an outcome that differs very little from my own, with the exception that I'm not trampling on years of passed on tradition to get there.

Quite honestly I put way more stock into what I can physically see and feel along with  my own intuition than I do to blind faith in stories. I've personally seen the relationship between Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & White Crane, I've studied numerous branches of each and no one is going to sway my opinion that they didnt come from the same source. There is way too much overlap in form, technique and theory IMO. So even if one ancestor is swapped for another, it diesnt really change anything as far as the art is concerned, only the narrative. Thank you for your insights this has been an interesting discussion.


----------



## Martial D

jlq said:


> Who exactly theorizes this?


This is what my Sifu taught me in the 90s,(WC is a synthesis of snake and crane styles) so someone was theorizing it at least a few decades back.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> No, that is not correct! Law Man Gong is not at all a new character inserted, a you think.



FWIW, I've never heard of Law Man Gung from anyone in Wing Chun prior to Santos, Chu, Iderola and Roselando doing their research. As far as I know Law Man Gung has only been thrown around in Wing Chun circles since around the year 2000 or so. Now, just because I havent heard of him diesnt mean that hes made up, I do find it suspicious though that the idea of him becoming a verifiable ancestor only gained popularity when Sei Hok Wing Chun claimed him as an ancestor with their unveiling of the unchanged 1860s Wing Chun. Let's not forget, that the lineages you speak of coming out of Faatsan aren't uncontested in their claims. I'm not saying you're wrong & I'm right by any means, but there are some things that "smell" suspicious to me. We all have our biases, buyer beware. If you have any documentation outside of a lineage chart and oral stories I'd love to see them. Until then I'll continue connecting dots in a manner that is logical to my experience and understanding.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,

the problem here is that you are assuming that all the information I am relating was not around when Sum Nung was alive, but it was! I have pointed out before that just because we in the West had very little information about the status quo in Fatsaan and Gongjaau - and apparently even do today - and the fact that one sided and even incorrect information is spread by zealous students means that this is fact. I can only encourage people to come to Fatsaan and examine things for themselves, talk to people here, and it will be clear that what is believed as "fact" is quite different. As long as one can just rely on stories and articles in English, one will have a very limited view on the Wing Chun scene in China, past and present.

Have you actually been to China to talk with the seniors here?

So what exactly is it you don't feel is verified?

That Sum Nung was YKS's only disciple? This is just his/his descendants words... This doesn't make it fact. SN's story was even questioned by Leung Ting more than 20 years ago when he found inconsistencies with his stories, because there were other accounts of certain things which matched up much better than what SN had claimed... So, it is not that everybody was quiet while SN was still around...

And no, all information about YKS does not come from SN, there is Leung Ngau, Yuen Jotong, Wong Jing, and (supposedly, Lam family) as well as others outside of the family, which told quite a different story than say SN... already ca. 1950 at least.

What exactly is it you have a problem with? 

That Law Man Gong is listed as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not new at all, just you apparently didn't know... You can go to numerous schools and check their lineage charts - and it is YKS and SN people both, they didn't just change that after SN died. Think about it, they are all YKS/SN guys, so how would changing this make them superior to... YKS/SN lineage? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

According to Yuen Chai.Wan's son, his father learnt many different martial.arts, besides Wing Chun, which was perfectly normal for masters of that time. So mixing stuff and then calling all of it Wing Chun - as an example - was a normal thing to do. Chu Chung Man did the same, learning different stuff and then just calling everything Weng Chun. This is one reason there is such a mess... Given that why is it unreasonable if neither this mysterious FBC and FSC were not "Wing Chun" guys? And that the Yuen brothers learnt this style much later? Just like Chan Wah Shun also learnt it rather late. 

But as I have said earlier, the YKS and Yuen Chai Wan lineage is a huge enigma and Lots of things said and claimed simply don't add up.

Far too many stories and no proof of anything



I do not make any claims, I am just relating what information is found in Fatsaan and Gongjaau, it is not to blame.on me that what people say here doesn't match what you think, believe or say...

Let me give you an example, you claimed Ng Chun So taught a fourth form. But here, no one, who heard about Ng Chun So or learnt from him ever heard or learnt anything relating to a fourth form. You mention the "Chong Kuen", but this is actually called "Che Ching Kuen" (normally) and is from Leung Fuk Chor, the  first teacher of Fohk Chiu, not the source you claimed. Yiu Chung Keung and his brothers teach it today because they have a special relationship to Fohk Chiu.

You said Ng Chun So.was not famous, but he was - by all accounts here. So what source do you have to make you think you know better than the Wing Chun community in Fatsaan?

Now, quite a bit what you say is very different than what information is available here, so I am very curious as to what your sources are and what evidence you have to believe that you can dismiss what the local people say?

You talk about scientific method and documentation, where is yours? 

 The problem foe Gong Fu is obviously that everything is oral transmission and a lot of the events are lost in the mists of time...

So like you, I believe that whatever the ancestors supposedly were, it doesn't change our respective arts, and the only tangible thing we have is the physical expression of the art which can reveal much more than stories - although some history can help identify sources and influences.


----------



## jlq

Which lineages are not uncontested?


----------



## jlq

You mean Yuen Kei Saan and Sum Nung?


----------



## jlq

Wong Jing or Yiu Choi lineage?

Look, is it plausible to you that these lineages - all those schools - would change their lineage charts and histories because of Sergio, Hendrik and the Snake and Crane guys? Then you are assuming way too much about the power of their influence.



Is a mention of Law Man Gung prior to the aforementioned gentlemen promoting their story good enough for you to accept that they are not the ones to invent it?


----------



## Eric_H

Nobody Important said:


> All legends and written accounts I have heard & seen suggest Lee Man Mao was a Wing Chun White Crane practitioner. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that Lee Man Mao and Law Man Gung aren't the same person. Lee was a leader of the uprising, lead the Red Turban Army and was most likely the inspiration for the Hung Gun Biu legend.



Lee Wen Mao was in a different place at a different time. Though they were part of the same political struggle, it's unlikely they ever met or interacted, and I highly doubt they were the same person.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> the problem here is that you are assuming that all the information I am relating was not around when Sum Nung was alive, but it was! I have pointed out before that just because we in the West had very little information about the status quo in Fatsaan and Gongjaau - and apparently even do today - and the fact that one sided and even incorrect information is spread by zealous students means that this is fact. I can only encourage people to come to Fatsaan and examine things for themselves, talk to people here, and it will be clear that what is believed as "fact" is quite different. As long as one can just rely on stories and articles in English, one will have a very limited view on the Wing Chun scene in China, past and present.



No I"m not assuming that, I am simply saying it wasn't propagated like it is today. I've already stated I wasn't aware of it prior to the research of Santos, Chu, Iderola and Roselando. I've no doubt that Sum Nung embellished some aspects, but, his lineage gives just as much credit to Cheung Bo as to Yuen Kay San, and that says a lot.



jlq said:


> Have you actually been to China to talk with the seniors here?



No, but I have spoken with people who have been there, I've no reason to doubt their intentions with what was imparted to me.



jlq said:


> So what exactly is it you don't feel is verified?
> 
> That Sum Nung was YKS's only disciple? This is just his/his descendants words... This doesn't make it fact. SN's story was even questioned by Leung Ting more than 20 years ago when he found inconsistencies with his stories, because there were other accounts of certain things which matched up much better than what SN had claimed... So, it is not that everybody was quiet while SN was still around...
> 
> And no, all information about YKS does not come from SN, there is Leung Ngau, Yuen Jotong, Wong Jing, and (supposedly, Lam family) as well as others outside of the family, which told quite a different story than say SN... already ca. 1950 at least.



There is a lot that doesn't add up when looked at critically. I'm not saying that there isn't inconsistencies in Sum Nung's story, I'm saying that there is in the one you are presenting.



jlq said:


> What exactly is it you have a problem with?
> 
> That Law Man Gong is listed as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not new at all, just you apparently didn't know... You can go to numerous schools and check their lineage charts - and it is YKS and SN people both, they didn't just change that after SN died. Think about it, they are all YKS/SN guys, so how would changing this make them superior to... YKS/SN lineage? Doesn't make much sense, does it?



Correct, I hadn't heard that until a few years ago. How does it make them superior? If Sum Nung never claimed that Law Man Gung was a part of the lineage, if Yuen Kay San's writings and the oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage make no claims to Law Man Gung how can it be true? By putting Law Man Gung into the lineage, it says that particular line learned the "Real" stuff and everyone else got scraps. Its an old ploy used over and over again to claim true transmission and is prevalent throughout the martial arts world. It could be true, but without something more than a lineage chart that anyone can make up, more evidence is needed.



jlq said:


> According to Yuen Chai.Wan's son, his father learnt many different martial.arts, besides Wing Chun, which was perfectly normal for masters of that time. So mixing stuff and then calling all of it Wing Chun - as an example - was a normal thing to do. Chu Chung Man did the same, learning different stuff and then just calling everything Weng Chun. This is one reason there is such a mess... Given that why is it unreasonable if neither this mysterious FBC and FSC were not "Wing Chun" guys? And that the Yuen brothers learnt this style much later? Just like Chan Wah Shun also learnt it rather late.



Correct, Yuen Chai Wan learned several arts, this doesn't mean he didn't learn Wing Chun early on. You directly contradict yourself by stating that Law Man Gung is a Wing Chun ancestor yet didn't pass on Wing Chun to Fok Bo Chun. If the Yuen brothers never learned Wing Chun until Ng Chung So, they would have claimed Ng Chung So as their Wing Chun Sifu. This isn't the case, they call Fok Bo Chun their Wing Chun Sifu, so regardless if Fok learned from Law Man Gung or Wong Wah Bo, he still learned Wing Chun and taught Wing Chun to the Yuen brothers.




jlq said:


> But as I have said earlier, the YKS and Yuen Chai Wan lineage is a huge enigma and Lots of things said and claimed simply don't add up.
> 
> Far too many stories and no proof of anything
> 
> 
> 
> I do not make any claims, I am just relating what information is found in Fatsaan and Gongjaau, it is not to blame.on me that what people say here doesn't match what you think, believe or say...
> 
> Let me give you an example, you claimed Ng Chun So taught a fourth form. But here, no one, who heard about Ng Chun So or learnt from him ever heard or learnt anything relating to a fourth form. You mention the "Chong Kuen", but this is actually called "Che Ching Kuen" (normally) and is from Leung Fuk Chor, the  first teacher of Fohk Chiu, not the source you claimed. Yiu Chung Keung and his brothers teach it today because they have a special relationship to Fohk Chiu.
> 
> You said Ng Chun So.was not famous, but he was - by all accounts here. So what source do you have to make you think you know better than the Wing Chun community in Fatsaan?



Who's Wing Chun ancestry isn't plagued by controversy, many branches have gapping holes, not just Yuen family. One of my students spoke directly to Kwok Yue Ming, he was told that Leung Fook Cho passed on the Che Sin Kuen (aka; Chong Kuen) to Fok Chiu, same story as you've been told, but he was also told something else, that what was passed on were loose techniques and that Yiu Choi knew similar material that was passed onto him from Ng Chung So. Che Sin Kuen, as they call it now, is Fok Chiu's creation based on his understanding of the Chong Kuen material taught to him by Leung Fook Cho and Yiu Choi. I have no reason to believe I was lied to. If Ng Chung So was so famous, why does no one outside of Yiu Choi lineage claim him as their Sifu? Yiu Choi is the only "mainstream" branch that gives equal credit to Ng Chung So as a teacher, as they do to Yuen Chai Wan. Does Yip Man branch give such credit to Ng Chung So? How about the Yuen brothers? They supposedly learned most of their material from him yet don't call him sifu or give credit to him for learning Wing Chun. It just doesn't add up. If he was the Yuen's only source of Wing Chun, they would venerate him as Sifu. They don't do this, this tells me that what they learned from Fok Bo Chun was Wing Chun and goes along with the custom of one Sifu per pai.



jlq said:


> Now, quite a bit what you say is very different than what information is available here, so I am very curious as to what your sources are and what evidence you have to believe that you can dismiss what the local people say?
> 
> You talk about scientific method and documentation, where is yours?



My musings come from oral transmissions that have been imparted to me, I've never claimed them as fact. You on the other hand are adamant that what you've been told is more truthful that what I've been told, hardly scientific. I was taught the Chuan Sin Jeung (Chong Kuen), I was told it came from Ng Chung So. I learned this 30 years ago, before the internet, I have no reason to disbelieve it. Now, I will concede that my Dai Sigung probably choreographed the form from loose techniques, but the material came from Ng Chung So just as the Yiu Choi branch also states. Legend has it that Leung Jan passed this on, even Chan Yiu Min lineage relates a similar story, albeit, with a different form named Sei Mun.



jlq said:


> The problem foe Gong Fu is obviously that everything is oral transmission and a lot of the events are lost in the mists of time...
> 
> So like you, I believe that whatever the ancestors supposedly were, it doesn't change our respective arts, and the only tangible thing we have is the physical expression of the art which can reveal much more than stories - although some history can help identify sources and influences.



On this we can agree. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, or even that what you say isn't plausible, but if you want to present what you say as FACT you need more than "So and so told me this and lineage charts". When you present information in this manner how is it any more credible than what I've been told or seen? You're simply stating that what you've been told is more credible than what I know simply because you believe what some elder told you. That isn't any more scientific than my argument. I will concede that there is merit in old stories, a kernel of truth, but without verifiable facts that support the presented evidence, it's just another story that has no more merit than another story.


----------



## Nobody Important

Eric_H said:


> Lee Wen Mao was in a different place at a different time. Though they were part of the same political struggle, it's unlikely they ever met or interacted, and I highly doubt they were the same person.


Hi Eric,

 I am respectfully going to disagree. I will relent and say that it is plausible that someone named Biu was a member of the Red Turban Army, was given the nickname "Hung Gun" and passed on a version of Wing Chun. I say this because there are other stories I've heard about lesser known branches of Wing Chun generically referred to as Hung Gun Wing Chun (much like Hung Kuen is used to describe various mixed southern arts). This lends credence to Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun being a legitimate branch of Wing Chun and not something new created by Garrett Gee (which by the way I've never took stock in, so please don't take what I say as an insult, it's not meant to be). However, the story of Hung Gun Biu is contested, not unlike ancestors for other lineages. Until further evidence is presented, none of us can claim anything as an absolute truth. For me the most plausible scenario is that Lee Man Mao was in some fashion responsible for the spread of Hung Gun / Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. How this comes together I don't know, and in truth doesn't really matter to me I don't have a dog in the fight. But I think it important that we all take a long look at the stories surrounding our perspective arts and promote what we feel to be true and call the bluff on what we find suspect. Carry on, always a pleasure to hear from you, you always have interesting input and perspective.


----------



## lansao

I’m grateful to this thread for keeping this discussion off of other threads.


----------



## wckf92

jlq said:


> You mean Yuen Kei Saan and Sum Nung?



Jlq you really need to learn how to use the quote feature so others can keep up with your posts. Thanks man!


----------



## Eric_H

Nobody Important said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> I am respectfully going to disagree. I will relent and say that it is plausible that someone named Biu was a member of the Red Turban Army, was given the nickname "Hung Gun" and passed on a version of Wing Chun. I say this because there are other stories I've heard about lesser known branches of Wing Chun generically referred to as Hung Gun Wing Chun (much like Hung Kuen is used to describe various mixed southern arts). This lends credence to Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun being a legitimate branch of Wing Chun and not something new created by Garrett Gee (which by the way I've never took stock in, so please don't take what I say as an insult, it's not meant to be). However, the story of Hung Gun Biu is contested, not unlike ancestors for other lineages. Until further evidence is presented, none of us can claim anything as an absolute truth. For me the most plausible scenario is that Lee Man Mao was in some fashion responsible for the spread of Hung Gun / Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. How this comes together I don't know, and in truth doesn't really matter to me I don't have a dog in the fight. But I think it important that we all take a long look at the stories surrounding our perspective arts and promote what we feel to be true and call the bluff on what we find suspect. Carry on, always a pleasure to hear from you, you always have interesting input and perspective.



All good, as I've said before (and will say again) all of these are just legends anyways. Every WC origin/ancestor myth should be taken with enough grains of salt for 100+ bowls of soup.

The interesting thing about Li Wen/Man Mao is that I've never really found much that points to him being a martial artist, though some people have claimed he knew one of the 7 or so versions of white crane that would have been available around that time. For me, I find it plausible that there was a separate cell under the same rebellion of which someone of some (but not the highest) status knew wing chun (Hung Gun Biu). As Li Wen Mao was a pretty big figurehead, I think it probably would have been more well known if he was a wing chun expert/creator. That even the white crane thing isn't 100% certain makes me doubt the connection, as most of what my line has about Hung Gun Biu talks about his fighting ability and what he contributed to our system, as well as his role as a Hung Gwan of that particular revolutionary cell.

Also, this is the same time that Wong Wa Bo was learning/had learnt Wing Chun, isn't it strange we'd be certain that some random actor knew wing chun but not someone who was a leader of a famous uprising?


----------



## Nobody Important

Eric_H said:


> All good, as I've said before (and will say again) all of these are just legends anyways. Every WC origin/ancestor myth should be taken with enough grains of salt for 100+ bowls of soup.
> 
> The interesting thing about Li Wen/Man Mao is that I've never really found much that points to him being a martial artist, though some people have claimed he knew one of the 7 or so versions of white crane that would have been available around that time. For me, I find it plausible that there was a separate cell under the same rebellion of which someone of some (but not the highest) status knew wing chun (Hung Gun Biu). As Li Wen Mao was a pretty big figurehead, I think it probably would have been more well known if he was a wing chun expert/creator. That even the white crane thing isn't 100% certain makes me doubt the connection, as most of what my line has about Hung Gun Biu talks about his fighting ability and what he contributed to our system, as well as his role as a Hung Gwan of that particular revolutionary cell.
> 
> Also, this is the same time that Wong Wa Bo was learning/had learnt Wing Chun, isn't it strange we'd be certain that some random actor knew wing chun but not someone who was a leader of a famous uprising?


I agree, hell, a lot of these characters in these legends were reputed to be salt merchants at one time, lol. Like I said earlier, it's quite plausible that Hung Gun Biu was a nickname of some fellow named Biu who was a member of the Red Turban Army who practiced Wing Chun. It's also quite plausible that Lee Man Mao gets credit simply because he was the figure head of the Rebellion, or, on the flip side, that he isn't recognized because he lost the Rebellion and was killed. Who knows and ultimately it doesn't matter. FWIW there is a lineage of White Crane that has him listed as a practitioner, but I honestly don't remember which one, plus I dont put a lot of faith into lineage charts. Someone had written an article that touched base on it in regards to the Rebellion as well but that was years ago. There is information floating around out there, but as with most things Wing Chun, it's unsubstantiated. Personally, I like the White Crane narrative just because I have experience there and have witnessed the similarities, but that doesn't make me right by any stretch of the imagination. Youve got a well rounded system, with soild theory and faithful leadership, who can ask for anything more?


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> No I"m not assuming that, I am simply saying it wasn't propagated like it is today. I've already stated I wasn't aware of it prior to the research of Santos, Chu, Iderola and Roselando. I've no doubt that Sum Nung embellished some aspects, but, his lineage gives just as much credit to Cheung Bo as to Yuen Kay San, and that says a lot.
> 
> What does it say exactly? How does Sum Nung mentioning Jeung Bo make what he claimed about the origins of the style more substantial than what others say? You have to remember, these others are his Sifus students and even his own (!) students. You keep saying things weren't propagated as today? How do you know? But there are many around today who were when Sum Nung was alive and teaching, who can tell you about the situation. I know quite a few people who have been training Wing Chun since the 1960 personally, from different lineages, and what they say paints a different pictures than what you believe was the case. Now, you can choose to keep insisting that all of these local people who were actually there don't know what they are talking about and you as someone who wasn't there knows better because you have read some articles and books in the West and some snippets of information you have heard from people who travelled there.
> 
> 
> No, but I have spoken with people who have been there, I've no reason to doubt their intentions with what was imparted to me.
> 
> 
> You see, the problem with people who.have been there is that they will at best hear something from one perspective and don't have the time and connections to check, verify and compare information. Just like the articles Jicjeung quoted as evidence. He tried to bolster the strength of this evidence by pointing out that Mr. Baniecki had been to Gulao many times - but the information he shared in the article is very wrong. And yet, people in the West think that his article is bona fide information and just as valid as what the Fung family elders say. People are of course free to believe, but personally I find it way more rational to give credence to the people who are as close to the source as possible.
> 
> 
> There is a lot that doesn't add up when looked at critically. I'm not saying that there isn't inconsistencies in Sum Nung's story, I'm saying that there is in the one you are presenting.
> 
> 
> Which story am I presenting?
> 
> That Law Man Gung was the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not my story, it is the story of various YKS and SN students and the Yiu Choi family. I don't know why you go off on this - I just mentioned this to contrast what was passed on to you to point out that what you have been told is not a "standard" version of the story.
> 
> I am not saying one thing is more true than the other as you seem to think - in fact, I believe that most of the names of people in the past were made up or certain people didn't exist, whoever's version we are talking about.
> 
> 
> Correct, I hadn't heard that until a few years ago. How does it make them superior?
> 
> 
> Why do you talk about "superior"? I think you might be projecting sth into my words because you couple Law Man Gung with a certain group of people who abused his name for nefarious purposes. I am not into one style being "superior" or the "original" one and such. I was simply relaying the fact to you that Yuen Kei Saan descendants and SN students claim Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen and - whether you can accept this or not - it IS a fact, since you are reluctant to accept it because I am informing you, I suggest you go to Gongjaau and Fatsaan yourself if you really want to find out the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> If Sum Nung never claimed that Law Man Gung was a part of the lineage, if Yuen Kay San's writings and the oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage make no claims to Law Man Gung how can it be true?
> 
> 
> Who said SN never claimed Law Man Gung was a part of his lineage? Again, I have been trying to tell you that (many of) his students in Gongjaau are saying he did! Why would they change this? How would that make them more "superior" to the other Sum Nung students who didn't change this? Your quarrel with this - as I understand it - makes no sense. Again, the problem seems to arise from the fact that you have never actually been to Gongjaau to experience the Wing Chun community there and you base your opinion on the information available in books and articles disseminated in the West. It is kind of like someone reading a very superficial travelling guide about a place  and forming and opinion based on that, but when told by natives or people who have been living there for a long time that what he believes is inaccurate, he insists that he knows better because the travel guide said so...
> 
> As far as Yuen Kei Saans writings go, who has actually seen them? Have you? Do you know anyone who actually has? Until then, bringing up these writings as evidence is not very scientific...
> 
> Oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage... Well, Yiu Choi was Yuen Chai Wan lineage, and he claimed Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok (Kwok) Bo Chuen. According to his family and students, he even went to learn more from Fok Bo Chuen after Yuen Chai Wan left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By putting Law Man Gung into the lineage, it says that particular line learned the "Real" stuff and everyone else got scraps. Its an old ploy used over and over again to claim true transmission and is prevalent throughout the martial arts world. It could be true, but without something more than a lineage chart that anyone can make up, more evidence is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct, this is a very common ploy - and always has been, even back in the days of the Gong Fu ancestors - but I have explained why this does not apply to the thing we are discussing. Again, why would YKS and SN people replace Dai Fa Min Gam with Law Man Gung as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen to make them more "authentic"? The still all claim Fok Bo Chuen in their lineage, so how does changing his teacher make anyone more superior?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, Yuen Chai Wan learned several arts, this doesn't mean he didn't learn Wing Chun early on.
> 
> 
> I am not drawing that conclusion, I am just saying that it is not implausible - as you seem to think - that the Yuen brothers learnt Wing Chun late in life. But given the mess of the history of their lineages, it is impossible to say and all one can do is speculate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You directly contradict yourself by stating that Law Man Gung is a Wing Chun ancestor yet didn't pass on Wing Chun to Fok Bo Chun.
> 
> 
> Hm... I don't think so. You focus to much on Law Man Gung, but the concern should be Fok Bo Chuen. Now, the oral histories of certain lineages say he was a "Snake style boxer" from Yamchow in Gongsai or even a "Five Animal Hong Kuen practicioner". But then the very same lineages have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong who according to the source learnt directly from Yim Wing Chun herself or Leung Bok Cho.
> 
> You see the mess, no doubt...
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, as I said, looking back to far leads nowhere - and as I said, I just mentioned Law Man Gung For the reasons explained above. There is no reason for wasting any energy discussing the veracity of things which were undoubtedly just made up to create a nice history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Yuen brothers never learned Wing Chun until Ng Chung So, they would have claimed Ng Chung So as their Wing Chun Sifu.
> 
> 
> No, they wouldn't. Now you are trying to apply contemporary Western logic to understand a different time and a different culture. At that time, unless you did a Baisi, you would not formally learn from a Master and call him sifu - unless you were a relative, perhaps. Remember, there weren't any commercial Wing Chun Mo Goons such as today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't the case, they call Fok Bo Chun their Wing Chun Sifu, so regardless if Fok learned from Law Man Gung or Wong Wah Bo, he still learned Wing Chun and taught Wing Chun to the Yuen brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not entirely correct. Yuen Kei Saan never claimed Fok Bo Chuen as his formal Sifu, he claimed Fong Siu Ching - according to the people who actually knew Yuen Kei Saan in Fatsaan.
> But yes, as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise.
> According to the YKS/SN lineage, Yuen Kei Saan learnt from FBC when he was rather young, and supposedly he learnt Saam To Kuen, pole, weapons, Fei Biu, etc. Supposedly, he and his brother learnt together... So why is it then, that YCW, as you said, just knew one SLT form? Wouldn't it make much more sense If the Yuen brothers learnt those forms in the 1930s, and YCW just picked up one form because he had to go to Vietnam (in 1936 according to his son) whereas YKS never left Fatsaan and thus could learn all of them? This is pure speculation on my part, of course, but seen in context it is not an unlikely scenario.
> But you said as much yourself earlier.
> If - as you said - the bulk of what the Yuen brothers learnt came from Ng Chun So, why must they have learnt "Wing Chun" from this Fok Bo Chuen?
> 
> All we can say is a huge mess - hence better to look at the techniques and skills to determine where things come from.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's Wing Chun ancestry isn't plagued by controversy, many branches have gapping holes, not just Yuen family.
> 
> 
> It is universal to Chinese martial arts, I am not singling out the Yuen family in particular, they just came up because you said Fok Bo Chuen learnt from Wong Wah Bou. The problem for the Yuen family tradition is that neither Fok Bo Chuen nor Fung Siu Ching can be verified, i.e. there are no records about them and what oral tradition there is contradicts historical facts. In comparison, Leung Jan who is of the same generation of teachers can be tracked and historically verified and what was transmitted is very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> One of my students spoke directly to Kwok Yue Ming, he was told that Leung Fook Cho passed on the Che Sin Kuen (aka; Chong Kuen) to Fok Chiu, same story as you've been told, but he was also told something else, that what was passed on were loose techniques and that Yiu Choi knew similar material that was passed onto him from Ng Chung So.
> 
> 
> Well of course, if you look at that form it is just a collection of basic Wing Chun moves that every Wing Chun style has, nothing special about it... So of course Yiu Choi would have learnt those techniques, just like others learning from Ng Chun So.
> 
> 
> Che Sin Kuen, as they call it now, is Fok Chiu's creation based on his understanding of the Chong Kuen material taught to him by Leung Fook Cho and Yiu Choi. I have no reason to believe I was lied to.
> 
> 
> 
> To be accurate, it is called "Che Chin Kuen" - the "Shooting Arrow Fist". You said something about this "Sin" referring to heart or sth, according to the form you have learnt, but it doesn't mean that. So what you are saying is that Fohk Chiu is lying about having learnt this particular form as it is because you have heard differently? You have no reason to believe you have been lied to, but with all information and all sources of information it has be considered that it is inaccurate not because of willful distortion or twisting of facts, but simply because it is what this particular source understands and knows. So, you surely have not been lied to - just like Jim and Mr. Baniecki ha not been lied to when they shared information from China in the past. So, why do you believe Fohk Chiu would be lying about having learnt this form instead of having created it itself? Do you know the story behind this form? And if Che Chin Kuen is Fohk Chiu's creation, why did you claim earlier that Ng Chun So taught four forms?
> 
> 
> If Ng Chung So was so famous, why does no one outside of Yiu Choi lineage claim him as their Sifu? Yiu Choi is the only "mainstream" branch that gives equal credit to Ng Chung So as a teacher, as they do to Yuen Chai Wan.
> 
> 
> Again, you might not like it because it contradicts your beliefs, but again - according to the seniors alive today - he was.
> 
> 
> Does Yip Man branch give such credit to Ng Chung So? How about the Yuen brothers? They supposedly learned most of their material from him yet don't call him sifu or give credit to him for learning Wing Chun. It just doesn't add up. If he was the Yuen's only source of Wing Chun, they would venerate him as Sifu. They don't do this, this tells me that what they learned from Fok Bo Chun was Wing Chun and goes along with the custom of one Sifu per pai.
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained this before, but you won't accept it because you cannot reconcile it with your logic. Again, applying 21st century Western logic, to Chinese 19th/early 20th century culture will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. If you understand this, things add upp perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> My musings come from oral transmissions that have been imparted to me, I've never claimed them as fact. You on the other hand are adamant that what you've been told is more truthful that what I've been told, hardly scientific.
> 
> 
> You got that a bit wrong, I was stating some facts you apparently were not aware of, such as
> 
> Ng Chun So being well known and respected in the martial community
> 
> Sum Nung not being the sole "disciple" of YKS
> 
> That alternative accounts about the lineage etc. have been public while SN was still alive and well
> 
> That Ng Chun So didn't teach four forms
> 
> That Law Man Gung wasn't introduced as anyones teacher because of Sergio, Hendrik Santo and co.
> 
> That listing Fok Bo Chuen as a student of Wong Wah Bo seems to be rather rare in YKS/SN circles.
> 
> apo
> 
> These are all easily verifiable facts, If you bother to come here and check them.
> 
> I am not claiming at all that what I have been told in terms of oral history is more truthful than what you have heard. Remember, most cannot be verified in any way. What I am saying is that a lot of what you say, call them oral traditions, are not told be the people in Fatsaan. If we consider them stories, many of the stories you are telling are not the stories told in Fatsaan. So then, given that each story contains a kernel of truth, which stories are more "reliable"? The ones told by the local people or the ones which only exist outside? If you use stories which were never told locally  to understand a local phenomenon, the picture you will draw will be inaccurate. Now, this doesn't change the fact that I think you are telling very interesting stories, and would like to hear more.
> 
> 
> I was taught the Chuan Sin Jeung (Chong Kuen), I was told it came from Ng Chung So. I learned this 30 years ago, before the internet, I have no reason to disbelieve it. Now, I will concede that my Dai Sigung probably choreographed the form from loose techniques, but the material came from Ng Chung So just as the Yiu Choi branch also states.
> 
> 
> See, you have been told this - but how does it match up with other sources? Ng Chun So had several students and many went to discuss Wing Chun at his place. The only one to mention Che Ching Kuen - your rendition "Chuan Sin Jeung" - is Fohk Chiu. Yiu Choi never practiced this, nor did Yiu Kay. But his sons adopted this form - just as they adopted a few other things. So, if your Tai Sigong put together a form based on techniques/maybe Saan Sau applications he learnt from Ng Chun so, it cannot be said that Ng Chun So taught four forms. If you claim that, it is plain wrong. It would be like Yip Ching students claiming YM taught four forms because YC (I presume  ) created a fourth form (for competion), I could give other examples.
> 
> 
> 
> Legend has it that Leung Jan passed this on, even Chan Yiu Min lineage relates a similar story, albeit, with a different form named Sei Mun.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source of that legend? No one here I have ever spoken to seems to have heard about Leung Jan passing on a set called what you stated... But I am always open to learn more.
> 
> Chan Yu Min lineage's "Sei Mun" is the second part of their "SLT"...


----------



## jlq

Haha... sorry... That quote thing didn't work out very well for me... :/


----------



## Nobody Important

*What does it say exactly? How does Sum Nung mentioning Jeung Bo make what he claimed about the origins of the style more substantial than what others say? You have to remember, these others are his Sifus students and even his own (!) students. You keep saying things weren't propagated as today? How do you know? But there are many around today who were when Sum Nung was alive and teaching, who can tell you about the situation. I know quite a few people who have been training Wing Chun since the 1960 personally, from different lineages, and what they say paints a different pictures than what you believe was the case. Now, you can choose to keep insisting that all of these local people who were actually there don't know what they are talking about and you as someone who wasn't there knows better because you have read some articles and books in the West and some snippets of information you have heard from people who travelled there. *

No, this isn't what I'm saying at all.
The fact that Sum Nung gives just as much credit to Chung Bo as he does to Yuen Kay San, in a time as you so adamantly pointed out, when it wasn't "proper" to do so, lends credibility to his rendition of Yuen Kay San history. You've already had a member or two from his line say that you're mistaken. Now if you are, I don't
know as I really don't care about Yuen Kay San's lineage. It has little bearing on mine.

*You see, the problem with people who.have been there is that they will at best hear something from one perspective and don't have the time and connections to check, verify and compare information. Just like the articles Jicjeung quoted as evidence. He tried to bolster the strength of this evidence by pointing out that Mr. Baniecki had been to Gulao many times - but the information he shared in the article is very wrong. And yet, people in the West think that his article is bona fide information and just as valid as what the Fung family elders say. People are of course free to believe, but personally I find it way more rational to give credence to the people who are as close to the source as possible.*

Basically what I'm hearing from you here is that what I've been told are lies and should be dismissed because they don't support the narrative you believe.

*Which story am I presenting? 

That Law Man Gung was the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not my story, it is the story of various YKS and SN students and the Yiu Choi family. I don't know why you go off on this - I just mentioned this to contrast what was passed on to you to point out that what you have been told is not a "standard" version of the story.

I am not saying one thing is more true than the other as you seem to think - in fact, I believe that most of the names of people in the past were made up or certain people didn't exist, whoever's version we are talking about.*

I'm beginning to wonder what you're trying to say. I've already stated it doesn't matter who taught Fok Bo Chun, if it was Law Man Gung or Wong Wah Bo, both were Wing Chun practitioners. This means what Fok Bo Chun was taught and passed on was Wing Chun. I don't see how that can be construed to to say that Fok Bo Chun never learned Wing Chun and was instead a Hung Kuen practitioner as YOU keep stating.

*Why do you talk about "superior"? I think you might be projecting sth into my words because you couple Law Man Gung with a certain group of people who abused his name for nefarious purposes. I am not into one style being "superior" or the "original" one and such. I was simply relaying the fact to you that Yuen Kei Saan descendants and SN students claim Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen and - whether you can accept this or not - it IS a fact, since you are reluctant to accept it because I am informing you, I suggest you go to Gongjaau and Fatsaan yourself if you really want to find out the facts.*

I believe you first implied that, never the less, it doesn't change the narrative. Regardless of who Fok Bo Chun studied from, both were considered Wing Chun practitioners. So if some of Sum Nung's "disciples" state that Fok learned from Law instead of Wong, the only thing that changes is the ancestry, not the art.

*If Sum Nung never claimed that Law Man Gung was a part of the lineage, if Yuen Kay San's writings and the oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage make no claims to Law Man Gung how can it be true? (me)


Who said SN never claimed Law Man Gung was a part of his lineage? Again, I have been trying to tell you that (many of) his students in Gongjaau are saying he did! Why would they change this? How would that make them more "superior" to the other Sum Nung students who didn't change this? Your quarrel with this - as I understand it - makes no sense. Again, the problem seems to arise from the fact that you have never actually been to Gongjaau to experience the Wing Chun community there and you base your opinion on the information available in books and articles disseminated in the West. It is kind of like someone reading a very superficial travelling guide about a place and forming and opinion based on that, but when told by natives or people who have been living there for a long time that what he believes is inaccurate, he insists that he knows better because the travel guide said so...*

I'll concede on the notion that Sum Nung never said that Law Man Gung wasn't a part of his lineage, fine, it doesn't make a difference, because he's not part of my lineage. You're under the assumption that I should accept the stories of others over my own lineage, simply because you believe them. Law Man Gung is not a part of Yuen Chai Wan's ancestry, it is clearly stated that Wong Wah Bo was Fok Bo Chun's teacher. Now, it very well may be that this is true and the information I have is incorrect, but you have nothing to offer as proof other than stories of Sum Nung students in Faatsan. You seem to want me to dismiss the accounts I've been told from people who were there, simply because they are now over here. I don't see the logic in that. To ask you, have those natives of Faatsan been to Hanoi and Saigon to ask the locals there what they think? It's a two way street, both sides of the story are needed to find the truth.

*Oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage... Well, Yiu Choi was Yuen Chai Wan lineage, and he claimed Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok (Kwok) Bo Chuen. According to his family and students, he even went to learn more from Fok Bo Chuen after Yuen Chai Wan left.*

I find it highly unlikely that Yiu Choi went to study with Fok Bo Chun after Yuen Chai Wan left for Vietnam, from my understanding Fok Bo Chun passed before Yiu Choi began his studies with Yuen Chai Wan, but Fok Chiu passed this story on so it must be true ('-'), and once again I'm supposed to dismiss my lineages narrative of the story because it isn't in the consensus, smh.

*Again, not entirely correct. Yuen Kei Saan never claimed Fok Bo Chuen as his formal Sifu, he claimed Fong Siu Ching - according to the people who actually knew Yuen Kei Saan in Fatsaan.
But yes, as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise.
According to the YKS/SN lineage, Yuen Kei Saan learnt from FBC when he was rather young, and supposedly he learnt Saam To Kuen, pole, weapons, Fei Biu, etc. Supposedly, he and his brother learnt together... So why is it then, that YCW, as you said, just knew one SLT form? Wouldn't it make much more sense If the Yuen brothers learnt those forms in the 1930s, and YCW just picked up one form because he had to go to Vietnam (in 1936 according to his son) whereas YKS never left Fatsaan and thus could learn all of them? This is pure speculation on my part, of course, but seen in context it is not an unlikely scenario.
But you said as much yourself earlier. 
If - as you said - the bulk of what the Yuen brothers learnt came from Ng Chun So, why must they have learnt "Wing Chun" from this Fok Bo Chuen?

All we can say is a huge mess - hence better to look at the techniques and skills to determine where things come from.*

From my understanding, as limited as it is because I'm not Chinese and couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of Chinese bullshitting sessions ('-'), Yuen Kay San and Yuen Chai Wan claimed both Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching as their instructors. Here, and I quote you, "_as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise". _Exactly as I've been saying, and what you contradicted yourself on earlier, what Fok Bo Chun learned was Wing Chun, regardless of who taught him. So What the Yuen brothers learned from Fok Bo Chun was in fact Wing Chun. I don't see why you are arguing this point with me, we are obviously in agreement here. If there is any contention, its with what Fung Siu Ching taught the Yuen brothers, and as I've stated a couple of times, it was most like Village Hung Kuen.

*Well of course, if you look at that form it is just a collection of basic Wing Chun moves that every Wing Chun style has, nothing special about it... So of course Yiu Choi would have learnt those techniques, just like others learning from Ng Chun So.


Che Sin Kuen, as they call it now, is Fok Chiu's creation based on his understanding of the Chong Kuen material taught to him by Leung Fook Cho and Yiu Choi. I have no reason to believe I was lied to. (me)



To be accurate, it is called "Che Chin Kuen" - the "Shooting Arrow Fist". You said something about this "Sin" referring to heart or sth, according to the form you have learnt, but it doesn't mean that. So what you are saying is that Fohk Chiu is lying about having learnt this particular form as it is because you have heard differently? You have no reason to believe you have been lied to, but with all information and all sources of information it has be considered that it is inaccurate not because of willful distortion or twisting of facts, but simply because it is what this particular source understands and knows. So, you surely have not been lied to - just like Jim and Mr. Baniecki ha not been lied to when they shared information from China in the past. So, why do you believe Fohk Chiu would be lying about having learnt this form instead of having created it itself? Do you know the story behind this form? And if Che Chin Kuen is Fohk Chiu's creation, why did you claim earlier that Ng Chun So taught four forms?*

To be accurate I never stated that their form was called Chuan Sin Jeung (Heart Penetrating Palm), mine is. Theirs is called Che Sin Kuen (This is how Kwok spells it on his website), as you stated, Shooting Arrow Fist. You made the presumption I was referring to Heart because of his Romanization. I stated earlier, and will repeat here, Chong Kuen is the informal term for the form, it has proper names like Chuan Sin Jeung (Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & Pak Hok), Jin Kuen (Hung Kuen), La Jin Choi (Wing Chun) etc.

Fok Chiu choreographed the form based on the loose techniques taught to him by Leung and Yiu, that the story I got from my student as told by Kwok. This doesn't mean that Fok Chiu created the method, in fact, many of the legends surrounding the fourth form state that it was a collection of loose techniques, and we can see evidence of this in several Wing Chun branches descending from Wong Wah Bo. Some created forms out of the material, others used it to bolster the weapons and dummy forms, some used it as San Sik training. I think you're hung up on the use of the term "form" as to mean a choreographed pattern of linked movement. I'm not referring to that and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. Now to answer you last question, why do I feel Ng Chung So passed this on? Because that is what I was told when I learned it, and I've already stated I believe that my Dai Sigung choreographed the set, but the material came from Ng Chung So. Now I understand you want me to outright dismiss this claim as false because it contradicts what you've been told, but I'm not going to do that without absolute proof just because "So and so from Faatsan said its not true". I'll believe the tradition from my own lineage over someone else's until that burden of absolute proof is met.

*If Ng Chung So was so famous, why does no one outside of Yiu Choi lineage claim him as their Sifu? Yiu Choi is the only "mainstream" branch that gives equal credit to Ng Chung So as a teacher, as they do to Yuen Chai Wan. (me)*


*Again, you might not like it because it contradicts your beliefs, but again - according to the seniors alive today - he was.


Does Yip Man branch give such credit to Ng Chung So? How about the Yuen brothers? They supposedly learned most of their material from him yet don't call him sifu or give credit to him for learning Wing Chun. It just doesn't add up. If he was the Yuen's only source of Wing Chun, they would venerate him as Sifu. They don't do this, this tells me that what they learned from Fok Bo Chun was Wing Chun and goes along with the custom of one Sifu per pai. (me)



I have explained this before, but you won't accept it because you cannot reconcile it with your logic. Again, applying 21st century Western logic, to Chinese 19th/early 20th century culture will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. If you understand this, things add upp perfectly.*

Logic is logic. Who other than Yiu Choi claims Ng Chung So as their sifu? I'll concede and accept he was popular, since you seem to be so adamant that he was, but if this is the case why isn't anyone claiming him as the driving force behind the propagation of the Wing Chun style as you so fervently believe? And in any case what the hell does it matter, unless you are suggesting that he was the "real" sifu of the Three Kings of Wing Chun (Yip Man, Yiu Choi & Yuen Kay San). If that is the case, spare me the ancestral worship crap of "one sifu per pai" mentality, and plainly state what YOU believe. Our discussion will be much more fruitful without all the supposition.

*You got that a bit wrong, I was stating some facts you apparently were not aware of, such as

Ng Chun So being well known and respected in the martial community

Sum Nung not being the sole "disciple" of YKS

That alternative accounts about the lineage etc. have been public while SN was still alive and well

That Ng Chun So didn't teach four forms

That Law Man Gung wasn't introduced as anyones teacher because of Sergio, Hendrik Santo and co.

That listing Fok Bo Chuen as a student of Wong Wah Bo seems to be rather rare in YKS/SN circles. 

apo

These are all easily verifiable facts, If you bother to come here and check them. *

What you're calling facts is nothing more than other peoples stories, not documented, verifiable truths, but simply another lineages renditions. I'm sure they are all very unbiased individuals with no ulterior motives other than seeking the truth ('-')

*I am not claiming at all that what I have been told in terms of oral history is more truthful than what you have heard. Remember, most cannot be verified in any way. What I am saying is that a lot of what you say, call them oral traditions, are not told be the people in Fatsaan. If we consider them stories, many of the stories you are telling are not the stories told in Fatsaan. So then, given that each story contains a kernel of truth, which stories are more "reliable"? The ones told by the local people or the ones which only exist outside? If you use stories which were never told locally to understand a local phenomenon, the picture you will draw will be inaccurate. Now, this doesn't change the fact that I think you are telling very interesting stories, and would like to hear more*

You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel the same in regards to that statement. I've told you my "stories" and you have been very dismissive because they don't match exactly the "stories" told to you by a few in Faatsan. This is the tradition that was handed down to me, however many holes may be in it, I'm not going to toss it all away because you feel yours are more "reliable". There isn't any reason we can't come to a mutual understanding, but you need to have a more open mind and give a little more credibility to the "stories" now told outside Faatsan, especially since the people I've trained with and spoken to once had ties there as well. Not everything everyone tells is the truth, no matter how much we want to believe them.

*I was taught the Chuan Sin Jeung (Chong Kuen), I was told it came from Ng Chung So. I learned this 30 years ago, before the internet, I have no reason to disbelieve it. Now, I will concede that my Dai Sigung probably choreographed the form from loose techniques, but the material came from Ng Chung So just as the Yiu Choi branch also states. (me)


See, you have been told this - but how does it match up with other sources? Ng Chun So had several students and many went to discuss Wing Chun at his place. The only one to mention Che Ching Kuen - your rendition "Chuan Sin Jeung" - is Fohk Chiu. Yiu Choi never practiced this, nor did Yiu Kay. But his sons adopted this form - just as they adopted a few other things. So, if your Tai Sigong put together a form based on techniques/maybe Saan Sau applications he learnt from Ng Chun so, it cannot be said that Ng Chun So taught four forms. If you claim that, it is plain wrong. It would be like Yip Ching students claiming YM taught four forms because YC (I presume  ) created a fourth form (for competion), I could give other examples.



Legend has it that Leung Jan passed this on, even Chan Yiu Min lineage relates a similar story, albeit, with a different form named Sei Mun. (me)



What is the source of that legend? No one here I have ever spoken to seems to have heard about Leung Jan passing on a set called what you stated... But I am always open to learn more.*

Honestly, I feel it matches pretty well. As I stated before I was told by my sifu that Ng Chung So passed this material on to his sifu. Kwok stated to my student that Ng passed this same material on to Yiu Choi, and it was incorporated into the Che Sin Kuen. Personally I don't know of any one else that studied under Ng Chung So than the few that I've mentioned. If you know of any, I'd like to hear what exactly they learned from him, perhaps I'll increase my understanding. As far as this same "4th Form" material being passed on to the Chan family, ask them for yourself. They claim Leung Jan passed on Sei Mun (4 Gates), La Jin Choi (Stretching Arrow Fist) and Lin Wan Kau Da (Continuous Capture and Hit), that corresponds to 3 of the four sections of Chuan Sin Jeung.

Now, as far as I'm concerned I've explained my position in detail. You can accept it or reject it. Take from it what you will, at this point we seem to be talking past each other so I think this is a good ending point to our discussion.


----------



## Poppity

Soooo... In an attempted nonchalant voice... Any place someone could get to see the four sections of chuan sin jeung?


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important, 

to make something very simple which became very complicated simple again (or maybe not) :

People are free to choose to believe what they want - and most like to hang on to what their hear first, expecially if told by someone who is perceive as an authority figure.

Now, I will repeat - your stories do not match the local stories in Fatsaan, fwiw. That is, there is not much to discuss. 

You seem so desperately, hang on to every little thing that supports your belief, mentioning some person here did not agree with me. You just conveniently ignore the fact that this person - like you - is not aware of the situation in China. Now, you - and certain others - might not know this, but even Sum Nung guys themselves say that Fok Bo Chuen taught "Snake Hand/Fist" and learned Wing Chun from Fong Siu Ching... So understand you have a problem with me pointing out that out?

You seem to think I am pushing some agenda, but I am not at all. 

I think all versions of Wing Chun from the early generations is great and I have absolutely no interest in promoting one branch on the expense of another. Whatever the true history, whenever and from whomever they learnt it, YKS and YCW learnt Wing Chun. The proof is in the pudding. 

So.

Again, just presentating information from Fatsaan and the Wing Chun Pai there. Because a lot of what is believed by people in the West and presented - see the articles Jicjeung linked to - and some of what you are saying is either wrong, inaccurate or not what is told in China.

That is all, am I saying that I believe everything? I don't think so...

Now.

How are what I call facts not facts? 

Considering what you yourself believe, you question the veracity of something every senior alive today in the Fatsaan Wing Chun community I have spoken to confirms - and local researchers of the art, too. So when a bunch of people who knew Ng Chun So and people who are from different styles all say he was well known, personally I find this much more credible than claiming that he wasn't because neither YM nor YKS/YCW called him "Sifu", for which their are obvious reasons. In spit of what you think, that is not strange at all, if you know the culture of the time. 

How is people using Law Man Gong in their lineage Tree way before you became aware of the name not a fact? So, everybody is lying then? How do you explain that Yiu Kay mentioned Law Man Gong to Leung Ting already in the 80s? Leung Ting published articles about his findings in a HK Newspaper... 

How is it not a fact that Wong Wah Bo is not mentioned as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen by any school here (I have seen)? Usually, it is Dai Fa Min Gam or Law Man Gong. 

And so forth.

All this is not as easily dismissed as you are doing it - if so, nothing historical can be proven at all. It is all something someone said at some point, even if it was written down. Then nothing we know is true if said by someone.



Now, you seem to have misunderstood something - my purpose for writing I have already stated earlier, it is not my intention to make you change your mind about anything...

You can believe whatever you want, the point is - as I have said before - that your stories do not correlate with the stories nor the situation in Fatsaan. That is all, you and everybody else can make of it what they want...



You talk about "Chong Kuen" - Vincent Kwok calls it "Che Tsin Kuen" on his site, if you want to be precise - "material"... If there was no form, just "material" how can one then say that there was a 4th form? Seems very illogical... Where did the legend that Leung Jan taught a form by the name you mention come from? You talk about Chan Yu Min lineage instead... I will ask Chan Gok Gei Sifu next time I see him. As far as I know now, the Sei Muhn is - as I said - what they call the second part of their SLT - and That looks nothing like what Fohk Chiu and the Yiu brothers do in their Che Chin/Tsin Kuen... In fact, the "material" of the Sei Muhn part of the SLT set is quite unlike "Fatsaan Wing Chun". If you have such "material" in your set, tracing this to Ng Chun So is... well... quite a stretch. The other two forms you mention, I don't know. I have seen a lot of Chan Yu Min Siulam Weng Chun at various celebrations, many forms, but many of them don't look anything like Wing Chun and I don't know their names. I will try to find out more.

Thank you for the discussion, I am serious and sincere about learning more about your stories and such, so... As promised, you will hear from me.


----------



## jlq

Oh... forgot something, I feel these points are interesting and need to be adressed:



Nobody Important said:


> From my understanding, as limited as it is because I'm not Chinese and couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of Chinese bullshitting sessions ('-'), Yuen Kay San and Yuen Chai Wan claimed both Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching as their instructors. Here, and I quote you, "_as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise". _Exactly as I've been saying, and what you contradicted yourself on earlier, what Fok Bo Chun learned was Wing Chun, regardless of who taught him. So What the Yuen brothers learned from Fok Bo Chun was in fact Wing Chun. I don't see why you are arguing this point with me, we are obviously in agreement here. If there is any contention, its with what Fung Siu Ching taught the Yuen brothers, and as I've stated a couple of times, it was most like Village Hung Kuen.




Even though it rubs you the wrong way, it is a common mistake in historical research that findings are interpreted out of time and out of culture. Even when it comes to contemporary culture people are making an awful lot of assumptions about China because they don't know or understand it - you can't, unless you actually come here and become a part of the culture and society. Anyone who has been living hear for a longer period will confirm this - I can hook you up with a few friends of mine who can tell you all about it. It has nothing to do with any "Bullshitting" session as you call it. 

If you think I am contradicting myself, either I don't present my point very well, or you just don't understand for some reason.

I explained this in my post prior to this one, but again - to be clear: Whatever YKS and YKS learnt from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Ching and others, what they (the Yuens) taught later (to some people) was Wing Chun. Is my point more clear now?

I am not arguing with you about what Fok Bo Chuen taught or not, I was not there. I am just telling you that in Fatsaan Wing Chun circles, he is either a student of Law Man Gung or Dai Fa Mien Gam - and it is said he was a Snake Style boxer from Yamchow, other sources claim that he was a Hong Kuen boxer, as I have been telling you. According to a written document by SN, YKS learnt "a little" Wing Chun from Fok Bo Chuen when he was very young... Note: A little.. How can that be all forms, dummy, weapons, Fei Biu, Red Sand palm,etc as was later claimed he learnt from FBC? Just something to think about... 



Nobody Important said:


> To be accurate I never stated that their form was called Chuan Sin Jeung (Heart Penetrating Palm), mine is. Theirs is called Che Sin Kuen (This is how Kwok spells it on his website), as you stated, Shooting Arrow Fist. You made the presumption I was referring to Heart because of his Romanization. I stated earlier, and will repeat here, Chong Kuen is the informal term for the form, it has proper names like Chuan Sin Jeung (Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & Pak Hok), Jin Kuen (Hung Kuen), La Jin Choi (Wing Chun) etc.



I know, I never stated I thought you called your form Che Ching/Tsin Kuen... I was referring specifically to the name you gave for your form, Chuan Sin Jeung. I pointed out "Sin" is a wrong romanization of "heart" - should be "sum", that was all. Now we are at it, "Chuan" is not a very good romanization either, normally "Chuen" is used for a more accurate rendition of the sound, fwiw. Also, if you want to romanize the Cantonese sound of the character for arrow, "sin" is a rather bad choice... Tsin or Chin (for my native language) is much more accurate. 



Nobody Important said:


> in fact, many of the legends surrounding the fourth form state that it was a collection of loose techniques, and we can see evidence of this in several Wing Chun branches descending from Wong Wah Bo. Some created forms out of the material,



What are those legends exactly? The only ones who have a fourth empty hand form was Fohk Chiu and now the Yiu brothers. So, where would those legends about a fourth form (which is not a form?!) come from? And which several Branchesfrom Wong Wah Bou can we see this in and what forms did they create?



Nobody Important said:


> but if this is the case why isn't anyone claiming him as the driving force behind the propagation of the Wing Chun style as you so fervently believe? And in any case what the hell does it matter,



I have already explained to you on multiple occasions why. I am not sure what you mean by "driving force behind the propagation of Wing Chun... Yuen Kei Saan, Yip Man and Yiu Choi never intended to propagate Wing Chun en masse. Whether Ng Chun So was famous or not matters because you claimed he wasn't... My whole point of writing this is to show how a lot of what is considered fact by people outside of China is not, that many of the stories floating around in the West do not exist in China. Why it matters should be clear then.

Whether he was well known or not, personally, I couldn't care less... 



Nobody Important said:


> Faatsan, especially since the people I've trained with and spoken to once had ties there as well. Not everything everyone tells is the truth, no matter how much we want to believe them.



Have ties? What exactly does that mean? Who have you trained with from what lineages? 

Absolutely! And what you are told very often depends on the relationship with the person answering the questions. But you seem to forget - or don't understand - that given the nature of Gung Fu culture in China (at that time) the truth is well-nigh Impossible to ascertain. The best one can do is provide an educated guess based on multiple data points, I am not arguing what anyone REALLY learnt or from whom - the TRUTH, if you will. I am merely presenting (some of) the common stories in Fatsaan so people can see how they differ from stories from other sources.

What people choose to believe and what the truth is to them, what do I care?


----------



## APL76

haven't had time (not the inclination really either) to read through all if this in its entirety however I have noticed the talk of Fok Bo Chun learning from Law Man Gung. I have to give half of an apology to KPM here as in a previous thread I insisted that Fok Bo Chun learned from Dai Fa Min Kam; it seems I was mistaken and that Fok Bo Chun did not learn from Dai Fa Min Kam (so sorry KPM, I was mistaken).

For 22 years that's what my sifu told me (my sifu is a disciple of Sum Nung). However, obijuanslami is a bit of a wing chun genealogist and asked sifu to have a look at a wing chun family tree he had drawn up. Sifu checked it against material he had from Sum Nung and found that according to Sum Nung Fok Bo Chun did indeed learn from Law Man Gung.

Regarding leung ngau as a disciple of Yeun Kay San, if that's the old guy making that claim. I had a look at him doing Sui Lim Tao. If he is a disciple of Yuen Kay San I'm the king of England. If one knows what they are looking at there are tell tail signs of where the wing chun came from, and I suspect I know exactly where that sui lim tao came from. As I said earlier, the wing chun speaks for itself.


----------



## jlq

APL76 said:


> haven't had time (not the inclination really either) to read through all if this in its entirety however I have noticed the talk of Fok Bo Chun learning from Law Man Gung. I have to give half of an apology to KPM here as in a previous thread I insisted that Fok Bo Chun learned from Dai Fa Min Kam; it seems I was mistaken and that Fok Bo Chun did not learn from Dai Fa Min Kam (so sorry KPM, I was mistaken).
> 
> For 22 years that's what my sifu told me (my sifu is a disciple of Sum Nung). However, obijuanslami is a bit of a wing chun genealogist and asked sifu to have a look at a wing chun family tree he had drawn up. Sifu checked it against material he had from Sum Nung and found that according to Sum Nung Fok Bo Chun did indeed learn from Law Man Gung.
> 
> Regarding leung ngau as a disciple of Yeun Kay San, if that's the old guy making that claim. I had a look at him doing Sui Lim Tao. If he is a disciple of Yuen Kay San I'm the king of England. If one knows what they are looking at there are tell tail signs of where the wing chun came from, and I suspect I know exactly where that sui lim tao came from. As I said earlier, the wing chun speaks for itself.



APL, I will give you the executive version.



In Gongjaau SN Wing Chun guys claim FBC learnt from Dai Fa Min Kam, while others say it is Law Man Gong. 

Leung Ngau is - and whether your Sifu says so or not - a disciple of Yuen Kei Saan, who was his Gujeung. Unless you have been to Fatsaan and talked to the people here, you are limited to know the story your Sifu tells you. A question for you... Who in Gongjaau is doing the "real" YKS Wing Chun?


----------



## jlq

Also, I would be very interested in hearing where you suspect his SLT came from, if you care to share. Maybe privately?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Quite honestly I put way more stock into what I can physically see and feel along with  my own intuition than I do to blind faith in stories. I've personally seen the relationship between Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & White Crane, I've studied numerous branches of each and no one is going to sway my opinion that they didnt come from the same source. There is way too much overlap in form, technique and theory IMO. So even if one ancestor is swapped for another, it diesnt really change anything as far as the art is concerned, only the narrative. Thank you for your insights this has been an interesting discussion.



Not to throw another wrench in the works, but...............running with the idea that one should take into account the physical aspects of the art as far as tracing sources.....how do you guys see the Hakka arts relating to Wing Chun?   To me, there is just as many or more physical commonalities between Wing Chun and something like Southern Mantis as there is between Wing Chun and Hung Kuen.


----------



## Poppity

Is it possible that around 1640s onwards, that a number of different  southern martial artists amongst the Han civilian population who did not defect to become Bannermen for the Qing, and were not allowed the same legal privileges of carrying weapons began to develop a short bridge close quarter martial arts by focusing on those techniques which fell within that definition. It would explain why most people's lineages fall into conflicting speculation before and around this time, why the style was mainly practiced by wealthy Han civilian merchant families, why there are similarities and variations between southern styles including Wing chun, the anti Qing sentiments maybe even the reason it is called spring poem eternal spring, because the art was blossoming from the old.. And maybe because of the Chinese obsession with tradition and history lots of nonsense about southern shaolin temples and elder monks began to surface.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> to make something very simple which became very complicated simple again (or maybe not) :
> 
> People are free to choose to believe what they want - and most like to hang on to what their hear first, expecially if told by someone who is perceive as an authority figure.
> 
> Now, I will repeat - your stories do not match the local stories in Fatsaan, fwiw. That is, there is not much to discuss.
> 
> You seem so desperately, hang on to every little thing that supports your belief, mentioning some person here did not agree with me. You just conveniently ignore the fact that this person - like you - is not aware of the situation in China. Now, you - and certain others - might not know this, but even Sum Nung guys themselves say that Fok Bo Chuen taught "Snake Hand/Fist" and learned Wing Chun from Fong Siu Ching... So understand you have a problem with me pointing out that out?
> 
> You seem to think I am pushing some agenda, but I am not at all.
> 
> I think all versions of Wing Chun from the early generations is great and I have absolutely no interest in promoting one branch on the expense of another. Whatever the true history, whenever and from whomever they learnt it, YKS and YCW learnt Wing Chun. The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> So.
> 
> Again, just presentating information from Fatsaan and the Wing Chun Pai there. Because a lot of what is believed by people in the West and presented - see the articles Jicjeung linked to - and some of what you are saying is either wrong, inaccurate or not what is told in China.
> 
> That is all, am I saying that I believe everything? I don't think so...
> 
> Now.
> 
> How are what I call facts not facts?
> 
> Considering what you yourself believe, you question the veracity of something every senior alive today in the Fatsaan Wing Chun community I have spoken to confirms - and local researchers of the art, too. So when a bunch of people who knew Ng Chun So and people who are from different styles all say he was well known, personally I find this much more credible than claiming that he wasn't because neither YM nor YKS/YCW called him "Sifu", for which their are obvious reasons. In spit of what you think, that is not strange at all, if you know the culture of the time.
> 
> How is people using Law Man Gong in their lineage Tree way before you became aware of the name not a fact? So, everybody is lying then? How do you explain that Yiu Kay mentioned Law Man Gong to Leung Ting already in the 80s? Leung Ting published articles about his findings in a HK Newspaper...
> 
> How is it not a fact that Wong Wah Bo is not mentioned as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen by any school here (I have seen)? Usually, it is Dai Fa Min Gam or Law Man Gong.
> 
> And so forth.
> 
> All this is not as easily dismissed as you are doing it - if so, nothing historical can be proven at all. It is all something someone said at some point, even if it was written down. Then nothing we know is true if said by someone.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you seem to have misunderstood something - my purpose for writing I have already stated earlier, it is not my intention to make you change your mind about anything...
> 
> You can believe whatever you want, the point is - as I have said before - that your stories do not correlate with the stories nor the situation in Fatsaan. That is all, you and everybody else can make of it what they want...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about "Chong Kuen" - Vincent Kwok calls it "Che Tsin Kuen" on his site, if you want to be precise - "material"... If there was no form, just "material" how can one then say that there was a 4th form? Seems very illogical... Where did the legend that Leung Jan taught a form by the name you mention come from? You talk about Chan Yu Min lineage instead... I will ask Chan Gok Gei Sifu next time I see him. As far as I know now, the Sei Muhn is - as I said - what they call the second part of their SLT - and That looks nothing like what Fohk Chiu and the Yiu brothers do in their Che Chin/Tsin Kuen... In fact, the "material" of the Sei Muhn part of the SLT set is quite unlike "Fatsaan Wing Chun". If you have such "material" in your set, tracing this to Ng Chun So is... well... quite a stretch. The other two forms you mention, I don't know. I have seen a lot of Chan Yu Min Siulam Weng Chun at various celebrations, many forms, but many of them don't look anything like Wing Chun and I don't know their names. I will try to find out more.
> 
> Thank you for the discussion, I am serious and sincere about learning more about your stories and such, so... As promised, you will hear from me.



Listen you can try and spin this a thousand ways via your "sources" in Faatsan to discredit the oral legends of my lineage, whatever floats your boat buddy. The only problem I have is with an arrogant, pompous internet troll that keeps creating fake accounts to harass people online that don't agree with him.

WELCOME BACK GUY!


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Oh... forgot something, I feel these points are interesting and need to be adressed:Even though it rubs you the wrong way, it is a common mistake in historical research that findings are interpreted out of time and out of culture. Even when it comes to contemporary culture people are making an awful lot of assumptions about China because they don't know or understand it - you can't, unless you actually come here and become a part of the culture and society. Anyone who has been living hear for a longer period will confirm this - I can hook you up with a few friends of mine who can tell you all about it. It has nothing to do with any "Bullshitting" session as you call it.



Yes, context is everything, and you've made it clear that you believe the information you have is more credible than what I have. You refuse to accept another point of view for the exact same reasons you charge me with, that's ironic.



jlq said:


> If you think I am contradicting myself, either I don't present my point very well, or you just don't understand for some reason.



No you don't, but I have a suspicion that wasn't your intention anyways



jlq said:


> I explained this in my post prior to this one, but again - to be clear: Whatever YKS and YKS learnt from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Ching and others, what they (the Yuens) taught later (to some people) was Wing Chun. Is my point more clear now?



It's filled with innuendo, but yes quite clear. I get it, you feel that what the Yuen brothers taught is watered down and broken Wing Chun that they probably learned from Ng Chung So and mixed with Snake style or Hung Kuen boxing. And that they don't have the full grasp of the Wing Chun system and pure transmission like Yip Man did. 

It's sad really, me living rent free in your head Guy, find a new obsession.



jlq said:


> I am not arguing with you about what Fok Bo Chuen taught or not, I was not there. I am just telling you that in Fatsaan Wing Chun circles, he is either a student of Law Man Gung or Dai Fa Mien Gam - and it is said he was a Snake Style boxer from Yamchow, other sources claim that he was a Hong Kuen boxer, as I have been telling you. According to a written document by SN, YKS learnt "a little" Wing Chun from Fok Bo Chuen when he was very young... Note: A little.. How can that be all forms, dummy, weapons, Fei Biu, Red Sand palm,etc as was later claimed he learnt from FBC? Just something to think about...



Written document, what written document, who's seen this document, who's in possession of it, LOLOLOLOL!! Wow, you're something. A few lines ago didn't you ask me to produce the individuals who possess the Sum Nung documents and now yourself are stating that according to the "Sum Nung document..."  All this is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what the Yuen family taught so that you can claim Yip Man was the sole inheritor of the Wing Chun system. You're transparent Guy, you always have been.




jlq said:


> I know, I never stated I thought you called your form Che Ching/Tsin Kuen... I was referring specifically to the name you gave for your form, Chuan Sin Jeung. I pointed out "Sin" is a wrong romanization of "heart" - should be "sum", that was all. Now we are at it, "Chuan" is not a very good romanization either, normally "Chuen" is used for a more accurate rendition of the sound, fwiw. Also, if you want to romanize the Cantonese sound of the character for arrow, "sin" is a rather bad choice... Tsin or Chin (for my native language) is much more accurate.



Cherry picking, good to see that you still favor that tactic Guy B.




jlq said:


> What are those legends exactly? The only ones who have a fourth empty hand form was Fohk Chiu and now the Yiu brothers. So, where would those legends about a fourth form (which is not a form?!) come from? And which several Branchesfrom Wong Wah Bou can we see this in and what forms did they create?



You're the self proclaimed expert on everything Wing Chun, why don't you tell me




jlq said:


> My whole point of writing this is to show how a lot of what is considered fact by people outside of China is not, that many of the stories floating around in the West do not exist in China. Why it matters should be clear then.



Basically what I'm hearing here is that if it differs from the viewpoint currently held in China today, its a lie, especially if its coming from the West. Take no heed to the fact that the information presented is coming from people that once lived in China, smh.



jlq said:


> Have ties? What exactly does that mean? Who have you trained with from what lineages?
> 
> Absolutely! And what you are told very often depends on the relationship with the person answering the questions. But you seem to forget - or don't understand - that given the nature of Gung Fu culture in China (at that time) the truth is well-nigh Impossible to ascertain. The best one can do is provide an educated guess based on multiple data points, I am not arguing what anyone REALLY learnt or from whom - the TRUTH, if you will. I am merely presenting (some of) the common stories in Fatsaan so people can see how they differ from stories from other sources.
> 
> What people choose to believe and what the truth is to them, what do I care?



I've relayed the information numerous times Guy, to you and LFJ, it's not my fault you can't seem to retain information.

You said, and I quote: "_Absolutely! And what you are told very often depends on the relationship with the person answering the questions. But you seem to forget - or don't understand - that given the nature of Gung Fu culture in China (at that time) the truth is well-nigh Impossible to ascertain_".  Hmm, that says it all doesn't it. An insinuation that I didn't have a close relationship with the individuals whom imparted information to me, so I can't possibly know the truth, neither can they because it doesn't fit a narrative you've built up inside your head. Ridiculous.

I'm not interested in your narrative Guy, we've had this discussion numerous times before. Our discussion is over, please stop targeting me, you're obviously very mentally unstable and I've no desire to interact with you.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,

what has gotten into you?



Guy B.?

Your insights don't serve you very well - and you seem to get a bit emotional about this matter which makes you loose perspective and getting carried away.

Everything you wrote above couldn't be more wrong. 



Now, Guy B... Hm... I am not British, I don't practice Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun and I do not write here with the express purpose to antagonize you.

I gave you my real name, and it is not Guy B., is it?

KPM can verify that your imagination is on overdrive now...



You should be quite embarrassed about the nonsense you are spouting now:

SN was awesome and so is his Wing Chun, I prefer this over any HK Wing Chun style any day.

Would Guy B. say that?



And then this one:

"Written document, what written document, who's seen this document, who's in possession of it, LOLOLOLOL!! Wow, you're something. A few lines ago didn't you ask me to produce the individuals who possess the Sum Nung documents and now yourself are stating that according to the "Sum Nung document..." All this is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what the Yuen family taught so that you can claim Yip Man was the sole inheritor of the Wing Chun system. You're transparent Guy, you always have been."

You have no.idea how much you are embarrassing yourself right now! 

It is quite funny how a person can be so wrong... Hilarious, actually.



I don't mean any offense, but you need to calm down and be less emotional when you read what I write, as you will misinterpret my words and my intentions - as you have so grotesquely demonstrated.

I aske you to do it because I wanted you to provide evidence to support your claim. I didn't say anything about whether or not I could produce such a thing or not, nor did you ask...

The fact is, I can, I have a picture of a handwritten document by Sum Nung and I know some people who have some more, authentic documents from Sum Nung. APL76 whom you mentioned to support your view about me being wrong about certain things in the SN lineage (about Law Man Gung) shared with us that his Sifu (who is a bona fide disciple of Sum Nung) confirmed that FBC did indeed learn from Law Man Gong. Considering how fervently you contested what I said about this matter was not a fact, you should not be laughing at anyone but yourself.



As you can see, just because you don't know something doesn't make it speculation...

Now, considering that I am not a YM lineage practicioner, why would I extol his style over YKS or YCWs? And how is saying FBC being a "Snake Hand" or Hung Kuen boxer diminishing the two when I clearly said that whatever they had learnt whenever from whomever, they both taught their students (some of them at least in YCW's case apparently) Wing Chun.

You are not making much sense...


Then this:

"Cherry picking, good to see that you still favor that tactic Guy B."

Cherry picking? I was just pointing out where you got something a bit wrong... But it seems this is not something you really appreciate, is it?

And it keeps coming:

"You're the self proclaimed expert on everything Wing Chun, why don't you tell me"

It seems like you are projecting things now, I never claimed to be an expert on anything - more of a messenger. So what is your issue? You don't like being presses for detail, is it that? Again, I have no agenda or nefarious plan - KPM knows me personally and can attest to the fact that I do not play games - so there is no need for this attitide from your side. I am really genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. I hope you can understand this.


"Basically what I'm hearing here is that if it differs from the viewpoint currently held in China today, its a lie, especially if its coming from the West. Take no heed to the fact that the information presented is coming from people that once lived in China, smh."

The problem here is that you are hearing something which is not being said and take offense. Nobody said anything about any lies... I think you need to clear your mind, calm down a bit and read again what my message is. I know at least one person here understood perfectly what the point was...

"I've relayed the information numerous times Guy, to you and LFJ, it's not my fault you can't seem to retain information."

Since I am still not this Guy B. or LFJ or anyone but myself, I am sorry, I never received that information... 


"Hmm, that says it all doesn't it. An insinuation that I didn't have a close relationship with the individuals whom imparted information to me, so I can't possibly know the truth, neither can they because it doesn't fit a narrative you've built up inside your head. Ridiculous."

What to say other than:

...

I have no idea what narrative I am supposed to have, what I mean to say is right there in the words. Forget anything about narratives and hidden agendas, just read the words and take them as they were written. 

Mentally unstable...

Now, now... Where is your civility?

it seems someone here is emotionally unstable and has lost the ability to see things clearly. I suggest being more careful about throwing such blut and unwarranted insults at people when emotionally perturbed, some might take offense...

Personally, I am just greatly intertained about how it is possible to be so wrong.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> what has gotten into you?
> 
> 
> 
> Guy B.?
> 
> Your insights don't serve you very well - and you seem to get a bit emotional about this matter which makes you loose perspective and getting carried away.
> 
> Everything you wrote above couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Guy B... Hm... I am not British, I don't practice Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun and I do not write here with the express purpose to antagonize you.
> 
> I gave you my real name, and it is not Guy B., is it?
> 
> KPM can verify that your imagination is on overdrive now...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be quite embarrassed about the nonsense you are spouting now:
> 
> SN was awesome and so is his Wing Chun, I prefer this over any HK Wing Chun style any day.
> 
> Would Guy B. say that?
> 
> 
> 
> And then this one:
> 
> "Written document, what written document, who's seen this document, who's in possession of it, LOLOLOLOL!! Wow, you're something. A few lines ago didn't you ask me to produce the individuals who possess the Sum Nung documents and now yourself are stating that according to the "Sum Nung document..." All this is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what the Yuen family taught so that you can claim Yip Man was the sole inheritor of the Wing Chun system. You're transparent Guy, you always have been."
> 
> You have no.idea how much you are embarrassing yourself right now!
> 
> It is quite funny how a person can be so wrong... Hilarious, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean any offense, but you need to calm down and be less emotional when you read what I write, as you will misinterpret my words and my intentions - as you have so grotesquely demonstrated.
> 
> I aske you to do it because I wanted you to provide evidence to support your claim. I didn't say anything about whether or not I could produce such a thing or not, nor did you ask...
> 
> The fact is, I can, I have a picture of a handwritten document by Sum Nung and I know some people who have some more, authentic documents from Sum Nung. APL76 whom you mentioned to support your view about me being wrong about certain things in the SN lineage (about Law Man Gung) shared with us that his Sifu (who is a bona fide disciple of Sum Nung) confirmed that FBC did indeed learn from Law Man Gong. Considering how fervently you contested what I said about this matter was not a fact, you should not be laughing at anyone but yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, just because you don't know something doesn't make it speculation...
> 
> Now, considering that I am not a YM lineage practicioner, why would I extol his style over YKS or YCWs? And how is saying FBC being a "Snake Hand" or Hung Kuen boxer diminishing the two when I clearly said that whatever they had learnt whenever from whomever, they both taught their students (some of them at least in YCW's case apparently) Wing Chun.
> 
> You are not making much sense...
> 
> 
> Then this:
> 
> "Cherry picking, good to see that you still favor that tactic Guy B."
> 
> Cherry picking? I was just pointing out where you got something a bit wrong... But it seems this is not something you really appreciate, is it?
> 
> And it keeps coming:
> 
> "You're the self proclaimed expert on everything Wing Chun, why don't you tell me"
> 
> It seems like you are projecting things now, I never claimed to be an expert on anything - more of a messenger. So what is your issue? You don't like being presses for detail, is it that? Again, I have no agenda or nefarious plan - KPM knows me personally and can attest to the fact that I do not play games - so there is no need for this attitide from your side. I am really genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. I hope you can understand this.
> 
> 
> "Basically what I'm hearing here is that if it differs from the viewpoint currently held in China today, its a lie, especially if its coming from the West. Take no heed to the fact that the information presented is coming from people that once lived in China, smh."
> 
> The problem here is that you are hearing something which is not being said and take offense. Nobody said anything about any lies... I think you need to clear your mind, calm down a bit and read again what my message is. I know at least one person here understood perfectly what the point was...
> 
> "I've relayed the information numerous times Guy, to you and LFJ, it's not my fault you can't seem to retain information."
> 
> Since I am still not this Guy B. or LFJ or anyone but myself, I am sorry, I never received that information...
> 
> 
> "Hmm, that says it all doesn't it. An insinuation that I didn't have a close relationship with the individuals whom imparted information to me, so I can't possibly know the truth, neither can they because it doesn't fit a narrative you've built up inside your head. Ridiculous."
> 
> What to say other than:
> 
> ...
> 
> I have no idea what narrative I am supposed to have, what I mean to say is right there in the words. Forget anything about narratives and hidden agendas, just read the words and take them as they were written.
> 
> Mentally unstable...
> 
> Now, now... Where is your civility?
> 
> it seems someone here is emotionally unstable and has lost the ability to see things clearly. I suggest being more careful about throwing such blut and unwarranted insults at people when emotionally perturbed, some might take offense...
> 
> Personally, I am just greatly intertained about how it is possible to be so wrong.


Jesper,

This is why I'm "Over Reacting".

If you're not Guy B. you sure are acting like him. I gave you honest answers to every question you asked. You are the one who is being disingenuous and acting like a pompous *** by telling me everything I say is wrong, based on nothing more than hearsay. How am I supposed to respond to that? 

I would love nothing more than to have a serious and fruitful discussion with you but that can't happen when you aren't being receptive to information that is shared with you, because you are being biased and have already made up your mind before you hear it.

You've discounted everything I've told you about the history of my lineage as a lie and you expect me to take no offense.

You have offered absolutely ZERO proof that overturns what I've been told about the history of my lineage, all the while touting what you supposedly heard from a few individuals in Faatsan as the truth.

I am all for sorting out the mess that is associated with any discrepancies, but you really need to learn how to give and take in a discussion and not just say WRONG, WRONG, WRONG without a shred of real supporting evidence. Everything you've presented is nothing more than hearsay, hardly proof in and of itself. You have been acting hypocritical in every response, yet you want me to sit back and accept it without question. Sorry, I can't do that.

You keep touting that what you've heard from people in Faatsan as truth, without question, yet when you hear from others outside Faatsan you assume their lying because it differs. That's gullible!

You stated above:   "_I aske you to do it because I wanted you to provide evidence to support your claim. I didn't say anything about whether or not I could produce such a thing or not, nor did you ask..._"    I provided the exact same form of evidence that you did to counter it, you outright dismissed it. And, I did ask if you could produce such a thing, you only responded with "I heard it from someone in Faatsan" as your evidence. Do you see the issue there?

Personally your whole passive aggressive and dismissive attitude has been quite off putting. You came to me, I didn't seek you out. You asked the questions and I answered you as honestly as I could. You didn't seem to like my responses because they differed from what you have been told. Do you see the problem there? Can you understand why I think you've been arrogant and pompous?

It is what it is. It's the truth that I know. It is what was passed on to me. For all I know it could be 100% true or 100% false, but what I've told you is what was passed on. You can believe it as true, plausible or outright false. I really don't care.

You thought that I could help you on your quest to better understand what you've learned by answering questions, I was more  than happy to share what I've learned. You've been disrespectful towards me and insinuated that everything I told you is a lie. Put yourself in my place and tell me honestly if your perspective doesn't change.

It appears as if you have already made up your mind a long time ago and have your own "truths" about the questions you have. That being said I don't think there is anything I can offer you. Goodbye, I wish you well in your endeavors and hope you find the answers you seek.


----------



## APL76

jlq said:


> APL, I will give you the executive version.
> 
> 
> 
> In Gongjaau SN Wing Chun guys claim FBC learnt from Dai Fa Min Kam, while others say it is Law Man Gong.
> 
> Leung Ngau is - and whether your Sifu says so or not - a disciple of Yuen Kei Saan, who was his Gujeung. Unless you have been to Fatsaan and talked to the people here, you are limited to know the story your Sifu tells you. A question for you... Who in Gongjaau is doing the "real" YKS Wing Chun?




My sifu has never told me a thing about Leung Ngau, he (that is my sifu) stays right out of stuff like this as its all too political for him. I don't need anyone to tell me that that guy isn't a disciple of Yuen Kay San, I can see it in his sui lim tao.


----------



## Nobody Important

Before I bow out of this conversation, I wanted to clarify a few things. Jesper your statements are in bold, mine are not, just so its easier to follow along. If you have any questions after this please feel free to PM me. I hate conversing over the computer and don’t want to feed this monster of a discussion any more.

*(Jlq) There is no evidence that Fok Bo Chuen was a student of Wong Wah Saam, in fact, very few - if any - of the many Sum Nung/YKS schools have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Wong Wah Bou (if I am not mistaken, that might come from Rene Ritchie's book). I have many pictures from various Mo Goons' lineage charts. And what you will find is that most of the lineage charts have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong - just like the Yiu Choi guys - and a few Dai Fa Mien Gam... Fok Bo Chuen was from Yamchow, just like Law Man Gong, and Yiu Choi actually also learnt from him, according to his descendants. It makes little sense that he would have learnt from Wong Wah Bo, if he was indeed from Yamchow and given the nature of the actual opera "lifestyle". If Fok Bo Chuen had learnt from Wong Wah Bo, he would have had to learn it in Fatsaan, but then he wouldn't have been a "Snake style boxer" as the stories claim - he would have been a gong fu brother of Leung Jan, which he by all accounts wasn't... So, Fok Bo Chuen being a student of Wong Wah Bo... Doesn't sound very plausible at all. And thus does the claim that the three forms came from him... Ng Chun So - and the other Gong Fu friends seem a much more plausible source.*

This contradicts what I’ve been told, as I’ve stated several times my lineage has Fok Bo Chun learning from Wong Wah Bo. My Dai Sigung is of the same generation as Sum Nung and was a direct disciple of Yuen Chai Wan. I can’t discount for the discrepancies between what Sum Nung and Yiu Choi relate about Fok Bo Chun. My lineage chart has Wong Wah Bo, you want to say this isn’t accurate because it doesn’t correspond to what Sum Nung and Yiu Choi relate.

What you say about Law Man Gung has merit, I never said it didn’t, but that isn’t what my lineage relates. I am open to the fact that Law Man Gung taught Fok Bo Chun and as I’ve already stated, it doesn’t change the art, only the ancestry, Snake Style Boxer could very well be a reference to Wing Chun, and since Law Man Gung is listed alongside other Wing Chun ancestors he probably was one as well.

Here’s another interesting tidbit you might want to investigate. Leung Tien Chiu, the Fut Gar master learned a system of snake boxing from Leung Sil Jong called Sae Ying Diu Sao (Snake Form Artful Hand). Leung Sil Jong was purported to be from in and around the Yam Chow area. Leung Tien Chiu has one descendant that was still teaching this rare art in Hong Kong. I have studied the Fut Gar method of Leung Tien Chiu and have had the privilege to learn a tiny little bit of the Sae Ying Diu Sau. There may be a connection with Law Man Gung, in the past some of those that trained under Leung Tien Chiu claimed they were taught a form of Wing Chun.

*He has also been a figure of the YC lineage at least since the story was passed on to his students such as Yiu Kay, Fohk Chiu, Lam Soi Man, Gor Bing, etc*

Your comments here are in regards to Law Man Gung and his being a figure in Yiu Choi lineage, this can be viewed as suspect. This was a time when many were scrambling to clean up their oral traditions and lineage charts because of all the stories being told in the Wuxia novels, the popularity of Wing Chun being on the rise, etc. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying he was planted into the lineage to fill a gap, but, you have to take into consideration that the Yiu family had ongoing contact with Sum Nung whereas the majority of Yuen Chai Wan’s descendant’s didn’t, and it’s quite possible that Law Man Gung was added simply because Sum Nung had him listed. I’m not saying that is the case, but it’s a plausible explanation.

I stated this based on your belief that Law Man Gung was indeed Fok Bo Chun’s teacher:

“_Ok, so let's say Law Man Gung is an ancestor of Yuen Family instead of Wong Wah Bo, it changes nothing, it simply replaces one ancestor for another. Now, according to you, you now have an uncontested verified Wing Chun ancestor who apparently didn't teach Wing Chun to Fok Bo Chun who in turn didn't teach Wing Chun to the Yuen family, leaving them to learn Wing Chun solely from Ng Chung So. 

I've already stated my assumptions that Ng Chung So probably did teach the Yuen's a fair amount, but I don't for one minute believe that they learned absolutely no Wing Chun prior to learning from Ng”._

You seemed to dismiss this and state

*(Jlq)Now, you - and certain others - might not know this, but even Sum Nung guys themselves say that Fok Bo Chuen taught "Snake Hand/Fist" and learned Wing Chun from Fong Siu Ching... So understand you have a problem with me pointing out that out? FBC WAS NOT A WING CHUN EXPONENT, BUT A (FIVE PATTERN) HONG KUEN PRACTICIONER FROM YAMCHOW IN GONGSAI, SPECIALIZING IN THE SNAKE STYLE. SO THE STORY ABOUT HIM LEARNING FROM EITHER LAW MAN GONG OR EVEN DAI FA MIN GAM AND (AS SOME GROUPS PUT IN THEIR LINEAGE TREE) WONG WAH BOU, IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. *

What is suspect to me is that the story keeps twisting about with whom learned what from whom. You’ve obviously questioned the history presented to you by some, accepted what was told by some, yet can’t seem to pin down a direction. It seems to me that even the folks in Faatsan can’t get their story straight. You go onto make this next statement.

*(Jlq) A problem with that story is that Fong Siu Ching - according to Tang Yik - and other sources in Fatsaan - didn't have much to teach. And hence had to invent this Chong Kuen (which is basically the techniques of his dummy form performed with footwork) on the request of some of his students because they wondered why he didn't have more to teach. The Chong Kuen form as taught by the Dong, Tang and Tam families don't look like anything which could inspire the five animal forms the Vietnamese Wing Chun people do today. If Yuen Chai Wan did in fact learn from Fong Siu Ching, alongside YKS and a handful of others, why is it then that YCW would have Chong Kuen and the others not? This also contradicts the information from the YKS lineage - and others - as to what was taught by Fong Siu Ching when he was teaching after his retirement. 
Now, in Fatsaan there are people who said YkS and YCW learnt the same things, so the little problem discussed above aside, what you are saying makes absolute sense to me and has been something matching ealier speculations of mine. However, the Vietnamese Sifus descending from YCW will of course object strongly to this* 

I’ll start with the last few sentences in this statement “*what you are saying makes absolute sense to me and has been something matching ealier speculations of mine. However, the Vietnamese Sifus descending from YCW will of course object strongly to this*”. There are those that won’t object, because I got the information from them. The Vietnamese legend states that Yuen Chai Wan passed down the 5 Animals to only one person, not sure who that was at the moment, I’d have to look it up. I don’t have the 5 Animals in my line, we have a version of Chong Kuen that supposedly came from Ng Chung So via my Dai Sigung, not Yuen Chai Wan. As you pointed out, and I am fully aware, very few people claim that Ng Chung So passed on a 4th form, then again, his pool of descendants is continually shrinking, so it’s pretty tough to ask around, but it is at least partially supported from the information that was received from Kwok about Fok Chiu developing Che Chin Kuen out of the material passed onto him by Yiu and Leung. Take that information for what it’s worth.


You also made this statement:

*FONG SIU CHING IS A MYSTERY, EVEN TO REAL NATIVE, FATSAAN MARTIAL ARTS RESEARCHERS, AS IT SUPPOSEDLY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUT ANY TANGIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HIM. GIVEN THE DATES OF THE OFFICIAL YUEN KEI SAAN ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR LAW BENG JEUNG (THE VICEROY OF SEICHUEN) AS THE LATTER DIED WHEN THE FORMER WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 YEARS OLDS OR SO. BUT GIVEN THAT HE IS NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME, HE SURELY EXISTED, BUT YKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT ...LIBERAL... WHEN IT CAME TO EXTOLL HIM*

This speaks volumes. If Yuen Kay San was “Liberal” as you put it about his history of Fung Siu Ching, isn’t it possible that what he passed on about Fok Bo Chun, what he taught and who he learned from was embellished as well? Cherry picking bits of information coming from Sum Nung and Yuen Kay San disciples only to support their own information while disregarding what other may have to say about it is disingenuous IMO. Again it seem that everyone who has a supposed connection to Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching seem to have different stories about what they taught and whom they learned form.


*(Jlq)There is no evidence that Fok Bo Chuen was a student of Wong Wah Saam, in fact, very few - if any - of the many Sum Nung/YKS schools have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Wong Wah Bou (if I am not mistaken, that might come from Rene Ritchie's book). I have many pictures from various Mo Goons' lineage charts. And what you will find is that most of the lineage charts have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong - just like the Yiu Choi guys - and a few Dai Fa Mien Gam... Fok Bo Chuen was from Yamchow, just like Law Man Gong, and Yiu Choi actually also learnt from him, according to his descendants. It makes little sense that he would have learnt from Wong Wah Bo, if he was indeed from Yamchow and given the nature of the actual opera "lifestyle". If Fok Bo Chuen had learnt from Wong Wah Bo, he would have had to learn it in Fatsaan, but then he wouldn't have been a "Snake style boxer" as the stories claim - he would have been a gong fu brother of Leung Jan, which he by all accounts wasn't... So, Fok Bo Chuen being a student of Wong Wah Bo... Doesn't sound very plausible at all. And thus does the claim that the three forms came from him... Ng Chun So - and the other Gong Fu friends seem a much more plausible source.*

The problem I have with this centers around Yiu Choi. It was related to me that Fok Bo Chun passed prior to Yuen Chai Wan teaching Yiu Choi. So if Yiu Choi did in fact learn from Fok Bo Chun as Yiu family states, it had to be prior to Yuen teaching Yiu. Why then learn from Yuen Chai Wan and list him as Sifu and not Fok? That doesn’t make sense. A lot of what you present is taking Yiu family at face value while dismissing what Yuen Chai Wan’s lineage has to say. Seems more logical to me that since Yiu Choi was separated from his Sifu Yuen Chai Wan, that he would go to his friend and Sifu's younger brother Yuan Kay San for answers to things he was lacking. Discrepancies ensue. 

Now as far as I’m aware, Yiu Choi lineage doesn’t dispute the fact that Yuen Chai Wan taught Yiu Choi at least Siu Lim Tau and Bamboo Dummy. If Yuen Chai Wan didn’t learn Wing Chun from Fok Bo Chun or Fung Siu Ching, but instead learned it from Ng Chung So, why claim Yuen Chai Wan as an ancestor at all? It would mean that all of the Wing Chun Yiu Choi learned came from Ng Chung So only, yet they don’t make this claim.

It’s obvious the Yuen’s learned Wing Chun prior to any contact with Ng Chung So. I don’t believe it came from Fung Siu Ching. From my understanding Fung passed on “Chong Kuen”, a set of San Sik most likely from Village Hung Kuen. If Fok Bo Chun didn’t pass on Wing Chun, but some Snake Fist style as some people suggest, doesn’t it make sense that Yuen Chai Wan (who some claim to have learned very little Wing Chun) would have passed on Snake Fist instead of Wing Chun? This isn’t the case, as seeing how no one in Vietnam was taught the Snake Fist of Fok Bo Chun, and Yiu Choi lineage doesn’t pass on a Snake Fist style coming from him, they all practice Wing Chun. If there are any descendants of Fok Bo Chun teaching Snake Fist and not Wing Chun, I'd like to know who they are. Now, the Vietnames Wing Chun 5 Animal material is an all together different issue, unrelated to my lineage.

*(Jlq)* *the problem here is that you are assuming that all the information I am relating was not around when Sum Nung was alive, but it was! I have pointed out before that just because we in the West had very little information about the status quo in Fatsaan and Gongjaau - and apparently even do today - and the fact that one sided and even incorrect information is spread by zealous students means that this is fact.*

Were you there when Sum Nung was alive, and did you witness these conversations? Again, oral legend only contains a kernel of truth. Do you believe that zealots only exist outside Faatsan? I have no doubt that some people contested what Sum Nung or others were saying, but you seem to have a bias towards them when I present anything that contradicts them. You stated:_ “*That Sum Nung was YKS's only disciple? This is just his/his descendants words... This doesn't make it fact. SN's story was even questioned by Leung Ting more than 20 years ago when he found inconsistencies with his stories, because there were other accounts of certain things which matched up much better than what SN had claimed... So, it is not that everybody was quiet while SN was still around...” *_So, if you believe that Sum Nung may have fabricated some things, why can’t you consider what I tell you as a plausible alternate explanation?

A lot of the information you have presented to me to refute my claims is filled with just as many holes, as I’ve been pointing out. I’ve no doubt that the truth, or a close proximity of it, is somewhere in between.

*(Jlq)People are free to choose to believe what they want - and most like to hang on to what their hear first, expecially if told by someone who is perceive as an authority figure. Now, I will repeat - your stories do not match the local stories in Fatsaan, fwiw. That is, there is not much to discuss*

It appears as if the stories coming out of Faatsan are quite varied as well, I see no unification. There has been an effort in China and the USA in recent years for some individuals to “research” their Wing Chun ancestry, and because of their “new found” information, popular figure heads are aligning themselves with various individuals to put this information out there to make money off of books, videos, lessons etc. You cannot deny that this hasn’t been a driving force for some to re-evaluate their lineages in the hopes of cashing in. I have personally witnessed it. I’m not accusing your informants of this by any means, but it is a prevalent thing in CMA that no one is going to admit to willingly. Some of us hang on to what we’ve been taught and told because we are honoring our ancestors, and re-writing the history we were taught can easily be viewed as an insult and trying to make oneself superior to another.

*How are what I call facts not facts? Considering what you yourself believe, you question the veracity of something every senior alive today in the Fatsaan Wing Chun community I have spoken to confirms - and local researchers of the art, too. So when a bunch of people who knew Ng Chun So and people who are from different styles all say he was well known, personally I find this much more credible than claiming that he wasn't because neither YM nor YKS/YCW called him "Sifu", for which their are obvious reasons. In spit of what you think, that is not strange at all, if you know the culture of the time. 

How is people using Law Man Gong in their lineage Tree way before you became aware of the name not a fact? So, everybody is lying then? How do you explain that Yiu Kay mentioned Law Man Gong to Leung Ting already in the 80s? Leung Ting published articles about his findings in a HK Newspaper... 

How is it not a fact that Wong Wah Bo is not mentioned as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen by any school here (I have seen)? Usually, it is Dai Fa Min Gam or Law Man Gong. *

Jesper you’ve missed my point on this and fail to see that this information was passed on by ONE individual to all those who are regurgitating it now. *Yuen Kay San* told the story, and his descendants regurgitate it as gospel. It’s a different story than what his brother told. You’re looking at only one side for validation. You accept his version of events without question while dismissing another’s account, because those that descend from his line back it up. Yuen Kay San and Sum Nung have over the years been questioned as to the validity of some of their stories. Some of their tradition is suspected to be embellished (see above). Yuen Chai Wan has another version to tell of those past events, while filled with just as many holes, embellishments and inconsistencies, it is still a legitimate tradition of Yuen family Wing Chun, even if Yuen Kay San’s descendants don’t agree with it. You also fail to take into consideration that Yuen Chai Wan’s descendants have been isolated from Faatsan society. I’ve no doubt that over the years different lineages of Wing Chun in Faatsan met and exchanged with each other. I’m certain that a few “borrowed” from one another resulting in changes in both lineage and art. Chan family is a perfect example of this.

*(Jlq)Again, just presentating information from Fatsaan and the Wing Chun Pai there. Because a lot of what is believed by people in the West and presented - see the articles Jicjeung linked to - and some of what you are saying is either wrong, inaccurate or not what is told in China.*

The italicized section is what I’ve been focusing on throughout this entire thread. Personally. I don’t care what those in China are currently saying, because a lot of what they are saying isn’t unified in any manner. They all seem to have a different spin and opinion on the matter just like everyone outside of China. I have already pointed that out, even you yourself have stated it.  So if saying something different than a few people in China, who themselves can’t seem to come to an agreement, makes me wrong or inaccurate, then I guess I’m wrong and inaccurate, lol.


----------



## APL76

Probably a good thing to keep in mind here is the old saying "follow the money". What I mean is, to think about 1) what it is people are claiming, and 2) in that context, that they are gaining from such associations, be it money, prestige, power etc.

So all these people in Guangdong (and or elsewhere) who are running big wing chun schools, what do they gain by deciding they learned from, say, Yip Man, instead of me for instance (a somewhat ridiculous example, but it should convey my point), or Yuen Kay San instead of someone further down in that lineage.... like me for instance (I do know both systems, it could happen [there should be a facetious font]). Its not like people have never tried to jump up a level or two, or three or more in their lineage in order to get above their competitors in the past. And its not like this stuff only happens in the "west" or indeed only in Wing Chun. I know of four who have done it in Yen Kay San style, and that's only the ones I actually know of, I do know that it is happening to a silly level in China, I just don't know the names of all of them.

Then take the Leung Ting stuff from that book he wrote. One of my students has a copy of it and I had a look, I read the Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung section. It reeked of political BS and one-upmanship to me, not to mention irony. I think, (and sorry to any Leung Ting people here, you can say and think what you want it makes no difference to me) that given his somewhat questionable past and credibility (that is his own wing chun history let alone his musings on someone else's), especially in light of revelations in a recent court case, that that stuff needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.  

Then there is the Ng Chun So teaching YKS and YCW, this again seems to be political BS and in light of the wing chun represented by people with a known and accepted connection to Ng Chun So and the wing chun in the YKS and YCW lines I personally think this is probably impossible. Indeed wing chun going in the opposite direction from YKS to Yip Man is much more plausible; besides its pretty common knowledge that YKS taught Yip Man sticky hands. I have been lucky enough to learn both, and there is no way I can see that you could learn wing chun like Yip Man style (I am assuming this is kinda what he learned from Ng Chun So, after all YM people accept the connection) and somehow come up with anything like Yuen Kay San wing chun. I could totally see it going in the other direction though. If this offends some YM people, sorry, not my intention, I know and mainly teach YM wing chun, its a beautiful system for a wing chun school in a way that YKS wing chun isn't. But there's no way as far as I can see that YKS wing chun could have been developed from the same stuff as YM wing chun at that close a separation (so in one generation).

Then there's the wing chun weng chun problem. I think its highly likely that they are mixed and often its a matter of what people decided they were doing at the time. For example, and this might surprise some people, did you know that Pan Nam figured what he did was weng chun, not wing chun? I have seen it, my sifu went to Pan Nam before he met Sum Nung and PN gave him a book he wrote. On the cover it says weng chun (in Chinese of course). now however PN descendants are calling it wing chun. So, given that it seems the PN bunch can just decide one day they are doing wing chun instead of weng chun, are what all of us doing wing chun or weng chun? could it be that we are all on a spectrum between two points somewhere?

In the end, as I keep saying, and I agree with Nobodyimportant, its the wing chun that counts (or is it the weng chun????) the kung fu speaks for itself.


----------



## Nobody Important

APL76 said:


> Probably a good thing to keep in mind here is the old saying "follow the money". What I mean is, to think about 1) what it is people are claiming, and 2) in that context, that they are gaining from such associations, be it money, prestige, power etc.
> 
> So all these people in Guangdong (and or elsewhere) who are running big wing chun schools, what do they gain by deciding they learned from, say, Yip Man, instead of me for instance (a somewhat ridiculous example, but it should convey my point), or Yuen Kay San instead of someone further down in that lineage.... like me for instance (I do know both systems, it could happen [there should be a facetious font]). Its not like people have never tried to jump up a level or two, or three or more in their lineage in order to get above their competitors in the past. And its not like this stuff only happens in the "west" or indeed only in Wing Chun. I know of four who have done it in Yen Kay San style, and that's only the ones I actually know of, I do know that it is happening to a silly level in China, I just don't know the names of all of them.
> 
> Then take the Leung Ting stuff from that book he wrote. One of my students has a copy of it and I had a look, I read the Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung section. It reeked of political BS and one-upmanship to me, not to mention irony. I think, (and sorry to any Leung Ting people here, you can say and think what you want it makes no difference to me) that given his somewhat questionable past and credibility (that is his own wing chun history let alone his musings on someone else's), especially in light of revelations in a recent court case, that that stuff needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.
> 
> Then there is the Ng Chun So teaching YKS and YCW, this again seems to be political BS and in light of the wing chun represented by people with a known and accepted connection to Ng Chun So and the wing chun in the YKS and YCW lines I personally think this is probably impossible. Indeed wing chun going in the opposite direction from YKS to Yip Man is much more plausible; besides its pretty common knowledge that YKS taught Yip Man sticky hands. I have been lucky enough to learn both, and there is no way I can see that you could learn wing chun like Yip Man style (I am assuming this is kinda what he learned from Ng Chun So, after all YM people accept the connection) and somehow come up with anything like Yuen Kay San wing chun. I could totally see it going in the other direction though. If this offends some YM people, sorry, not my intention, I know and mainly teach YM wing chun, its a beautiful system for a wing chun school in a way that YKS wing chun isn't. But there's no way as far as I can see that YKS wing chun could have been developed from the same stuff as YM wing chun at that close a separation (so in one generation).
> 
> Then there's the wing chun weng chun problem. I think its highly likely that they are mixed and often its a matter of what people decided they were doing at the time. For example, and this might surprise some people, did you know that Pan Nam figured what he did was weng chun, not wing chun? I have seen it, my sifu went to Pan Nam before he met Sum Nung and PN gave him a book he wrote. On the cover it says weng chun (in Chinese of course). now however PN descendants are calling it wing chun. So, given that it seems the PN bunch can just decide one day they are doing wing chun instead of weng chun, are what all of us doing wing chun or weng chun? could it be that we are all on a spectrum between two points somewhere?
> 
> In the end, as I keep saying, and I agree with Nobodyimportant, its the wing chun that counts (or is it the weng chun????) the kung fu speaks for itself.


Well stated and thank you for elaborating on some of the same points I have been trying to stress. At the end of the day it's all about your Kung Fu and not trying to decorate your family tree like it's Christmas.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,

I have explaines time and time again, that I don't believe anything beyond Leung Jan.

I have said time and time again that I am relaying what people claim, not what is the truth or what isn't.

I have said time and time again that when it comes to these old stories, it is only possible to make an educated guess by considering and evaluating all information from multiple data points.

I have said time and time again that to find out likely scenarios, one should look at the concepts and the techniques of the styles.

Contrast these points with your arguments in your posts - makes most of it moot, doesn't it?

The way you react and argue here seems very much like you somehow feel threatened by someone telling you that things are not as you think. Maybe this is not the case, but it sure looks that way...

You are naive to think that I do not know how commercialism works in China, considering that I have been travelling to China almost every year, staying between 1 to 3 months everytime since 2004 and been living here for 7 years. 

People are indeed quick to change things and modify the truth when it comes to promoting what they are doing. The no. of commercial schools in Gongjaau went from a very few to well over fourty in a flash after the YM movies, and some SN people now call their knife set "Baat Cham Dou" because it is a popular term...

It is also naive to believe that I do not know about how Chinese Gong Fu people make up stories or embellish certain things for "face" - hence as I said - again - none of the information beyond what people alive have experienced and seen can be considered with any degree of seriousness.

Since you didn't get it before - I am talking about stories not facts (other than the ones I gave you), many of the ones you are telling do not seem to exist in Fatsaan. I am not saying you are lying or anyone in your lineage was, just stating that fact - people can make of this what they will. 

Now, lets take the example of "the legends surrounding the fourth form" - I have never heard anyone in Fatsaan or Gongjaau talk about such legends. Now, I would never profess or imagine that I have talked to all, but I did have the opportunity to meet quite a few over the years. Does it mean that such legends don't exist? No, and that is why I am asking you about them.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> The way you react and argue here seems very much like you somehow feel threatened by someone telling you that things are not as you think. Maybe this is not the case, but it sure looks that way...



Do I feel threatened, no, insulted yes.



jlq said:


> You are naive to think that I do not know how commercialism works in China, considering that I have been travelling to China almost every year, staying between 1 to 3 months everytime since 2004 and been living here for 7 years.
> 
> People are indeed quick to change things and modify the truth when it comes to promoting what they are doing. The no. of commercial schools in Gongjaau went from a very few to well over fourty in a flash after the YM movies, and some SN people now call their knife set "Baat Cham Dou" because it is a popular term...
> 
> It is also naive to believe that I do not know about how Chinese Gong Fu people make up stories or embellish certain things for "face" - hence as I said - again - none of the information beyond what people alive have experienced and seen can be considered with any degree of seriousness.



Good, now that we are on the same page perhaps you can actually listen to what I’ve been telling you without injecting a biased view.



jlq said:


> Since you didn't get it before - I am talking about stories not facts (*other than the ones I gave you*), many of the ones you are telling do not seem to exist in Fatsaan. I am not saying you are lying or anyone in your lineage was, just stating that fact - people can make of this what they will.
> 
> Now, let’s take the example of "the legends surrounding the fourth form" - I have never heard anyone in Fatsaan or Gongjaau talk about such legends. Now, I would never profess or imagine that I have talked to all, but I did have the opportunity to meet quite a few over the years. Does it mean that such legends don't exist? No, and that is why I am asking you about them.



I’d hardly call what you gave as facts, stories yes, facts no.  I have conceded on a few points you’ve mentioned because they are plausible, this doesn’t make it fact.

Now the 4th form, lets get into some “facts” here. The Che Chin Kuen that is passed down by Fok Chiu is said to have been taught to Fok Chiu by Leung Fook Cho. I stated that in my lineage that we also have a 4th form called Chuan Sin Jeung that was handed down by Ng Chung So. You were adamant that no one in Faatsan had heard of Ng Chung So passing on a 4th form. Well, Leung Fook Cho was one of Ng Chung So’s students. I’ll let you put 2 and 2 together there.

There are stories floating around out there that state Ng Chung So passed on some White Crane, one source you can look into for that is with Chan Yiu Min’s line.  Depending on the style and or lineage, this form has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc. I’ve already stated that I believe that this was a set of San Sik passed on from Leung Jan. There is evidence for this in the movements as they correlate well with the known San Sik set passed on by Leung Jan, namely La Jin Choi, Lin Wan Kau Da, Pien San Choi etc.  The unfortunate thing about Ng Chung So, is that most of what he taught and whom he taught were eradicated during the Cultural Revolution. We have very few known sources that can rebuild a picture of what this man passed on. This is why I said he wasn’t really well known, in his day perhaps he was, but today his legacy has been all but wiped from this earth.

Take what I tell you with a grain of salt and for what it’s worth, it’s just another data point, but don’t outright dismiss it because it doesn’t jive with what’s being propagated in Faatsan. I think we’ve already established that their stories aren’t any more “truthful” than anyone else’s. Hopefully I’ve given you enough to go back with and ask more questions.


----------



## KPM

Some of my impressions from this discussion so far:

1.   Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches" book can hardly be considered history now.   Multiple people have pointed out LOTS of inconsistencies and errors in this  book over the years.   Robert Chu's "Complete Wing Chun" was an attempt to improve on that.  But now even he would tell you that it needs a pretty drastic update to be accurate.  When they wrote that book they relied primarily on the lineage stories that people submitted to them and not actual independent research.   There is very little actual Wing Chun history that can be solidly stated prior to Leung Jan's day.  Even a lot of Wing Chun history since Leung Jan's day is questionable.

2.  Given the above, one thing to go on would be when said lineage stories actually overlap.  If you have multiple independent sources in China saying essentially the same thing, compared to one source outside of China saying something different, I would tend to give more credence to the China version.  That doesn't mean it is true, just more likely to be true since more than one source is stating the same thing.   Now, admittedly, that could be because they have all accepted a single source from a prior generation as true and are all repeating the same source.  But again, it still is something to take seriously when trying to decide who may be telling the most accurate story.  Since we don't have a time machine and very little of this was documented, that's about all we can do!

3.  For a long time I was under the impression that Sum Nun was the sole student of Yeun Kay Shan and that only his students represent YKS's Wing Chun.  But then you have Wong Nim Yi teaching what his father learned from YKS, although admittedly with some of his own changes and modifications.   But then I discovered that there is quite a number of people doing "Guangzu Wing Chun" in China.  I wondered what this was and discovered that it is YKS Wing Chun!   Granted, there is a difference between being a "disciple" and being a regular student, but YKS clearly passed on his Wing Chun to more than one person.   So it is entirely possible that when looking at someone's Wing Chun and stating that they couldn't be doing YKS Wing Chun because it differs from what Sum Nun taught.....this could be because Sum Nun himself changed things.

4.  I have always been skeptical of the idea that Fung Siu Ching taught anything of significance to YKS.  This was solidified when I had the opportunity to study Tang Yik Weng Chun.  Tang Yik Weng Chun has a solid connection to FSC, but is nothing like Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun.  In fact, they probably couldn't be more different! 

5.  I have also always been skeptical of any Wing Chun "4th form."  Candidates for this I have seen have always looked primarily like Hung Kuen and not Wing Chun.  This is another problem with Wing Chun history.   It seems lots of people in the past have had no problem with mixing things in and then claiming it came from a prior generation.  It would be considered impolite to claim an innovation as your own, so it was attributed to a past Master.   This is also what has created so much confusion in Weng Chun circles.  Chu Chong Man added all kinds of Hung Kuen things to the Weng Chun he learned but referred to it all as "Weng Chun."   Chan Yiu Min added all kinds of things to his father's Wing Chun.   And I have studied the Chong Kuen form from Weng Chun.  To me, even it had a "Hung Kuen" flavor.

6.  Which leads me to the whole "Wing Chun" vs. "Weng Chun" debate.  This is pronounced the same in Chinese.   Different Sifu's over the years have used one version or the other on a whim depending upon whether they liked the connotation of "praise" more than "everlasting" at the time, or vice versa.   So whether Chan Yiu Min or Pan Nam used "Wing" or "Weng" is really irrelevant.  But Tang Yik Weng Chun is a lineage of martial arts that likely comes from a common source but is completely independent of the various Wing Chun lineages.   They have used the "Weng Chun" designation from the beginning, and to me are the only ones to which the term really applies.   Nowadays people seem to want to point out that CYM or PN or someone else at some point chose to use the "Weng" term as an indication that they were doing something older or more original, etc.  That's just not right.   Just because you've mixed some Hung Kuen into your curriculum doesn't turn it into "Weng Chun" or something more original or more special than anyone's else's Wing Chun.  In fact, the examples I have seen display an entirely different body mechanics and so would possibly be confusing to students.....like trying to learn two completely different arts at the same time.

7.  I absolutely believe that looking at the physical aspects of the various arts for common structures and concepts is just as important as looking at any lineage stories.  I can see Wing Chun, Tang Yik Wing Chun, and White Crane coming from a common source or sources and then evolving in their own directions.  To me, Weng Chun is even more like "ancestral" White Crane than is Wing Chun!   So I could see this proto-typical art at some point combining with a "snake" art to produce what we think of today as Wing Chun.  From what I've seen and experienced, Wing Chun definitely has a more "snakey" aspect than Weng Chun, while both have a "craney" aspect.  But if we are going to take seriously this analysis of form and concept, then we have to account for the Hakka arts and why some of them are so similar to Wing Chun.  As I stated before, to me there is a lot more physical and conceptual commonalities between Wing Chun and Southern Mantis than there are between Wing Chun and Hung Kuen.  Yet everyone seems to just accept Hung Kuen as a Wing Chun predecessor.    Disclaimer here......Sifu Michael Tang does not agree with the idea that Weng Chun came from a "White Crane" ancestor.  I told him my theory as just stated above and he disagreed with me.  He holds to the story of Chi Sim taught a distillation of Shaolin systems and that this was the root of Weng Chun.

8.  For a long time now after seeing various lineages' version of history I have wondered about Ng Chung So and why he wasn't given more attention and more importance.  He seemed like the key link between several things!   he was senior to Ip Man and Yuen Kay Shan and all the other major players.  For a long time people have said that Ip Man learned more  from him than from Chan Wah Shun because CWS died when Ip Man was young.  But poor old Ng Chung So seldom seems to get much credit!


----------



## jlq

A short update as promised:

Today I had a meeting with Yiu Chung Keung Sifu, the grandson of Yiu Choi. Yiu Sifu is a genuinely humble and extremly pleasant person, one of the most generous persons when it comes to sharing his Gong Fu knowledge and experience. We asked him many questions and since we were so interested, he gave us a book he wrote containing the historical information passed on in his tradition and invited us to send him any questions we might have or visit him at his school anytime.

He talked shortly about a few issues pertaining to this thread.

Ng Chun So taught his grandfather three forms, Yiu Sifu was very emphatic that Wing Chun just has three forms, not four. I have seen him do the Che Tsin Kuen a few times over the years and asked him what this was if not a fourth form. He said that it was just some San Sao done back to back. 

Yiu Choi apparently didn't learn any fourth form or special extra system from Ng Chun So.

More later.


----------



## jlq

KPM,

just a quick comment.

Wong Nim Yi Sifu learnt from his father, who in turn learnt from Wong Jing and just for a very short while. He also learnt some stuff from Pan Chao, SN's senior student alive today. Pan Sifu started learning from SN in the late 1940s!

The interesting thing in this context is that Pan Sifu still preserves what he learnt all those years back and it is somewhat different than later generations of SN students.

There is a very interesting story about this, why he first changed things, but this is not for a public forum. The ones who know, will know what I mean... 

The point here is that SN did not pass on a pristine version of YKS Wing Chun, and even changed stuff over the years he taught. 

How can I say that? Well, Sum Nung didn't teach Sup Yee Sik to the earliest students (according to what I have been told by Yup Sup Dai Gee of his family Gong Fu) and when he did, he was teaching Jeung Bo material which is quite different from YKS stuff. 

There are also some technical differences.

So dismissing anyone as a disciple based on some technical criterions doesn't make much sense given the situation described above. Also, another thing to consider... Are all disciples equally technically proficient? Some are definitely better than others... Does That mean that the "bad" ones are not disciples?

Back to Mai Gei Wong... Wong Nim Yi Sifu's style is his personal mix of his Gong Fu experience, quite different from SN Wing Chun. However, I have met some of his fathers senior students, Wong Sifu's sihings, and they all move and look like "typical" Gongjaau Wing Chun guys.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> A short update as promised:
> 
> Today I had a meeting with Yiu Chung Keung Sifu, the grandson of Yiu Choi. Yiu Sifu is a genuinely humble and extremly pleasant person, one of the most generous persons when it comes to sharing his Gong Fu knowledge and experience. We asked him many questions and since we were so interested, he gave us a book he wrote containing the historical information passed on in his tradition and invited us to send him any questions we might have or visit him at his school anytime.
> 
> He talked shortly about a few issues pertaining to this thread.
> 
> Ng Chun So taught his grandfather three forms, Yiu Sifu was very emphatic that Wing Chun just has three forms, not four. I have seen him do the Che Tsin Kuen a few times over the years and asked him what this was if not a fourth form. He said that it was just some San Sao done back to back.
> 
> Yiu Choi apparently didn't learn any fourth form or special extra system from Ng Chun So.
> 
> More later.


Interesting, thank you for the update.

I find it interesting that they state it's a set of San Sik as this aligns with my belief as well. I also find it interesting that they give it a name, but don't acknowledge it as a "form". Aren't all forms just linked San Sik?

Anyways, I feel vindicated to an extent. For years people have told me I was full of crap and that my "form" was just made up. Others with overlap in lineage also have this "form". Now,  people can argue semantics about whether it is linked San Sik or a form, it doesnt matter, because both stem from the same root.


----------



## jlq

I will ask him more specifically about this - but the thing is that seems to be just some basic technique combinations strung together - as I said in an earlier post, that cannot be called a "fourth" form taught by Ng Chun So or anyone else. That would be like saying that Jeung Bo taught SN a fourth form (he he didn't have any) because SN started teaching his Sup Yee Sik based on the moves he learnt from Jeung Bo.

You wrote that I had said no one had heard of Che Tsin Kuen in Fatsaan and then mentioned that Fohk Chiu had - but hadn't I clearly said no one but him (and now the Yiu bros.) teach this type of thing earlier? Should be obvious that when I say no one, this excludes Yiu Choi lineage... 

But, as I said, I will ask him about details next week.


----------



## jlq

A good question, actually, about all forms being linked San Sik.

I would say some more so than others...

The more "complicated" and more moves a set contains the more of an application set it is, it seems.

Kind of like the original Kata progression in Pangainoon/Uechi Ryu - Sanchin - Seisan - Sanseru (IIRC).


----------



## KPM

jlq said:


> A good question, actually, about all forms being linked San Sik.
> 
> I would say some more so than others...
> 
> The more "complicated" and more moves a set contains the more of an application set it is, it seems.
> 
> Kind of like the original Kata progression in Pangainoon/Uechi Ryu - Sanchin - Seisan - Sanseru (IIRC).



The "Weng Chun Kuen" form from Tang Yik Weng Chun certainly has always seemed like a set of linked San Sik to me!


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> I will ask him more specifically about this - but the thing is that seems to be just some basic technique combinations strung together - as I said in an earlier post, that cannot be called a "fourth" form taught by Ng Chun So or anyone else. That would be like saying that Jeung Bo taught SN a fourth form (he he didn't have any) because SN started teaching his Sup Yee Sik based on the moves he learnt from Jeung Bo.
> 
> You wrote that I had said no one had heard of Che Tsin Kuen in Fatsaan and then mentioned that Fohk Chiu had - but hadn't I clearly said no one but him (and now the Yiu bros.) teach this type of thing earlier? Should be obvious that when I say no one, this excludes Yiu Choi lineage...
> 
> But, as I said, I will ask him about details next week.


I too, as referring to anyone outside Fok & Yiu brothers in Faatsan. Thats why i brought up my tradition having a similar story to say that others (outside) Faatsan and independent of Fok/Yiu also mention this material. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been when I was ranting, my apologies for the confusion.

I can definately see where you are coming from in regards to a 4th "Form",  but personally to me its just semantics. Especially since in my case those loose techniques were codified into an actual form by my Dai Sigung. I've  also seen how they perform the Che Chin Kuen, and to me it looks a lot like they are performing a form, since there is no deviation in arraignment. Its also a lot of material IMO to be dismissed solely as just "San Sik", but that's just my opinion on it. Anyways, you are correct it isn't anything new technique or theory wise from the standard 3 forms, just choreography. To me it's just a sprinkling of moves from the 3 forms, san sik and dummy. A synopsis of Wing Chun in one set, so nothing new to learn. Good to practice when you don't have time to focus on practicing all 3 sets and dummy form.


----------



## APL76

no one should disregard san sik as simply some extra techniques to train at as though they are of less value than forms 'propper'. When Sum Nung came to Australia and taught my Sifu's students for a couple of months, one of the things he continually told them is that (and I'm paraphrasing here): if you all you knew was sup yi sik, and had good foundations and knew how to use it (the sup yi sik) that is all you would ever need. My sifu reiterates the same and sees the 3 forms as icing on the cake. The cake being sup yi sik. They are incredibly valuble.


----------



## jlq

APL76,

no one is dismissing anything as "just" San Sik!

The ability to apply some techniques is obviously more useful than the ability to just do a form.

Wong Nim Yi Sifu also teaches Sup Yee Sik but they are in certain places quite different from SN stuff - in his system the Sup Yee Lou as he calls it is a digest version of the system, encompassing techniques from the entire system (SLT, CK, BZ, MYC). According to him, if you can master this, you have all the skills you need to defend yourself effecticely. However, it is just a crash course and to really learn and understand the system, you need to learn and master the Saam Tou Kuen and the dummy techniques.

Incredibly valuable, you say...

Actually, SN Sup Yee Sik/the training method is just simple basic training done in any Wing Chun school. Repetition of basic techniques in  Deui Chaak is kind of a normal thing to do in any school to functionalize the techniques.

So, Incredibly invaluable... no more than foundation training is in general...



Only training forms, without any idea of the purpose and application of the moves, without any Deui Chaak and application is useless... But so much should be obvious to everybody.



Anyway...

The point is that the Sup Yee Sik are not considered an "extra form"  by any SN guy I know of, do you count them a "fourth form"?


----------



## APL76

jlq said:


> APL76,
> 
> no one is dismissing anything as "just" San Sik!
> 
> The ability to apply some techniques is obviously more useful than the ability to just do a form.
> 
> Wong Nim Yi Sifu also teaches Sup Yee Sik but they are in certain places quite different from SN stuff - in his system the Sup Yee Lou as he calls it is a digest version of the system, encompassing techniques from the entire system (SLT, CK, BZ, MYC). According to him, if you can master this, you have all the skills you need to defend yourself effecticely. However, it is just a crash course and to really learn and understand the system, you need to learn and master the Saam Tou Kuen and the dummy techniques.
> 
> Incredibly valuable, you say...
> 
> Actually, SN Sup Yee Sik/the training method is just simple basic training done in any Wing Chun school. Repetition of basic techniques in  Deui Chaak is kind of a normal thing to do in any school to functionalize the techniques.
> 
> So, Incredibly invaluable... no more than foundation training is in general...
> 
> 
> 
> Only training forms, without any idea of the purpose and application of the moves, without any Deui Chaak and application is useless... But so much should be obvious to everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> The point is that the Sup Yee Sik are not considered an "extra form"  by any SN guy I know of, do you count them a "fourth form"?




No, they are a distiliation of various elements of the forms and done in isolation so as to develop speed, power, strength, footwork, various techniques and coordination, and things like develop and refine centreline, focus, pcision and so on. They are not a "fourth form", fourth form for us is the wooden dummy form.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,

semantics or not...

You will surely be misunderstood if you claim Ng Chun So taught a "fourth form" called Chuen Sum Jeung...

If you say "form", people will think of it as a "Tou Lou" like SLT, CK, BZ... But according to all descendants of Ng Chun So he just taught Saam Tou Kuen, like everybody else - even you yourself said that your Taisigong created the choreography himself, i.e. creating a form based on what he learnt from Ng. So it is incorrect to say that Ng Chun So had a curriculum of four forms.

As I wrote above, Wong Nim Yi created a form called "Sup Yee Lou" (which is basically just a back to back performance of San Sik without a partner) based on techniques andapplications he learnt - this is kind of what your Taisigong did. But Wong Sifu and his students cannot say that this form was taught by Wong Jing or SN. That would be wrong, as they didn't.

As I wrote to APL79, Wong Sifu's Sup Yee Lou form is a digest of his Wing Chun system and contains the most readily applicable and efficient techniques and concepts of his style, so it is very useful as a crash course on his Wing Chun. Your Sitaigong's form is probably similar.

And agreed, it is very useful for the reasons you stated.

In this context it is interesting to note that Fohk Chiu initially got bored with Wing Chun and thought it was for girls because Leung Fuhk Chor had him practice SLT the traditional way and wanted to give up Wing Chun. So to keep Fohk Chiu motivated, he taught him "Che Tsin Kuen" instead - which, as Vincent Kwok told your student, was a simple series of San Sao.

Given that Fohk Chiu is the only one to mention this name, and no information other than that coming from Fohk Chiu is available about Leung Fuhk Chor and what he taught, it would be very interesting to look into where this name came from: Did Leung or Fohk coin it? Or something totally different?


----------



## jlq

APL76,

Thanks. 



Another question, if you don't mind.

Who in the Gongjaau Wing Chun community is/was an authentic disciple of SN and is qualified to represent his teachings in your opinion?


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,



Nobody Important said:


> There are stories floating around out there that state Ng Chung So passed on some White Crane, one source you can look into for that is with Chan Yiu Min’s line. Depending on the style and or lineage, this form has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc. I’ve already stated that I believe that this was a set of San Sik passed on from Leung Jan. There is evidence for this in the movements as they correlate well with the known San Sik set passed on by Leung Jan, namely La Jin Choi, Lin Wan Kau Da, Pien San Choi etc. The unfortunate thing about Ng Chung So, is that most of what he taught and whom he taught were eradicated during the Cultural Revolution. We have very few known sources that can rebuild a picture of what this man passed on. This is why I said he wasn’t really well known, in his day perhaps he was, but today his legacy has been all but wiped from this earth.



The ChaN Yu Min lineage in Seundak passes on a lot of things which are very much at odds with the Wing Chun Pai in Fatsaan.

Are you familiar with the CYM lineage tree and history?

From the perspective of Fatsaan Wing Chun only about 25 percent of what the Chan Yu Min people do is Wing Chun.

Legends and stories aside - and the fact that Seundak Siulam Weng Chun is excellent Gong Fu, IMHO - if we make a technical comparison between Fatsaan Wing Chun and Seundak Weng Chun, it is clear that there are some blatant and massive differences. 

You mentioned a form called Sei Muhn - and I said that the only form having that name in CYM style is the "Siu Lim Tao Sei Muhn".

For the people who don't know what it looks like:






People can make up their own minds what is what...

Looking at the second part - the Sei Muhn - it doesn't really look like anything found in the Che Tsin Kuen form by Fohk Chiu.

As far as the other forms you mention (Lin Wan Kau Da, La Jin Kuen, Pin San Choi), unless they have other "official" names, there are no such forms amongst the 12 in the curriculum of Seundak Weng Chun - at least according to what information is publically available in China. But given that Chan Gok Gei sifu said there was a lot of misinformation out there, I will ask him next time I have the chance.

Anyway, if these forms are like the Sei Muhn part of the Seundak Weng Chun equivalent of SLT it is rather dubious to call these "known Sansik sets passed on by Leung Jan".

I presume you have seen these forms since you said they look like sections of your Cheung Sum Jeung?

Now, this is confusing... You said, your Taisigong came with the form based on some San Sik he had learnt and now you are talking about some form form supposedly from Leung Jan which "has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc."

So which schools exactly have those forms you just mentioned? It sounds like you are talking about Sheung Gung Kuen and the Chong Kuen of Tang family Weng Chun. If so, your conclusion about these being some San Sik forms from Leung Jan be proven wrong for the following reasons:

1. Sheung Gung Kuen is from Yeung Tim, no relation or connection to Leung Jan

2. Chong Kuen was created by Fung Siu Ching because his students wondered why just taught them a dummy form... It is essentially an empty dummy form with lots of footwork added. From the information available, it can be extrapolated that this Chong Kuen was created ca. 1890 which is after Leung Jan taught his sons and Chan Wah Shun in Fatsaan, and around the time he moved to Dongbin, Gulao Seui Heung.

But maybe you are referring to other forms?

If not, how can all these different forms from different unrelated sources be different expressions of one form passed on by Leung Jan?

What is this Pin Sun San Sik you mention, and where is it from?


----------



## jlq

KPM said:


> 1. Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches" book can hardly be considered history now. Multiple people have pointed out LOTS of inconsistencies and errors in this book over the years. Robert Chu's "Complete Wing Chun" was an attempt to improve on that. But now even he would tell you that it needs a pretty drastic update to be accurate. When they wrote that book they relied primarily on the lineage stories that people submitted to them and not actual independent research. There is very little actual Wing Chun history that can be solidly stated prior to Leung Jan's day. Even a lot of Wing Chun history since Leung Jan's day is questionable.



Leung Ting's book is by far the best when it comes to documenting and recording the stories told by the Wing Chun people in Mainland China at that. It is by far a better ressorce than Rene Ritchie, Robert Chu, etc's book. It doesn't get the respect and recognition it deserves because of dislike and negativity towards Leung Ting - whether this is warranted or not.
The fact is, Leung Ting recorded the stories he was told and is very clear about what is his speculation and what is the words of others. He is no more political in this book than any other standing up for themselves and their lineage.
The ones complaining about political nefariousness are the ones who don't appreciate him pointing out the inconsistencies of their stories. Sum Nung being the most prominent case - Leung Ting produces a text, written by Sum Nung himself! to point out the problems. He is not at all making up stuff, as people accuse him of. One cannot blame Leung Ting For Sum Nung writing something That everybody else in the community knows is not true...
The only problem with this book is that Leung Ting is limited by his sources, i.e. what they told him, if they gave him wrong information, etc. But this is the problem of any book of such nature - "Complete Wing Chun" is plagued by this even more...


----------



## jlq

KPM said:


> 4. I have always been skeptical of the idea that Fung Siu Ching taught anything of significance to YKS. This was solidified when I had the opportunity to study Tang Yik Weng Chun. Tang Yik Weng Chun has a solid connection to FSC, but is nothing like Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun. In fact, they probably couldn't be more different!



Yuen Kei Saan and others learnt something from Fung Siu Ching for sure... Whether or not this is significant, one can only say if.one has learnt the complete style. As an outsider, this is Impossible to pass judgement on.

Comparing what Fong Siu Ching taught to his.early students with what he taught to the last students (YKS and co.) and drawing conclusions is not sound. Between teaching the first and last students there are about 50 years of experience, development and learning. So why would what FSC taught YKS have to be the same as what he taught to the Dong brothers, the Laws and Tang Suen?


----------



## jlq

KPM said:


> 6. Which leads me to the whole "Wing Chun" vs. "Weng Chun" debate. This is pronounced the same in Chinese. Different Sifu's over the years have used one version or the other on a whim depending upon whether they liked the connotation of "praise" more than "everlasting" at the time, or vice versa. So whether Chan Yiu Min or Pan Nam used "Wing" or "Weng" is really irrelevant. But Tang Yik Weng Chun is a lineage of martial arts that likely comes from a common source but is completely independent of the various Wing Chun lineages. They have used the "Weng Chun" designation from the beginning, and to me are the only ones to which the term really applies. Nowadays people seem to want to point out that CYM or PN or someone else at some point chose to use the "Weng" term as an indication that they were doing something older or more original, etc. That's just not right. Just because you've mixed some Hung Kuen into your curriculum doesn't turn it into "Weng Chun" or something more original or more special than anyone's else's Wing Chun. In fact, the examples I have seen display an entirely different body mechanics and so would possibly be confusing to students.....like trying to learn two completely different arts at the same time.



詠 and 永 are not homophones. The tone is different. 
However, local dialects and pronunciations are indeed the cause of much misunderstanding.
One thing people in the West don't understand is that the Chinese language is based on sound. So often a Chinese person just chooses a character to represent a sound. The character as such has a formal meaning, but this meaning is irrelevant, because the focus is on the sound. For example, the characters the Chinese use to approximate my family name is Lung Yek Seng, which means "Dragon Bright Honest", but this meaning is irrelevant. Some would also use other characters which have the same sound but a totally different meaning. Given that the pronunciation is close and might easily get confused through local dialects, it doesn't matter whether it was called 永 or 詠 or 泳 etc. if the focus was on the sound rather than the meaning... Obviously all of this is very confusing haha


----------



## jlq

KPM said:


> 7. I absolutely believe that looking at the physical aspects of the various arts for common structures and concepts is just as important as looking at any lineage stories. I can see Wing Chun, Tang Yik Wing Chun, and White Crane coming from a common source or sources and then evolving in their own directions. To me, Weng Chun is even more like "ancestral" White Crane than is Wing Chun! So I could see this proto-typical art at some point combining with a "snake" art to produce what we think of today as Wing Chun. From what I've seen and experienced, Wing Chun definitely has a more "snakey" aspect than Weng Chun, while both have a "craney" aspect. But if we are going to take seriously this analysis of form and concept, then we have to account for the Hakka arts and why some of them are so similar to Wing Chun. As I stated before, to me there is a lot more physical and conceptual commonalities between Wing Chun and Southern Mantis than there are between Wing Chun and Hung Kuen. Yet everyone seems to just accept Hung Kuen as a Wing Chun predecessor. Disclaimer here......Sifu Michael Tang does not agree with the idea that Weng Chun came from a "White Crane" ancestor. I told him my theory as just stated above and he disagreed with me. He holds to the story of Chi Sim taught a distillation of Shaolin systems and that this was the root of Weng Chun.



KPM, there is no need for any White Crane or even Hakka Boxing to explain Wing Chun 
- go to the old villages in countryside in Guandong Province, take a look at the various Lo, Siu and Fa Hong Kuen styles they practice and ask them to explain some concepts to you.
It is true that styles like Naam Pai Tong Long have a lot of commonalities with Wing Chun, but one thing to consider... Traditionally, Hakka people would not teach their art to non-Hakka, which means that these styles would not have been widely available such as the various forms of Hong Kuen were.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> 
> 
> The ChaN Yu Min lineage in Seundak passes on a lot of things which are very much at odds with the Wing Chun Pai in Fatsaan.
> 
> Are you familiar with the CYM lineage tree and history?
> 
> From the perspective of Fatsaan Wing Chun only about 25 percent of what the Chan Yu Min people do is Wing Chun.
> 
> Legends and stories aside - and the fact that Seundak Siulam Weng Chun is excellent Gong Fu, IMHO - if we make a technical comparison between Fatsaan Wing Chun and Seundak Weng Chun, it is clear that there are some blatant and massive differences.
> 
> You mentioned a form called Sei Muhn - and I said that the only form having that name in CYM style is the "Siu Lim Tao Sei Muhn".
> 
> For the people who don't know what it looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can make up their own minds what is what...
> 
> Looking at the second part - the Sei Muhn - it doesn't really look like anything found in the Che Tsin Kuen form by Fohk Chiu.
> 
> As far as the other forms you mention (Lin Wan Kau Da, La Jin Kuen, Pin San Choi), unless they have other "official" names, there are no such forms amongst the 12 in the curriculum of Seundak Weng Chun - at least according to what information is publically available in China. But given that Chan Gok Gei sifu said there was a lot of misinformation out there, I will ask him next time I have the chance.
> 
> Anyway, if these forms are like the Sei Muhn part of the Seundak Weng Chun equivalent of SLT it is rather dubious to call these "known Sansik sets passed on by Leung Jan".
> 
> I presume you have seen these forms since you said they look like sections of your Cheung Sum Jeung?
> 
> Now, this is confusing... You said, your Taisigong came with the form based on some San Sik he had learnt and now you are talking about some form form supposedly from Leung Jan which "has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc."
> 
> So which schools exactly have those forms you just mentioned? It sounds like you are talking about Sheung Gung Kuen and the Chong Kuen of Tang family Weng Chun. If so, your conclusion about these being some San Sik forms from Leung Jan be proven wrong for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Sheung Gung Kuen is from Yeung Tim, no relation or connection to Leung Jan
> 
> 2. Chong Kuen was created by Fung Siu Ching because his students wondered why just taught them a dummy form... It is essentially an empty dummy form with lots of footwork added. From the information available, it can be extrapolated that this Chong Kuen was created ca. 1890 which is after Leung Jan taught his sons and Chan Wah Shun in Fatsaan, and around the time he moved to Dongbin, Gulao Seui Heung.
> 
> But maybe you are referring to other forms?
> 
> If not, how can all these different forms from different unrelated sources be different expressions of one form passed on by Leung Jan?
> 
> What is this Pin Sun San Sik you mention, and where is it from?


I'm not at the computer right now so quoting individual sections to reply to isn't possible.

I'm afraid you have horribly misunderstood me here, most of what you're  confused about is way out of context, so bear with me as I try to clear up for you.

1. I'm very aware of the history of Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun and the "origins" of their extra material. I was simply pointing out that according to them this was material passed on to Chan Wah Shun from Leung Jan and that they were saying Ng Chun So also passed on some White Crane. Personally I don't find any of this credible, I was just pointing out some of their narrative in the context of others saying Ng Chung So passed on extra material.

2. According to Chan family the Sei Muhn or Siu Lim Tau Sei Muhn was a form passed on by Leung Jan. Supposedly this was verified to be true by some others. I simply wanted to know your input into this, because it doesn't look like any 4 Gates San Sik that I'm familiar with.

3. Lin Wan Kau Da (Continuous Capture & Strike), La Jin Choi (Stretching Arrow Punch) & Pin San Choi (Side Body Punch) are sets of fundamental San Sik supposedly passed on by Leung Jan. These are mentioned in Complete Wing Chun and on Wingchunpedia, as coming from Leung Jan, for what that's worth. I've seen different version of these from a couple different lineages, Yip Man & Yuen Kay San. In my lineage we have Lin Wan Kau Da and La Jin Choi. I was pointing out that these movements are also found in my "4th Form". These are not forms in Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun, but supposedly San Sik that they practice and say came from Leung Jan. Other than that I cant verify that these San Sik came from Leung Jan only speculate that they did. Your thoughts?

4. This next part you have all mixed up, I'll  try to sort it out for you. Supposedly the generic name of this "4th Form" is Chong Kuen (Post Fist). Now different branches of Wing/Weng Chun call it other names like Seung Chong Kuen, Jin Kuen, Che Chin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung etc. You'll find this naming convention present in Hung Kuen and White Crane as well, it is also prevalent in SEA Wing Chun. I was simply trying to establish that it's a common theme for the name of a form outside the canonical 3. I was also trying to convey, that having seen some of these Chong Kuen forms, that some of them contain very similar material to each other. If I stated that they all sprang from Leung Jan, which I don't think I did,  it was in error. On that note, Lo Kwai Wing Chun and Fut Sau Wing Chun pass on a 4th Form called Baat Gwa Kuen/Siu Baat Gwa Kuen that they claim was passed on by Leung Jan. I was just trying to illustrate that there are several branches of Wing Chun that claim a "4th Form" and or a "Chong" set often viewed as a separate Wing Chun form outside the canonical 3.

5. I don't believe I mentioned anything about Pin Sun San Sik, I did mention Pin San Choi (Side Body Punch) as a San Sik Set.

I hope that clears things up for you. Perhaps we should keep the lines of questioning short so that we can focus on one thing at a time so that we aren't confusing each other.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,

cool, thank you very much - and an excellent suggestion.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> 1. I'm very aware of the history of Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun and the "origins" of their extra material. I was simply pointing out that according to them this was material passed on to Chan Wah Shun from Leung Jan and that they were saying Ng Chun So also passed on some White Crane. Personally I don't find any of this credible, I was just pointing out some of their narrative in the context of others saying Ng Chung So passed on extra material.



Ok. 

Actually, given that Leung Jan learnt many different kinds of Gong Fu himself, he might very well have passed on all sorts of other stuff to Chan Wah Shun - but then that stuff should not be lumped in with the Wing Chun.

Ng Chun So, according to the people and lineages who have connections to him don't say anything about this. Fohk Chiu, Yiu Choi and Yiu Kei definitely didn't. But does it mean that Ng didn't teach any White Crane or other stuff to others? No... But even if he did, this should not be mixed up with the Wing Chun. Let's say he taught three Wing Chun forms and a White Crane form, it shouldn't be claimed that he taught a fourth Wing Chun form.

Thus the story of him passing on White Crane is irrelevant when it comes to Wing Chun.

On an interesting side note, the reason Ng Chun So might be said to have taught White Crane could be because there was in fact a White Crane teacher with a very similar name in Fatsaan at that time. Ng's Gong Fu brother is known to have exchanged  with this teacher... Who knows? Pure speculation on my part...


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> 2. According to Chan family the Sei Muhn or Siu Lim Tau Sei Muhn was a form passed on by Leung Jan. Supposedly this was verified to be true by some others. I simply wanted to know your input into this, because it doesn't look like any 4 Gates San Sik that I'm familiar with.



So you see... There is no seperate Sei Muhn form in CYM Weng Chun, but it might as well be. In fact, the form demonstrated on the video I linked seems to be called "Siu Lien Kuen", actually. 
It looks like to different forms just done back to back, each having a totally different flavour.
I am very curious about who verified this to be true...
Again, given what I said about Leung Jan's martial arts background above, he could very well have passed on this Sei Muhn, but again... definitely not as a part of his Wing Chun. It doesn't at all look like anything you can see in Fatsaan or Gulao Wing Chun, even.

FWIW one of my friends learnt this "Sei Muhn" part from a Sifu in Samjian and said it had some very useful applications, even though there is nothing Wing Chun about it.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Ok.
> 
> Actually, given that Leung Jan learnt many different kinds of Gong Fu himself, he might very well have passed on all sorts of other stuff to Chan Wah Shun - but then that stuff should not be lumped in with the Wing Chun.
> 
> Ng Chun So, according to the people and lineages who have connections to him don't say anything about this. Fohk Chiu, Yiu Choi and Yiu Kei definitely didn't. But does it mean that Ng didn't teach any White Crane or other stuff to others? No... But even if he did, this should not be mixed up with the Wing Chun. Let's say he taught three Wing Chun forms and a White Crane form, it shouldn't be claimed that he taught a fourth Wing Chun form.
> 
> Thus the story of him passing on White Crane is irrelevant when it comes to Wing Chun.
> 
> On an interesting side note, the reason Ng Chun So might be said to have taught White Crane could be because there was in fact a White Crane teacher with a very similar name in Fatsaan at that time. Ng's Gong Fu brother is known to have exchanged  with this teacher... Who knows? Pure speculation on my part...


I agree to an extent, don't get me wrong, I'm just stating what others have said. I personally don't have enough information to make an educated decision on the matter, all I can do is speculate.

I will say though that I don't think that in the past there was such a hard line as to what was and wasn't Wing Chun like it is today. I know quite a few schools of CMA that are quite liberal in what they've absorbed into their systems and pass off as original content. Also, after a form has been absorbed into a system from another style how long does it have to be before its considered a legitimate form of the adopting system? Is it 10 years? 20, 50, 70, 100 years? Many systems of CMA have built thier curriculum in this manner and should be viewed as legitimate, often because the absorbed form generally takes on the characteristics of the adopting system.

I would be very interested in learning more about this other Ng, what he taught and to whom.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> So you see... There is no seperate Sei Muhn form in CYM Weng Chun, but it might as well be. In fact, the form demonstrated on the video I linked seems to be called "Siu Lien Kuen", actually.
> It looks like to different forms just done back to back, each having a totally different flavour.
> I am very curious about who verified this to be true...
> Again, given what I said about Leung Jan's martial arts background above, he could very well have passed on this Sei Muhn, but again... definitely not as a part of his Wing Chun. It doesn't at all look like anything you can see in Fatsaan or Gulao Wing Chun, even.
> 
> FWIW one of my friends learnt this "Sei Muhn" part from a Sifu in Samjian and said it had some very useful applications, even though there is nothing Wing Chun about it.


I remember reading some articles a while back (can't remember who wrote them) that after Chan Yiu Min passed that this material was added to the system. It was also said that Chan's wife did some research and suggested that Weng (Eternal) was the original character used to describe the art not Wing (praise). There was also mention of Chan's son or possibly Chan Yiu Min himself that learned some Hung Kuen from someone (I want to say one of Lam Sai Wing's students or Lam himself but dont know if thats correct). Anyways, one article stated that other students of Chan Yiu Min never learned this other material. I dont know enough about the lineage to have an opinion to it's validity, but its intetesting none the less. Personally I like the extra material on it's own, it looks solid.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> 3. Lin Wan Kau Da (Continuous Capture & Strike), La Jin Choi (Stretching Arrow Punch) & Pin San Choi (Side Body Punch) are sets of fundamental San Sik supposedly passed on by Leung Jan. These are mentioned in Complete Wing Chun and on Wingchunpedia, as coming from Leung Jan, for what that's worth. I've seen different version of these from a couple different lineages, Yip Man & Yuen Kay San. In my lineage we have Lin Wan Lau Da and La Jin Choi. I was pointing out that these movements are also found in my "4th Form". These are not forms in Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun, but supposedly San Sik that they practice and say came from Leung Jan. Other than that I cant verify that these San Sik came from Leung Jan only speculate that they did. Your thoughts?



Ah! I think, I finally get you! 

You seem to be using the term "form" in the sense of what I understand as "technique" and "San Sik" - which to me is an application of a technique rather than just the technique itself.

Now, from a linguistic perspective it doesn't make sense to call something a San Sik form, because the term "san" (loose/seperate/free) is used to denote that the (jiu) sik is not a part of a form. Forms are termed "Tou Lou". Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do. 

So:

Lin Wan Kau Da - is just a chained series of the Kau Da technique, like Lin Wan Choi or Lin Wan Laan Kiu or Lin Wan Gerk. It is not a Tou Lou like the "Lin Wan Kau Da" of Choi Li Fut.

La Jin Choi - this is a technique known as the Jin Choi, another basic jiu sik.  Normally, there is no "La" to go with it, but I can see why it would make sense to put it in. It is not a Tou Lou like Hong Kuen's "Jin Jeung".

Pin San Choi is another basic technique and not a Tou Lou.

Is that correct?

If so, there is nothing to discuss, all Wing Chun and even other styles have this. There is no need to point out that Leung Jan passed on these techniques, he surely did - as others did as well.

And of course these techniques make up your fourth Tou Lou - would be very strange if they didn't...


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> I agree to an extent, don't get me wrong, I'm just stating what others have said. I personally don't have enough information to make an educated decision on the matter, all I can do is speculate.
> 
> I will say though that I don't think that in the past there was such a hard line as to what was and wasn't Wing Chun like it is today. I know quite a few schools of CMA that are quite liberal in what they've absorbed into their systems and pass off as original content. Also, after a form has been absorbed into a system from another style how long does it have to be before its considered a legitimate form of the adopting system? Is it 10 years? 20, 50, 70, 100 years? Many systems of CMA have built thier curriculum in this manner and should be viewed as legitimate, often because the absorbed form generally takes on the characteristics of the adopting system.
> 
> I would be very interested in learning more about this other Ng, what he taught and to whom.



This is a most excellent post and describes the situation in the past very accurately according to my understanding.



KPM mentioned the example of Chu Chung Man, but there are others. Some would point to the Pao Fa Lien style as an example of this. Still many more...

And not to forget - in the old days, people did not care about styles, just skills, whatever was useful and practical and mostly the "styles" didn't even have names.

An interesting story: A few months ago, a martial arts researcher here in Fatsaan stumbled on a video which showed an older gentleman from Gongjaau demonstrating som excellent skills uncannily similar to Tang family Weng Chun. So the researcher contacted him to ask what style he was doing and his Lineage. The gentleman replied that he didn't know the name of the style he was doing, or even If it was a specific style, he had just learnt it from his father. That was all he knew...

Personally, I.don't think what is known and clearly identifiable as Wing Chun is that old, but that is another story.

This other Ng was supposedly a White Crane teacher, practicioner, not related to any Wing Chun people per se othe than Lai Hip Ji (I got this information from a book written about him by his son, I think it was. I'd have to check) But it doesn't say any more than that. Since this was in the 50s probably, more could poasibly found out. But I don't know any Crane practicioners in either Fatsaan or.Gongjaau, just HK.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Ah! I think, I finally get you!
> 
> You seem to be using the term "form" in the sense of what I understand as "technique" and "San Sik" - which to me is an application of a technique rather than just the technique itself.
> 
> Now, from a linguistic perspective it doesn't make sense to call something a San Sik form, because the term "san" (loose/seperate/free) is used to denote that the (jiu) sik is not a part of a form. Forms are termed "Tou Lou". Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do.
> 
> So:
> 
> Lin Wan Kau Da - is just a chained series of the Kau Da technique, like Lin Wan Choi or Lin Wan Laan Kiu or Lin Wan Gerk. It is not a Tou Lou like the "Lin Wan Kau Da" of Choi Li Fut.
> 
> La Jin Choi - this is a technique known as the Jin Choi, another basic jiu sik.  Normally, there is no "La" to go with it, but I can see why it would make sense to put it in. It is not a Tou Lou like Hong Kuen's "Jin Jeung".
> 
> Pin San Choi is another basic technique and not a Tou Lou.
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> If so, there is nothing to discuss, all Wing Chun and even other styles have this. There is no need to point out that Leung Jan passed on these techniques, he surely did - as others did as well.
> 
> And of course these techniques make up your fourth Tou Lou - would be very strange if they didn't...


Yes that is correct. I only stressed it in the context of the content found in the "4th Form".

You said, "Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do. "

Wouldn't that be a form then, or am I missing something? San Sik done as a form is exactly what I'm referring to with a lot of these branches and their "Chong Kuen" form. In my case these San Sik have evolved into a codified form we call Chuan Sin Jeung.  When I see other branches performing San Sik in this manner without deviation of sequence and calling it things like Che Chin Kuen I can't help but to think form despite the label of Sik or Lou. Wouldn't it be proper to just call it a form since they are performing It like one, or is that a technicality?. That's why I stated I believe its just semantics despite terminology used. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm most likely going to call it a duck and not a cat. But that's just me, I'm sure others feel differently.


----------



## Nobody Important

Jesper, 

I don't know about you, but I feel that the issue surrounding Ng Chung So passing on some extra empty hand material outside the 3 forms has been put to bed. Its fairly evident that he did and that, depending on the descendant, it was compiled into codified Sik or Lou. I also feel that it is extremely plausible that this material in question was passed down from Leung Jan. Now whether someone wants to call it a "4th Form" or not is debateable as being proper, but I feel like that is a minor issue in the context of everything and really more of an argument of semantics depending on your view. Do you agree?

If so I'd like to move on to Law Man Gung.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> 4. This next part you have all mixed up, I'll try to sort it out for you. Supposedly the generic name of this "4th Form" is Chong Kuen (Post Fist). Now different branches of Wing/Weng Chun call it other names like Seung Chong Kuen, Jin Kuen, Che Chin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung etc. You'll find this naming convention present in Hung Kuen and White Crane as well, it is also prevalent in SEA Wing Chun. I was simply trying to establish that it's a common theme for the name of a form outside the canonical 3. I was also trying to convey, that having seen some of these Chong Kuen forms, that some of them contain very similar material to each other. If I stated that they all sprang from Leung Jan, which I don't think I did, it was in error. On that note, Lo Kwai Wing Chun and Fut Sau Wing Chun pass on a 4th Form called Baat Gwa Kuen/Siu Baat Gwa Kuen that they claim was passed on by Leung Jan. I was just trying to illustrate that there are several branches of Wing Chun that claim a "4th Form" and or a "Chong" set often viewed as a separate Wing Chun form outside the canonical 3



No doubt!  

So... No you are talking Tou Lou, I must presume.

But then there is a problem.

Because there is no such generic form in Wing Chun or even Weng Chun.

I already explained that Sheung Gung Kuen and Chong Kuen are Tang family things. They don't have equivalents in other Wing/Weng Chun.

But given how you spell it, you might not mean those? Do you or don't you?

If you do, you should know the romanization should be "Gung/Gong", not "Chong" as the character used is 工, not 樁.

If not, could you please point me to exactly which Wing/Weng Chun has a "Seung Chong Kuen"? And which ones have a "Chong Kuen" other than the Weng Chun styles from Fong Siu Ching and Fohk Chiu?

Pao Fa Lien has both a Jin Jeung and Jin Kuen Tou Lou - both those are not some generic "Chong Kuen" form, a fourth form of Wing Chun, they are two out of a dozen or so Tou Lou that compromise the PFL Wing Chun system.

SEA Wing Chun? WhIch branch exactly be that? 

Yip Kin Wing Chun, I have met the Jeung Muhn Yan, Yip Fuhk Cho Sifu, of this style a few times when he was visting Gongjaau on a few occasions. Really great Gong Fu. An excellent, solid traditional Gong Fu style, but it has more than four forms and is a mixed art.

Ban Chung Cho Ga Wing Chun - has just one "original" form, but some ancestors developed some extra, forms which are mixed. Seui Da is an example of such a form.

Then there is a lot of "Opera Gong Fu" which is quite a mix. I learnt such a form - called Jin Kuen - from my Sigong.

Lo Kwai Wing Chun I cannot say anything about, as it doesn't have any descendants in Fatsaan anymore. But why do think this Baat Gwa Kuen they supposedly have is the same as some generic "Chong Kuen"? Have you even seen it?

As far as the Fut Sao Wing Chun system goes, this is a "modern" style... 

The question - as I understand it - is not about whether there is a fourth form in many Wing Chun styles, it is about whether or not there was some "Mitochondrial fourth form", which then evolved into all the various Tou Lou practiced today.

To me it is obvious that there wasn't - people just have different forms because they learnt different things, added stuff, changed stuff according to their own experience.

The fact that all these forms feature the same techniques and even movement sequences doesn't at all indicate the existence of such a Tou Lou, just that each school/style has similar basic techniques - which is not really That strange...


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> Yes that is correct. I only stressed it in the context of the content found in the "4th Form".
> 
> You said, "Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do. "
> 
> Wouldn't that be a form then, or am I missing something? San Sik done as a form is exactly what I'm referring to with a lot of these branches and their "Chong Kuen" form. In my case these San Sik have evolved into a codified form we call Chuan Sin Jeung. When I see other branches performing San Sik in this manner without deviation of sequence and calling it things like Che Chin Kuen I can't help but to think form despite the label of Sik or Lou. Wouldn't it be proper to just call it a form since they are performing It like one, or is that a technicality?. That's why I stated I believe its just semantics despite terminology used. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm most likely going to call it a duck and not a cat. But that's just me, I'm sure others feel differently.



Wong Sifu teaches four empty hand forms (one more to kids - he created a special form to catch their interest keep their attention):

Sup Yee Lou
Siu Lim Tao
Cham Kiu
Biu Zi

then of course Hong Jong, Muk Yan Chong, etc.

This Sup Yee Lou is a Tou Lou and practiced as such, but it just serves as the technical basis for application training. Personally, I think it would be better to just do it like the SN people, focusing on application instead of just adding another, granted interesting, but rather long form which is in certain places quite complex.

The problem is you called techniques forms...



But as long a we are on the same page now, everything else is water under the bridge.



If you refer specifically to what Yiu Chung Keung Sifu said about that, it is quite possible he was not clear about what I was referring to. I will show him a video of himself doing the Che Tsing Kuen next time. But again, I asked about a fourth form and he stated very clearly That Wing Chun just has three forms. Let's see what he says next time.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> No doubt!
> 
> So... No you are talking Tou Lou, I must presume.
> 
> But then there is a problem.
> 
> Because there is no such generic form in Wing Chun or even Weng Chun.
> 
> I already explained that Sheung Gung Kuen and Chong Kuen are Tang family things. They don't have equivalents in other Wing/Weng Chun.
> 
> But given how you spell it, you might not mean those? Do you or don't you?
> 
> If you do, you should know the romanization should be "Gung/Gong", not "Chong" as the character used is 工, not 樁.
> 
> If not, could you please point me to exactly which Wing/Weng Chun has a "Seung Chong Kuen"? And which ones have a "Chong Kuen" other than the Weng Chun styles from Fong Siu Ching and Fohk Chiu?
> 
> Pao Fa Lien has both a Jin Jeung and Jin Kuen Tou Lou - both those are not some generic "Chong Kuen" form, a fourth form of Wing Chun, they are two out of a dozen or so Tou Lou that compromise the PFL Wing Chun system.
> 
> SEA Wing Chun? WhIch branch exactly be that?
> 
> Yip Kin Wing Chun, I have met the Jeung Muhn Yan, Yip Fuhk Cho Sifu, of this style a few times when he was visting Gongjaau on a few occasions. Really great Gong Fu. An excellent, solid traditional Gong Fu style, but it has more than four forms and is a mixed art.
> 
> Ban Chung Cho Ga Wing Chun - has just one "original" form, but some ancestors developed some extra, forms which are mixed. Seui Da is an example of such a form.
> 
> Then there is a lot of "Opera Gong Fu" which is quite a mix. I learnt such a form - called Jin Kuen - from my Sigong.
> 
> Lo Kwai Wing Chun I cannot say anything about, as it doesn't have any descendants in Fatsaan anymore. But why do think this Baat Gwa Kuen they supposedly have is the same as some generic "Chong Kuen"? Have you even seen it?
> 
> As far as the Fut Sao Wing Chun system goes, this is a "modern" style...
> 
> The question - as I understand it - is not about whether there is a fourth form in many Wing Chun styles, it is about whether or not there was some "Mitochondrial fourth form", which then evolved into all the various Tou Lou practiced today.
> 
> To me it is obvious that there wasn't - people just have different forms because they learnt different things, added stuff, changed stuff according to their own experience.
> 
> The fact that all these forms feature the same techniques and even movement sequences doesn't at all indicate the existence of such a Tou Lou, just that each school/style has similar basic techniques - which is not really That strange...


Jesper,

You're last statement in this question pretty much sums it all up. I by no means was trying to insinuate that there is a mysterious mitochondrial "4th Form" that is the root of all Wing Chun. I was just simply trying to illustrate that there was left over material that was used as San Sik, and in some cases, used to create a "4th Form". In many cases, this material has been labeled as "Post Fist", generally as it is believed that this material may have been remnants or leftovers of the Wooden Man Post set, but undoubtedly Wing Chun material in most cases and not a foreign method.

I have heard many refer to it in this generic term, and as Ive stated before, many of these "Sets" or "Forms" have a proper name like Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Chin Jeung, Che Chin Kuen etc. And yes, I lump the Weng Chun form Seung Chong Kuen into the mix, mostly because of the shared relationship of Fung Siu Ching. It may not be accurate to do so but that set and Sup Yi Sau look like linked San Sik to me and have similarities to White Crane & Hung Kuen sets that use the Chong, Chin or Jeung naming convention, this could be coincidental, but with similar techniques being used I can't help but suspect there was some "borrowing" going on.. Also I find the repeated use of Chong, Chin & Jeung to describe these sets interesting, as similar forms in Hung Kuen and White Crane have very similar names and techniques, just as I've stated above. Which leads me to suspect that, as you said, the village Hung Kuen systems share a lot of commonalities with some of the Wing/Weng Chun systems, so it only makes sense that some of that material, along with naming conventions was potentially mixed in and over time accepted as original. As I mentioned before I have seen some of these sets and they have a lot of shared material, which only makes sense if it really was left over material not embedded in the system proper then mixed with something else to create new sets.

As far as Lo Kwai Wing Chun goes, I was told by one of its practitioners that they have a 4th form called Baat Gwa that came from Leung Jan. I realize that Fut Sau Wing Chun is a newer branch but thought that it was intetesting that their 4th form is called Siu Baat Gwa and claim it to be original to the system. I have never seen either version but would like to, I have lots of questions.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> I have heard many refer to it in this generic term, and as Ive stated before, many of these "Sets" or "Forms" have a proper name like Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Chin Jeung, Che Chin Kuen etc. And yes, I lump the Weng Chun form Seung Chong Kuen into the mix, mostly because of the shared relationship of Fung Siu Ching. It may not be accurate to do so but that set and Sup Yi Sau look like linked San Sik to me and have similarities to White Crane & Hung Kuen sets that use the Chong, Chin or Jeung naming convention, this could be coincidental, but with similar techniques being used I can't help but suspect there was some "borrowing" going on.. Also I find the repeated use of Chong, Chin & Jeung to describe these sets interesting, as similar forms in Hung Kuen and White Crane have very similar names and techniques, just as I've stated above. Which leads me to suspect that, as you said, the village Hung Kuen systems share a lot of commonalities with some of the Wing/Weng Chun systems, so it only makes sense that some of that material, along with naming conventions was potentially mixed in and over time accepted as original. As I mentioned before I have seen some of these sets and they have a lot of shared material, which only makes sense if it really was left over material not embedded in the system proper then mixed with something else to create new sets.



In the Wing Chun circles here, as I said nobody except for the guys I mentioned speak about any "Post Fist" - the Hong Kuen and CLF I know don't do either. But I am only interested in Wing Chun... So which lineage are the people you have heard speak about some post fist from?

And exactly which styles do those Tou lou names you mention come from? Have you heard anyone from these particular lineages say that these are called "Chong Kuen"?

Well, Sheung Gung Kuen is not called "Chong Kuen" by anyone in the Tang family, so it is not a "Post" form - as I explained to you, your romanization is off and if you conclude what you do because of your rendition of the name, you are misleading yourself. Remember, what you spell "Chong" should be "Gung" - I gave you the characters in my earlier message.

Also, this form has nothing to do with Fung Siu Ching at all, it is from a totally different source and as such it is totally unrelated to Wing Chun.

The form Fong Siu Ching created was called "Chong Kuen" for a very simple reason: If was the Boxing form of the dummy (the Chong). Not because the name is supposed to relate to some "Chong Kuen from other styles.

Speaking of which, exactly which "Chong" forms are you referring to in White Crane and Hong Kuen?

I am sure you know what "chin" and "jin" or "tsin" means: "arrow" or with a different character "battle". Given this meaning, it is not too difficult to imagine why Tou Lou with no relation would be called the same thing... "Jeung" simply means palm. Baat Gwa Jeung has no relation to Fat Jeung which ha no relation Jing Jeung, the name just means they all focus on the palm...

Sup Yi Sau? A Tou Lou or (Jiu) Sik?

The reason there are all these similarities is obvious. The different styles all come from some generic type martial art, and because of biomechanics there are overlaps with totally unrelated styles.

So, yes... Everything is a huge mix of different stuff.



It is all Siulam Gong Fu.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important said:


> As far as Lo Kwai Wing Chun goes, I was told by one of its practitioners that they have a 4th form called Baat Gwa that came from Leung Jan. I realize that Fut Sau Wing Chun is a newer branch but thought that it was intetesting that their 4th form is called Siu Baat Gwa and claim it to be original to the system. I



The problem is Leung Jan might very well have taught something like this... But it is odd that Leung Jan didn't teach his sons or other students such a form.

Again, one should be careful drawing inferences from same or similar names. The term Baat Gwa is a normal term used by Chinese people to express many things. In the old days, before Western science found its way into China, BG was used to refer to/describe directions or angles. F.ex. YM's students in Fatsaan have sth calles Baat Gwa Jeung, but it is not at all related to the Noi Ga art of the same name.

Siu Baat Gwa might very well be original to Henry Leung's system, but no such set exists elsewhere - to my knowledge.


----------



## KPM

jlq said:


> Yuen Kei Saan and others learnt something from Fung Siu Ching for sure... Whether or not this is significant, one can only say if.one has learnt the complete style. As an outsider, this is Impossible to pass judgement on.
> 
> Comparing what Fong Siu Ching taught to his.early students with what he taught to the last students (YKS and co.) and drawing conclusions is not sound. Between teaching the first and last students there are about 50 years of experience, development and learning. So why would what FSC taught YKS have to be the same as what he taught to the Dong brothers, the Laws and Tang Suen?



Well....unless FSC drastically changed his martial art over the ensuing years!   The body structure and mechanics behind Tang Yik Weng Chun and YSK Wing Chun are very different!   So perhaps in his old age FSC taught YKS some "odds and ends" to round out his knowledge....but that would not seem very "significant" to me compared to what core biomechanics are being used.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> In the Wing Chun circles here, as I said nobody except for the guys I mentioned speak about any "Post Fist" - the Hong Kuen and CLF I know don't do either. But I am only interested in Wing Chun... So which lineage are the people you have heard speak about some post fist from?
> 
> And exactly which styles do those Tou lou names you mention come from? Have you heard anyone from these particular lineages say that these are called "Chong Kuen"?
> 
> Well, Sheung Gung Kuen is not called "Chong Kuen" by anyone in the Tang family, so it is not a "Post" form - as I explained to you, your romanization is off and if you conclude what you do because of your rendition of the name, you are misleading yourself. Remember, what you spell "Chong" should be "Gung" - I gave you the characters in my earlier message.
> 
> Also, this form has nothing to do with Fung Siu Ching at all, it is from a totally different source and as such it is totally unrelated to Wing Chun.
> 
> The form Fong Siu Ching created was called "Chong Kuen" for a very simple reason: If was the Boxing form of the dummy (the Chong). Not because the name is supposed to relate to some "Chong Kuen from other styles.
> 
> Speaking of which, exactly which "Chong" forms are you referring to in White Crane and Hong Kuen?
> 
> I am sure you know what "chin" and "jin" or "tsin" means: "arrow" or with a different character "battle". Given this meaning, it is not too difficult to imagine why Tou Lou with no relation would be called the same thing... "Jeung" simply means palm. Baat Gwa Jeung has no relation to Fat Jeung which ha no relation Jing Jeung, the name just means they all focus on the palm...
> 
> Sup Yi Sau? A Tou Lou or (Jiu) Sik?
> 
> The reason there are all these similarities is obvious. The different styles all come from some generic type martial art, and because of biomechanics there are overlaps with totally unrelated styles.
> 
> So, yes... Everything is a huge mix of different stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all Siulam Gong Fu.


Personally I was only interested in the material that concerned Ng Chung So and the details surrounding that matter. I mentioned the other stuff as reference to show that this material did in fact exist and that other arts, with connections to some Wing Chun branches, also had similar material.

For styles with forms of similar name, technique and usage to Wing Chun material we have ( I'll use Pinyin to avoid screwing up the Cantonese) Chong Da (Colliding Strike) from Dengjia Hong Quan (some other Hongjia branches also have this set) said by some to be a Post method. Chuan Xin Zhang (Heart Penetrating Palm) from Yongchun Bai He Quan, Chuan Xin Zhang (Heart Penetrating Palm) from Linjia Hong Quan said to be from Red Boat Yongchun and originally a Post method, it is also known as Jian Quan (Arrow Fist). There is also Bai He Xiao Yue Gong (White Crane Small Moon Skills), also known as Zhuang Quan (Post Fist) and Yongchun Quan (Eternal Springtime Fist) from Liujia Bai He Quan. There is also Xiao Wu Xing Quan (Small 5 Pattern Fist) of which is composed of two sections, the second one is called Dui Zhong Fa (Chasing Center Method) or Dui Zhuang Fa (Facing Post Method) depending on who you ask from Xiajia Heyang Bai He Quan. There are more but I think this will suffice. 

Now admittedly I'm no expert on Deng & Zhu family Yongchun but isn't the form Shuang Kuang Zhuang Quan (Double Frame Post Fist) that Deng Zhi passed onto Zhu Songmin also known as Zhuang Quan (Post Fist)? Or am I mistaken? 

As for Shiyi Shou (11 Hands) which is also the name of the 2nd section of Xiao Lian Tou (Small First Training). isn't that also known as Yongchun Quan (Eternal Springtime Fist). This form has a lot in common with Ba Shou Sanzhan (8 Hands 3 Battles) of Yongchun Bai He Quan and the form Bai He Xiao Yue Gong as mentioned above.

As an FYI, I make absolutely no claims to being a Yongchun expert or historian, I only learned about 3/4 of the Ruan Ji Yun system of the Duan family, and I am not a disciple. My main art is Bei Xizang Lama Bai He Pai of the Liu Jun Ren and Wu Jian Hua lines. Ive also learned a fair amount of Hong Tou Cai Wei Quan (No relation to the populat Zhoujia system) of Huang Tian Fang who was also a student of Liang Tian Zhu I've also dabbled in some other stuff so have made some very interesting observations and have heard some pretty interesting things concerning the relationships between Hongjia, Bai He and Yongchun.

So yes, as you say it's all southern method and there was definately a lot of mixing going on, but does that make outlying forms outright illegitimate after all these years? 

Honestly, who's to say that the 3 canonical forms we know as Yongchun today were anything like what was originally taught all those years ago, and that some old man practicing something his father taught in the park isn't  actually closer to the truth than we know?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Wouldn't that be a form then, or am I missing something? San Sik done as a form is exactly what I'm referring to with a lot of these branches and their "Chong Kuen" form. In my case these San Sik have evolved into a codified form we call Chuan Sin Jeung.  When I see other branches performing San Sik in this manner without deviation of sequence and calling it things like Che Chin Kuen I can't help but to think form despite the label of Sik or Lou. Wouldn't it be proper to just call it a form since they are performing It like one, or is that a technicality?. That's why I stated I believe its just semantics despite terminology used. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm most likely going to call it a duck and not a cat. But that's just me, I'm sure others feel differently.



Good point!  A set of San Sik can certainly become a "form" when they are being consistently strung together in the same way.   Even in Ku Lo Wing Chun....which is San Sik based, they seem to run the San Sik together back to back for demonstration purposes and refer to it as the "Dai Lim Tao" form.  I still think it possible that the Tang Yik "Weng Chun Kuen" form may have started out as San Sik that  were later put together as a "form."   It has 11 sections, each separated by a pause bringing the fists back to the hips, and each section has a distinct 2 man drill that goes with it to teach its application.  This would be exactly how Ku Lo Wing Chun would function if you chose to string the San Sik together and teach them as a single form only.  And for that matter.....most versions of Wing Chun's "Siu Lim Tao" form could  be said to be a series of San Sik strung together because, again....each section is separated by a pause drawing the fists back to the chest.   Each section can be practiced and applied independently.   I've also read, but don't know how true it is, that "ancestral" White Crane in the distant past was taught as a series of San Sik rather than with longer forms.  It could be that the more modern White Crane forms are San Sik strung together.  But I don't know enough about White Crane to say.  

But it can be a confusing distinction and really comes down to how the specific lineage is practicing and teaching the material......as San Sik.....as a single form....or maybe even both as in the case of Ku Lo Wing Chun!


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,


Thanks the references, much appreciated.

I will look into it as soon as I have time. 

As I said, Wing Chun has much more in common with the various other local arts, than many realize.

So It is a great passtime to look into this stuff.





Nobody Important said:


> Now admittedly I'm no expert on Deng & Zhu family Yongchun but isn't the form Shuang Kuang Zhuang Quan (Double Frame Post Fist) that Deng Zhi passed onto Zhu Songmin also known as Zhuang Quan (Post Fist)? Or am I mistaken?



As I explained to you, the name of the form is Shuang Gong Quan, not what you are saying and no, the Zhuang Quan is a totally different form. The former comes from Yang Tian, the latter from Fong Shao Qing - so yes, you are mistaken...





Nobody Important said:


> As for Shiyi Shou (11 Hands) which is also the name of the 2nd section of Xiao Lian Tou (Small First Training). isn't that also known as Yongchun Quan (Eternal Springtime Fist). This form has a lot in common with Ba Shou Sanzhan (8 Hands 3 Battles) of Yongchun Bai He Quan and the form Bai He Xiao Yue Gong as mentioned above.



The form you are referring is called "Yong Chun Quan", i.e. that is its proper, original name. At some point someone started calling it " Shiyi Shou", so that is a relatively modern "nickname".

The second section of Fatsaan-type Yong Chun Quan is typically called "Shi Zi Shou" - "Character Ten Hand", not 11.


----------



## jlq

KPM,

in Gulao Seui Hueng they call the 12 points (dim, not sik) "Sup Yee Lou" when done as a form...


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,



Nobody Important said:


> Honestly, who's to say that the 3 canonical forms we know as Yongchun today were anything like what was originally taught all those years ago, and that some old man practicing something his father taught in the park isn't actually closer to the truth than we know?



Absolutely!

That is why we can only speak about what the art was like as far as it can reliably be traced - and that is Leung Jan.

In Fatsaan he taught three forms, even to some students in Gulao he did. The Pin San Wing Chun he "created" specifically for Wong Wah Saam...


----------



## jlq

KPM,



KPM said:


> Well....unless FSC drastically changed his martial art over the ensuing years! The body structure and mechanics behind Tang Yik Weng Chun and YSK Wing Chun are very different! So perhaps in his old age FSC taught YKS some "odds and ends" to round out his knowledge....but that would not seem very "significant" to me compared to what core biomechanics are being used.



As someone who has some exposure to both of these styles, I think YKS Wing Chun is in some ways a small frame version of Tang Yik's art, but as far as FSC goes, 50 years is a long time... Given his travels in SW China and SE Asia, he might have picked up a lot of different stuff over the years. Also, what you forget is that Tang family art is not from FSC, it goes a couple of generations further back than him. So why should YKS WCK look like Tang Ga Weng Chun (given that FSC learnt from Dai Fa Min Kam, which is a totally different lineage)?


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> 
> Thanks the references, much appreciated.
> 
> I will look into it as soon as I have time.
> 
> As I said, Wing Chun has much more in common with the various other local arts, than many realize.
> 
> So It is a great passtime to look into this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained to you, the name of the form is Shuang Gong Quan, not what you are saying and no, the Zhuang Quan is a totally different form. The former comes from Yang Tian, the latter from Fong Shao Qing - so yes, you are mistaken...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The form you are referring is called "Yong Chun Quan", i.e. that is its proper, original name. At some point someone started calling it " Shiyi Shou", so that is a relatively modern "nickname".
> 
> The second section of Fatsaan-type Yong Chun Quan is typically called "Shi Zi Shou" - "Character Ten Hand", not 11.



With those references I want you to keep in mind the context. I mentioned those forms as a point of reference in regards to establishing a common theme and not as proof of Yongchun material being used to create them. Some of those forms have commonalities with one another such as Bai He to Hong Quan or Hong Quan to Yongchun or Yongchun to Bai He. They do not all contain the same material but do have overlap here and there. There is also a common theme with a lot of them and that deals with having at least a partial relationship with the Zhuang and shared techniques. Not that they are specifically Zhuang forms. As I stated earlier I don't believe that there existed that hard line separation between systems back in the day. I simply wanted to illustrate that the Zhuang connotation was a prevalent theme that was being used to describe outlying forms of similar composition in similar styles. Again not establish proof of secret Yongchun material.

Thanks for your clarification on that set.

The Ruan Ji Yun Xiao Lian Tou of my line contains 3 major sections. San Bei Fo (3 Prayers to Buddha), Shiyi Shou (11 Hands) & Hua Quan (Flower Fist). This may not jive with the information youve recieved but that's how the Duan family labels them. Shizi Shou for us is the waving hand section at the end of the opening of the form before San Bei Fo. The Hua Quan section opens with Xiao Lian Tou followed by Da Lian Tou.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Good point!  A set of San Sik can certainly become a "form" when they are being consistently strung together in the same way.   Even in Ku Lo Wing Chun....which is San Sik based, they seem to run the San Sik together back to back for demonstration purposes and refer to it as the "Dai Lim Tao" form.  I still think it possible that the Tang Yik "Weng Chun Kuen" form may have started out as San Sik that  were later put together as a "form."   It has 11 sections, each separated by a pause bringing the fists back to the hips, and each section has a distinct 2 man drill that goes with it to teach its application.  This would be exactly how Ku Lo Wing Chun would function if you chose to string the San Sik together and teach them as a single form only.  And for that matter.....most versions of Wing Chun's "Siu Lim Tao" form could  be said to be a series of San Sik strung together because, again....each section is separated by a pause drawing the fists back to the chest.   Each section can be practiced and applied independently.   I've also read, but don't know how true it is, that "ancestral" White Crane in the distant past was taught as a series of San Sik rather than with longer forms.  It could be that the more modern White Crane forms are San Sik strung together.  But I don't know enough about White Crane to say.
> 
> But it can be a confusing distinction and really comes down to how the specific lineage is practicing and teaching the material......as San Sik.....as a single form....or maybe even both as in the case of Ku Lo Wing Chun!



Agreed! From my understanding the original White Crane system was indeed a system of Sanshi. This is relayed in several branches of Shizi Hou Men Jingang Quan and it's branches of Bei Xizang Lama Bai He Pai, Xiajia Quan & Mizong Lama Pai as well as in multiple branches of Fujian Bai He. Now no one can agree on the number of Sanshi as I heard it was 12, 24, 28, 48, 54 and 64, lol. Pick one I guess. Personally I use 28.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> That is why we can only speak about what the art was like as far as it can reliably be traced - and that is Leung Jan.
> 
> In Fatsaan he taught three forms, even to some students in Gulao he did. The Pin San Wing Chun he "created" specifically for Wong Wah Saam...



Something that I do find curious is that the one thing most Yongchun branches have in common is Xiao Lian Tou,  beyond that one form it can vary greatly as to what other forms if any are also included. Chen Qiao and Biao Zhi aren't a given to be included. For me that brings up some questions about those 2 forms.


----------



## jlq

Nobody Important,



Nobody Important said:


> Something that I do find curious is that the one thing most Yongchun branches have in common is Xiao Lian Tou, beyond that one form it can vary greatly as to what other forms if any are also included. Chen Qiao and Biao Zhi aren't a given to be included. For me that brings up some questions about those 2 forms.



Hm... 

In Fatsaan, all branches have Saam Tou Kuen.

Even the Jeung Bo lineage which originally just had loose techniques has the three forms nowadays.

The only lineage I know of which has just SLT is the Yuen Chai Wan people in Vietnam - and then of course the Cho family, but their SLT is quite different from the "standard" Fatsaan Wing Chun SLT form...

Gulao Wing Chun has a "SLT", and no CK or BZ, but this is the name of one of the 12 Dim, not a Tou Lou.


----------



## Nobody Important

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> 
> 
> Hm...
> 
> In Fatsaan, all branches have Saam Tou Kuen.
> 
> Even the Jeung Bo lineage which originally just had loose techniques has the three forms nowadays.
> 
> The only lineage I know of which has just SLT is the Yuen Chai Wan people in Vietnam - and then of course the Cho family, but their SLT is quite different from the "standard" Fatsaan Wing Chun SLT form...
> 
> Gulao Wing Chun has a "SLT", and no CK or BZ, but this is the name of one of the 12 Dim, not a Tou Lou.


Don't look at just what comes out of Foshan. I'm looking at Yongchun and all its incarnations as a whole. There are basivally two camps, one that passes on a 3 form theory and another that passes on a 1 form theory. Most lines descending from, say, Huang Hua Bao have the 3 sets but not all. Most lines descending from someone else have only one set, Xiao Lian Tou or some incarnation there of. It's just something I find interesting, especially when looking at claims of anything beyond Liang Dan's generation. It just seems to me, that around this time that the most prevalent aspect of Yongchun was a "Xiao Lian Tou" concept and that anything else was secondary. Im just musing outloud here.


----------



## KPM

jlq said:


> KPM,
> 
> in Gulao Seui Hueng they call the 12 points (dim, not sik) "Sup Yee Lou" when done as a form...



Ok.  Thanks for the correction!  We really should be keeping a running list of all of the things that Jim told me wrong.  After all, he thinks he is the fount of all knowledge concerning Ku Lo Wing Chun!


----------



## Nobody Important

Gentlemen,

With regret I am going to have to bow out of this conversation for a while as I have some pressing business matters which I need to attend to.

I want to thank you for a very fruitful discussion and to apologize for my earlier ranting.

Please continue on without me as I won't be available again until somtime in October.


----------



## APL76

jlq said:


> APL76,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Another question, if you don't mind.
> 
> Who in the Gongjaau Wing Chun community is/was an authentic disciple of SN and is qualified to represent his teachings in your opinion?




Far too a political a question I'm sorry to say. Besides, I only know the names of a few of Sum Nung's disciples and I only know one of them personally (my sifu). But I  will put it this way: Since Sum Nung died it seems he retained his ability to take disciples and teach wing chun, even in death, I doubt even Chuck Norris is that good. But more seriously, Sigung only had a very small number of disciples in his lifetime. He taught probably thousands, but actual disciples who have gone through the tea ceremony, and then ones who spent enough time with him to learn all of the system (all forms and accompanying material) are very few. Look at the wing chun. If its sloppy, no precision, slow with no explosive power, no softness, no stability in the stance, and if it looks a lot like the wing chun Sum Nung did in public then I'd be sceptical. Sum Nung, by all accounts was a hard task master and didn't tolerate sloppiness.


----------



## APL76

KPM said:


> Well....unless FSC drastically changed his martial art over the ensuing years!   The body structure and mechanics behind Tang Yik Weng Chun and YSK Wing Chun are very different!   So perhaps in his old age FSC taught YKS some "odds and ends" to round out his knowledge....but that would not seem very "significant" to me compared to what core biomechanics are being used.



FSC didn't just teach Yuen Kay san and co odds and ends, and it seems that at his (FSC's) and the red boat generation that they probably knew both wing chun and weng chun, after all, the red boat generation actually had contact with both Leung Bok Chao and Ji Shim. My sifu at least is, it seems, coming to the idea that wing chun and weng chun are probably...… siblings? at least related and many people early on in wing chun history knew both and had a preference one way or the other which was reflected in what they taught. And additionally that during the years after the change from the Ming to the Ching dynasty when Fat San was full of martial artists the two groups probably communicated their systems to one another. So its looking like he at least is seeing it as I stated it earlier, that its more a spectrum and we are somewhere along it between wing chun and weng chun. He recently related stuff from Sum Nung that a certain wing chun guy in Fat San was being challenged (not to fight but to explain himself) by both sides of the thing over whether he taught wing chun or weng chun as it seems he had mixed them up in some sort of underhanded way (probably not crediting where he learned stuff).

And as stated by jlq, I think it was, there were many years, and years of substantial experience, between him teaching what has gone on to be Tang Yik weng chun and Yuen Kay san wing chun. Besides, people from Sum Nung through to his disciples, and even second generation (from SN) like me know what the material he passed on to Yuen Kay San was. There weren't odds and ends, it was a substantial and important element of wing chun, possibly (and this is not to play down what YKS learned from Fok Bo Chun) the stuff that really makes Yuen Kay San wing chun stand out; he was after all the number one wing chun guy, and one of the best martial artists of his day.

On top of that there is a well documented lineage coming from Fung Sui Ching from the time he taught YKS and YCW, I have seen it (though I cant read it) my Sifu had one of my students read it (she is a native speaker of Cantonese and reads Chinese though he had to help her out in places), it list all the people that FSC taught at that time, and there were many (really YKS and YCW did the teaching under FSC's supervision, they were the only ones who learned directly from him for the most part as far as I know).


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> As far as Lo Kwai Wing Chun goes, I was told by one of its practitioners that they have a 4th form called Baat Gwa that came from Leung Jan. I realize that Fut Sau Wing Chun is a newer branch but thought that it was intetesting that their 4th form is called Siu Baat Gwa and claim it to be original to the system. I have never seen either version but would like to, I have lots of questions.



Never heard of Lo Kwai WC...but have heard of Fut Sau. I'd be interested to learn more about both; and their Siu Baat Gwa.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Who knows?
> 
> But why does he need to update it, now I told you the information?
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like you are not willing to accept what I told you?



>>>I am sorry but I don't seem to understand what you are saying. It is my understanding Leung Jan retired to Gulou (Kuloo) village and taught there until he passed away. You seemed to dispute this (unless I read you wrong?). I offered an article by someone in the pin sun lineage who makes many trips tp visit including training with Fung Chun when he was alive. You then pointing out the article was too old (2007). I then offered a blog by Mr. Baniecki (Who with his wife has also made many trips to train in the lineage with his wife) and essentially says the same thing. You then said I should read Jim Roselundo but the first article was written by Jim in 2007....so pardon my confusion.

Regards


----------



## Jicjeung

Eric_H said:


> All good, as I've said before (and will say again) all of these are just legends anyways. Every WC origin/ancestor myth should be taken with enough grains of salt for 100+ bowls of soup.
> 
> The interesting thing about Li Wen/Man Mao is that I've never really found much that points to him being a martial artist, though some people have claimed he knew one of the 7 or so versions of white crane that would have been available around that time. For me, I find it plausible that there was a separate cell under the same rebellion of which someone of some (but not the highest) status knew wing chun (Hung Gun Biu). As Li Wen Mao was a pretty big figurehead, I think it probably would have been more well known if he was a wing chun expert/creator. That even the white crane thing isn't 100% certain makes me doubt the connection, as most of what my line has about Hung Gun Biu talks about his fighting ability and what he contributed to our system, as well as his role as a Hung Gwan of that particular revolutionary cell.
> 
> Also, this is the same time that Wong Wa Bo was learning/had learnt Wing Chun, isn't it strange we'd be certain that some random actor knew wing chun but not someone who was a leader of a famous uprising?



>>>There is actually historic records to Li Wen mao being a White crane stylist via both Ching and English accounts during the red Turban uprising (see dian Murray's work and others one English account mentions him as a leader being an emaciated opium addict however!  However what is curious is that Li and his crew in the revolt hooked up with Chen Kai and retreated to Guangxi where they made a final stand before defeat. This would have been right around the time Wong wah bo and leung Yi tai were teaching leung jan so apparently they did not take place in the revolt with Li and his opera troops or broke off from it.
Regards


----------



## Jicjeung

Nobody Important said:


> I agree, hell, a lot of these characters in these legends were reputed to be salt merchants at one time, lol. Like I said earlier, it's quite plausible that Hung Gun Biu was a nickname of some fellow named Biu who was a member of the Red Turban Army who practiced Wing Chun. It's also quite plausible that Lee Man Mao gets credit simply because he was the figure head of the Rebellion, or, on the flip side, that he isn't recognized because he lost the Rebellion and was killed. Who knows and ultimately it doesn't matter. FWIW there is a lineage of White Crane that has him listed as a practitioner, but I honestly don't remember which one, plus I dont put a lot of faith into lineage charts. Someone had written an article that touched base on it in regards to the Rebellion as well but that was years ago. There is information floating around out there, but as with most things Wing Chun, it's unsubstantiated. Personally, I like the White Crane narrative just because I have experience there and have witnessed the similarities, but that doesn't make me right by any stretch of the imagination. Youve got a well rounded system, with soild theory and faithful leadership, who can ask for anything more?



>>>I agree many possilities, I do not personally think Li wen mao was sole source of creation for Wing Chun but may have had influence. Another interesting character was a man named Liang Pei you. The secret societies did not initially discriminate as to membership and did much to make sure their members were trained in martial arts Hakka and Punti both shared in membership and this could be when Wing Chun appears to hakka like as opposed to other Hung Mun. After his village was attacked Liang became very anti Hakka and he became a ferocious red turban leader who attacked hakka settlements in the Hakka-Punti war. I have to wonder if he is not the Leung Bok Chau so often referenced but we will likely never know for sure!


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Nobody Important,
> 
> 
> 
> The ChaN Yu Min lineage in Seundak passes on a lot of things which are very much at odds with the Wing Chun Pai in Fatsaan.
> 
> Are you familiar with the CYM lineage tree and history?
> 
> From the perspective of Fatsaan Wing Chun only about 25 percent of what the Chan Yu Min people do is Wing Chun.
> 
> Legends and stories aside - and the fact that Seundak Siulam Weng Chun is excellent Gong Fu, IMHO - if we make a technical comparison between Fatsaan Wing Chun and Seundak Weng Chun, it is clear that there are some blatant and massive differences.
> 
> >>>If I may, I believe their are only massive differences due to the added material. Over the years and on visits to my mothers relatives I like to take the opportunity to visit different wing/weng chun families, I have been told two different stories in regard to this, the first was that all this material was secret passed and only passed from Chan wah to son to keep it in family. I was very interested in the lineage but not an official student so I believe at the time I got "the official story" LOL  Later becoming good friends with a student in the lineage I was told something very interesting quite candidly although I am rather far away these days we still correspond via email to this day. Anyway, Fook Fu was added after the alleged exchange between Wong Fei Hung and Chan Wah Shun to add another dimension to training (as I mentioned in an earlier post). The Sei Mun is performed both by itself and in connection directly after SLT (when it is done in this fashion the combined sets are then called Siu Lien Kuen).
> The set contains butterfly palms and arrow punch which some believe date back to older wing chun kuen or prototype of wing chun if you will. The set came into Chan yiu min wing chun Via Chan yiu min wife Li miu hin (who I was told was a great great granddaughter of the famous Li yousan (The alleged creator of the 5 forms Tiger, leopard, snake, crane and Dragon) these sets "some claim" was the actual source of 5 Pattern Hung Kuen (enter Fok bo Chun btw who was alleged to be a master of Snake and crane sets). Chan Yiu Min's wife was quite an expert and often taught classes both in Guangxi and shunde and was expert in her Li family Crane set. She is the one who brought in Sei Mun (very old Li family set along with Hung sha Cheung (red Sand Hand) another old Li family set. This was considered quite acceptable as some believe privately but quite sincerely (but no proof) that this is symbolism of the Mythical Ng Mui ( Five Plum or less obscure 5 sets of Li) with Snake and crane being the predominant source. Other sets were added such as bench etc...for commercial purposes by some seeking grow school.  Please don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree, I am just passing on what is told.
> 
> Best wishes


----------



## Jicjeung

Sorry for the late responses, School is back in session so I have been very busy but looking forward to retire in 3 years so I can focus on my passion of wing chun kuen! LOL

Regards to all


----------



## Jicjeung

Btw in regard to original post I believe Ip man's wing chun in Hong Kong was simply the product of his education and thinking in terms of simplifying wing chun kuen that he learned down to it's core elements. While Chan Yiu Min lineage over time added to curriculum Ip man (as a product of his times and thoughts on the Goushu movement) whittled down (though some say over simplified) the wing chun he learned from Ng Chun so (primarily) into what we have today focusing on core elements like structiure. Chan wah shun lineage via Chan yiu Min (whom they asset taught Ip man more then Ng Chun so (though it is doubtful to me as he moved to Guangxi then later back) has very similar core forms but more footwork seen directly in for particularly their Chum Kiu. I believe Ip man had students work more in place on structural understanding and this )I believe is clearly seen in the progressing of teaching from Foshan (kwok fu and Lun Kai) to Hong kong lineages. It does not make it better or worse just different for instructional purposes. Here is some footage of a Russian friend during visit training Chan yiu Min lineage (he starts with Fok Fu) but shortly after you can see students (around 4:30 mark doing slt and bits of chum kiu etc...) FWIW





Enjoy...or not? LOL

Regards to all


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung said:


> >>>I am sorry but I don't seem to understand what you are saying. It is my understanding Leung Jan retired to Gulou (Kuloo) village and taught there until he passed away. You seemed to dispute this (unless I read you wrong?). I offered an article by someone in the pin sun lineage who makes many trips tp visit including training with Fung Chun when he was alive. You then pointing out the article was too old (2007). I then offered a blog by Mr. Baniecki (Who with his wife has also made many trips to train in the lineage with his wife) and essentially says the same thing. You then said I should read Jim Roselundo but the first article was written by Jim in 2007....so pardon my confusion.



This information is old...

I already explained it.

Jim is a good friend of mine and he has done a bunch of research since he first wrote that article - ask him about it, and he see what he says...



As far as Mr. Baniecki goes... "Many times to China"... And "training in that lineage"... So that should lend what he says more credence? They basically went there on a holiday trip and spent a few days in Saaping...

Saaping is just about 90 mins from my home and I know few sifus there quite well, so I go there quite often and have heard quite a few stories over the years.

So, yes... The information in those articles are not correct, Leung Jan did not pass away in Gulao Seui Heung / Dongbin Cun.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> This information is old...
> 
> I already explained it.
> 
> Jim is a good friend of mine and he has done a bunch of research since he first wrote that article - ask him about it, and he see what he says...
> 
> 
> 
> As far as Mr. Baniecki goes... "Many times to China"... And "training in that lineage"... So that should lend what he says more credence? They basically went there on a holiday trip and spent a few days in Saaping...
> 
> Saaping is just about 90 mins from my home and I know few sifus there quite well, so I go there quite often and have heard quite a few stories over the years.
> 
> So, yes... The information in those articles are not correct, Leung Jan did not pass away in Gulao Seui Heung / Dongbin Cun.


?

>>>>Ah I see, I am curious as to why he is now keeping this to huimself rather then updating his own website. Perhaps he does not wish to publicise what he learned for some reason? I will write to him as suggested,
Thank you


----------



## Jicjeung

Interesting article for those who havn't seen it and if interested: Lives of Chinese Martial Artists (6): Ng Chung So – Looking Beyond the “Three Heroes of Wing Chun”


----------



## Jicjeung

[QUOTE

As far as Mr. Baniecki goes... "Many times to China"... And "training in that lineage"... So that should lend what he says more credence? They basically went there on a holiday trip and spent a few days in Saaping..

>>>Sorry, forgot to address this but I am sure they would take issue with this. Yes, if they visit, train and speak directly with the Sifu's training in the lineage (rather the simply repeating what they read in a magazine) in Guluo or Kulo if you prefer (whether we like what they say or not, whether we want to believe what they say is accurate or not, it does add more credence to their statements as to what they claim were told as to unknown folks on the internet stating X or Y or Z. This of course applies to anyone on any forum, Now it is possible Mr. Baneicki is wrong, it is also possible Mr. Roselundo is wrong. We can only examine what we know and examining all available resources come to our own conclusions. So, that being said, From examining their website, blogs and facebook they have made some 10 or so trips to China in general doing training and research on their own he did not know exactly how many times to Kulo. Not taking his comments at gospel. I then looked at their blog and pictures and it appears they have trained in Pin sun making "at least" 3 trips (2006, 2007 and it appears from photo's 2016 ((there are possibly more, I will ask directly)) Met and trained with Various Pin Sun Sifu and discussed history with Fung Chun , so with all do respect, their connection appears to be more then the lone holiday stop over you make it sound to be, with respect to Mr. and Mrs Baneicki.
Just an FYI to the reader of this thread.


----------



## KPM

Jicjeung said:


> Interesting article for those who havn't seen it and if interested: Lives of Chinese Martial Artists (6): Ng Chung So – Looking Beyond the “Three Heroes of Wing Chun”



Good find!  Thanks!


----------



## jlq

Jicjeung,

no one visiting Gulao was "training" with Fung Chun Sifu...

he liked demonstrating and showing some stuff to visitors, usually at restaurants or maybe his home.

but training?

That would be presuming too much...

Mr. and Mrs. Baniecki never stayed long to really "train" - depending on what one considers training, of course  - with anyone, so while they did have a few lessons with Fung Keung Sifu, I wouldn't call that "training". But again, it depends on the definition of the term.

Anyhow, this is less relevant and interestig than the following:

Now, I explained it before, but you might have overlooked it in the forrest of posts since...

Leung Jan's family have released family documents with records of his birth and death dates, genealogy, etc. and even pictures/drawings and personal effects.

(some of) These are on display on the Yip Man Museum in ,Foshan, for everyone to see.

But apparently not many have...

At the time Jim wrote the article you were referring to and the Banieckis wrote theirs, this information was not available.

That is what I have been saying.

If you think time spent in China gives any amount of authority:

I have been travelling to China regularly since 2004, staying anywhere from 1 to 3 months on each visit learning Wing Chun, and been living here for almost 8 years. 

I have been going to Saaping regularly for more than four years to visit senior sifus and to "train"  there...

If I were to write an article, and put the information I am giving you in it, would that give it more credibility to you?

The information is the same whether I write an article or simply state it here...


----------



## Jicjeung

KPM said:


> Good find!  Thanks!



You are welcome sir!


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> Jicjeung,
> 
> no one visiting Gulao was "training" with Fung Chun Sifu...
> 
> he liked demonstrating and showing some stuff to visitors, usually at restaurants or maybe his home.
> 
> but training?
> 
> That would be presuming too much...
> 
> >>>>I think you are reading into what I said rather then reading what I said. With all due respect I wrote "Met and trained with Various Pin Sun Sifu and discussed history with Fung Chun."
> 
> Mr. and Mrs. Baniecki never stayed long to really "train" - depending on what one considers training, of course  - with anyone, so while they did have a few lessons with Fung Keung Sifu, I wouldn't call that "training". But again, it depends on the definition of the term.
> 
> >>>Well I don't know for sure, I wasn't there perhaps you were? In any event see my comments above, they certainly did more then a lone holiday stop over in Sapping as you stated and since I first mentioned them as a source of an article you dismissed I felt obliged to give another perspective to your off the cuff dismissal ..from 8 years ago .
> 
> 
> 
> from 10 years ago
> 
> 
> 
> and there are a few more on his you tube, so in any event they likely did discuss wing chun history with him just as Jim Roselundo did. But as to Depth of training , I don't know, in any event see my statement above.
> 
> Anyhow, this is less relevant and interestig than the following:
> 
> Now, I explained it before, but you might have overlooked it in the forrest of posts since...
> 
> Leung Jan's family have released family documents with records of his birth and death dates, genealogy, etc. and even pictures/drawings and personal effects.
> 
> (some of) These are on display on the Yip Man Museum in ,Foshan, for everyone to see.
> 
> >>>Yes, but many things are not there to actually be examined or read. A book opened to a page behind a case doesn't tell you what the other pages say or do not. I simply have not (as of yet ,but I will have to make another trip to the museum next visit) seen anything saying Leung Jan did not retire to then teach until he passed in Gulao. This would be very interesting to me if he moved on from there and passed somewhere else as it would mean he spent even less time then thought teaching in gulao. So I am surprised it has not been mentioned by anyone in any historic articles I can find on leung jan.
> 
> But apparently not many have...
> 
> At the time Jim wrote the article you were referring to and the Banieckis wrote theirs, this information was not available.
> 
> That is what I have been saying.
> 
> If you think time spent in China gives any amount of authority:
> 
> >>>There are no Authorities in such a vague area of history. There seem to be only various perspectives some more informed then others but all are mostly repeating what they are told as there is little documentation in most repects.
> 
> I have been travelling to China regularly since 2004, staying anywhere from 1 to 3 months on each visit learning Wing Chun, and been living here for almost 8 years.
> 
> I have been going to Saaping regularly for more than four years to visit senior sifus and to "train"  there...
> 
> If I were to write an article, and put the information I am giving you in it, would that give it more credibility to you?
> 
> The information is the same whether I write an article or simply state it here...


>>>>I am believe you have. Of course then again..with all due respect..this is the internet! lots of people say lots of things!  All I seem to be getting from you is a statement that Leung Jan did not die in gulao after retiring and teaching there. Your initial reply to my Posting Jim Roselundo;s article was to point out it was written in 2007 with an emoi beneath. Well my history books in High school were old but the Civil War did still happen.  You then refered me to read Jim Roselundo but he was the one who wrote the article in the first place , so pardon my confusion, I then looked for more recent articles by him and found some ie... wing chun illustrated, but nothing contradicted the earlier article he wrote... Now, Maybe I missed something in the forest of posts that's true, but that's it ...you saying No, Jim Roselundo has different information. Ok, well to find out what this is I guess I have to write him but then again for a man who has written so much on the subject to find out something new and not write about it tells me he likely doesn't want to share it.  Mr. Baneicki does post numerous pictures and video clips (taken over more then one trip, contrary to your previous implication) for people to take as they wish, He and his wife then write about information obtained in visits on their blogs ,Just like Jim Roselundo did. Now one source maybe more reputable to you because you know him but I do not know either personally. Everyone has a perspective, preferences and bias to what they believe and also that which they seek to promote (I don't mean that in a bad way). So I don't give more credence to one over the other, but regard them as two sources, especially when the last things they both posted to the internet world tend to corroborate the essential parts of leung jan retiring and teaching in Gulao until he passed. That is of more interest to me then how hard they trained, sweated or how long they stayed doing so. So your saying no this is all wrong and pointing to a museum out of reach of many ( Admittedly when I visited I was in awe and may have overlooked it?) of the readers here does not clarify things. Now, If your article had pictures and sources then yes I would give it more credence then someone just writing anything on a forum without further coroberation. Please understand, I am not stating this as an insult mind you, it is simply a statement of the obvious. Gosh, for all anyone knows here I could be an 8th grade girl from Detroit named Tabitha! ROTFLMAO 
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts I sincerely appreciate the discourse.

Regards


----------



## jlq

JicJeung,

if you have been reading anybof the stuff I wrote, you should underdstand that I am not an 8th grade girl called Tabitha..

And not from Detroit.



Why you didn't see these things on display can be explained by the following:

1. You went to the Yip Man Tong in the Zumiao, but as I stated, you have to go to the newer on they built in Luochun, the ancestral home of the Yip Clan.

2. The documents I am referring to were not on display yet, when you were there. After all, they were just released a couple of years ago..

As I have been saying quite a few times, there is a wealth of information available about Wing Chun in China that is not available to people in the West, and most often when presented with this information people reject it because it doesn't correlate with the picture people already have - like you accepting Jim's old articles or the Baniecki's stuff because it corroborates what you believe.

But you have to realize:

Even Mr. Ben Judkin's great work is - when it comes to Wing Chun information - based on a handful of Wing Chun books only, which basically have the same sources or even borrow information from each other, and as such not really presenting anything which is not already known in the West. What he does mention about various Wing Chun ancestors, which is new to most readers, is information he got from a book called "Fatsaan Martial Culture", which is mainly about CLF, actually, and also very limited when it comes to information about Wing Chun's history. 
Another problem is that people take Mr. Judkin's work THE authoritative source and use it as THE reference, not realizing that it is quite limited by the information the authors had access to writing the book. 

So, if you really want to dig deeper into the history of Wing Chun and the oldtimers, you better not reject everything you hear out of hand because it doesn't match your conviction or the sources you know.

Of course I am not saying one should believe everything one hears, and always employ a good measure of critical thinking and fact-checking - the more information one has, the easier it is to critically assess new information and new theories, such as an "Ngor Mei Bak Hok ancestral connection" etc.



Since you are more inclined to believe what Jim is saying over what I am sharing with you, I will ask him to post something here.


----------



## jlq

Oh! Looks like I didn't read the "Detroit" part properly... Haha... My apologies - your point is a good one.


----------



## jlq

As far as the Banieckis go, I didn't mean to say they went once.... when I say holiday, I am referring to a trip going to different places not staying long to practice... They have done several of such tours, obviously.


----------



## Jicjeung

jlq said:


> JicJeung,
> 
> if you have been reading anybof the stuff I wrote, you should underdstand that I am not an 8th grade girl called Tabitha..
> 
> And not from Detroit.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you didn't see these things on display can be explained by the following:
> 
> 1. You went to the Yip Man Tong in the Zumiao, but as I stated, you have to go to the newer on they built in Luochun, the ancestral home of the Yip Clan.
> 
> 2. The documents I am referring to were not on display yet, when you were there. After all, they were just released a couple of years ago..
> 
> >>>Correct assumption, thank you I will look into it!
> 
> As I have been saying quite a few times, there is a wealth of information available about Wing Chun in China that is not available to people in the West, and most often when presented with this information people reject it because it doesn't correlate with the picture people already have - like you accepting Jim's old articles or the Baniecki's stuff because it corroborates what you believe.
> 
> >>>>> I think you are misinterpreting here. I do not seek out information to validate "What I believe" I seek information to guide me to conclusions and use many sources in coming to those conclusions until new evidence causes me to reevaluate those conclusions.
> 
> But you have to realize:
> 
> Even Mr. Ben Judkin's great work is - when it comes to Wing Chun information - based on a handful of Wing Chun books only, which basically have the same sources or even borrow information from each other, and as such not really presenting anything which is not already known in the West. What he does mention about various Wing Chun ancestors, which is new to most readers, is information he got from a book called "Fatsaan Martial Culture", which is mainly about CLF, actually, and also very limited when it comes to information about Wing Chun's history.
> Another problem is that people take Mr. Judkin's work THE authoritative source and use it as THE reference, not realizing that it is quite limited by the information the authors had access to writing the book.
> >>>I do not like to use the term "Authority" on a topic which so little conclusive information is available. Mr. Judkins does however take an academic approach to his writings states his conclusions and offers sources that the reader can (if so motivated) follow up on and either in doing so, agree, disagree or agree in part. While he does use more western sources had does source non westerns in his book on the creation of wing chun. Now that being said there are many stories/theories in China as well, and many no more accurate then their western counterparts. I am sure your aware of this living in Guandong. Many practitioners and lineages of WCK stayed hidden or fled prior to the cultural revolution or stayed under ground. So even so called Govt sources aren't always accurate, when things eased up athletic committees sought information on them which they often volunteered themselves and were incorporated into the record. So you will sometimes meet different sifu who say "ah we are very old lineage and this and that happened just look at the committee records (which their don't point out were submitted by themselves). This happens all the time so we must always examine and reexamine our sources...Look how many area's fought for government approval to be considered the home of the "Southern shaolin temple" and the tourist dollars it would draw to their region. SO what I am saying is just because it is a Chinese source it should not be accepted as gospel, but rather the same scrutiny.
> 
> So, if you really want to dig deeper into the history of Wing Chun and the oldtimers, you better not reject everything you hear out of hand because it doesn't match your conviction or the sources you know.
> 
> >>>I have never done so, I look at every possible source (and the "Old timers" don't always agree with each other BTW) I can find in writing or in person and come to my own conclusions and opinions.
> 
> Of course I am not saying one should believe everything one hears, and always employ a good measure of critical thinking and fact-checking - the more information one has, the easier it is to critically assess new information and new theories, such as an "Ngor Mei Bak Hok ancestral connection" etc.
> 
> >>>Naturally, otherwise I would be a devoted disciple of the one and only original shaolin Black flag ancient wing chun kuen! or what is the latest new ancient style to come out? LOL in this particular instance on the topic, I agree with Mr. Chu :
> "WCK has some pieces of _Emei Shi Er Zhuang_, as evidenced in their _Xiao Zi Zhuan_g set, and some Fujian White Crane, as evidenced in Lee Kong’s _Shi Er Jie Li Quan, _but it is the fusion we are interested in, not these mother systems, as they are also “Wing Chun like”, but not WCK.  These arts have an old history and have undergone revision, over generations.  We cannot just “jump to conclusions” based on a paragraph here, a sentence there, as clues, as this is misleading.  We cannot be arrogant enough for letting future historians judge, as there are enough contemporary historians which can judge right now, given the evidence."
> https://tambulimedia.com/robert-chu-search-wing-chuns-truth/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are more inclined to believe what Jim is saying over what I am sharing with you, I will ask him to post something here.



>>>I am sorry if you feel insulted, that is not my intent but I appreciate your willingness to do so JLQ! I would be interested in whether Leung jan really retired to Gulao and taught until he passed or not?? and if not where did he go etc..... I must be off to work now but thank you for your responses.
Regards


----------



## jlq

Jic Jeung,

I am not insulted at all!



The basic information you ar asking for, I already provided. I will leave it up to Jim to provide further details, if he so desires.


----------



## Jim Roselando

Hello all,

Anyone who has done any research will know one fact, Every Year We Learm More!

Knowing this you can see how and why information that at one time was considered ok is now no longer ok.  

Anyone who thinks and believes the exact thoughts or info on our art from a decade ago hasn’t kept up with today’s research.  We are truly lucky to have the info we have today and if you read WCI, I am always updating and promoting today’s research.   

As for my old website, it’s just that!   Old!   Ex: In 2007 we did not even know my Sigong had two teachers.  So there is no mention of Fung Min, who was his first teacher but still the old site has much rare info one can find on Gulao such as translated articles etc..   

The reality is, I do not even have the passwords to change the info but to be honest I probably wouldn’t.   I wanted to take the site down but it is a time stamp for that era so we kept it online.   Plus, the photos of our Boston family from that time are only found on that site which is another reason we kept it online.   

I’m happy to say, actually, I have absolutely no problem saying there are many things I no longer believe or now know to be no longer accurrate.   

As for Leung Jan, birth and death discussion.   We know that Leung Jan was born and Gulao and retired in Gulao.  Most thought he was buried in Gulao but the location was not known.   I’m recent years we heard that while Leung Jsn was living in Gulao, he decided to visit his old friends in Futshan and possibly died while visiting.   The body was buried but later relocated to another location which was the tradition of the time.   Today the location is lost to antiquity.   

Hope this helps!

Jim 

www.gulaoboxingassociation.com 




jlq said:


> This information is old...
> 
> I already explained it.
> 
> Jim is a good friend of mine and he has done a bunch of research since he first wrote that article - ask him about it, and he see what he says...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jlq said:


> Jic Jeung,
> 
> I am not insulted at all!
> 
> 
> 
> The basic information you ar asking for, I already provided. I will leave it up to Jim to provide further details, if he so desires.


Out of curiosity, what is your preferred way of dealing with obvious trolls?


----------



## jlq

If you are referring to me, whether people are trolling or not, doesn't matter... The important thing is that people who read this have the chance to expand their horizon - it is information offered, people can accept it or not, if they do great, if not... well, my loss it isn't...


----------



## hunschuld

Being very Covid Bored I found myself on this site and a read this thread. I have not posted on any forum in at leats 8 years maybe longer. Since it has been 2 years I won't ad anything unless there is actual interest . As it would be fair to say I am  the foremost expert on Lo Kwai's Wing Chun in the west since I was the first westerner to learn the art I would be happy to answer the questions about this version of wing chun that were raised in the thread.


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> Being very Covid Bored I found myself on this site and a read this thread. I have not posted on any forum in at leats 8 years maybe longer. Since it has been 2 years I won't ad anything unless there is actual interest . As it would be fair to say I am  the foremost expert on Lo Kwai's Wing Chun in the west since I was the first westerner to learn the art I would be happy to answer the questions about this version of wing chun that were raised in the thread.



Hi @hunschuld ...welcome to the forum. Would love to learn more / ask questions about Mr. Lo Kwai...but can you tell us more about him? I'm not familiar with his name. Who is he? Who did he learn from? Are you his representative in the west? etc? Thanks for sharing!


----------



## hunschuld

This link is as good as any for brief background.The History of Wing Chun According to Lo Kwai - By Chao Tseng-Ming and Brian Scanlon | eWingChun.
Lo Kwai was a student of Leung Jan and along with Leung Jan developed the Knife form. Leung Jan did not teach knife form in Gulo The form was more of a Lo Kwai Fatsan thing  Stories outside the family have him as the person that acted as Leung Jans second in challenges etc. he was the one that Fung Siu Ching's people reached out to to keep things calm when Chan Wah got upset that someone else was in Fatsan claiming to be a wing chun expert and had no ties to Leung Jan.

There is no representative . We do not teach publicly or for money. We have original writings going back to 1870's of what was taught etc. However we make no claims and have no interest in being part of wing chun politics and religious like zealotry often seen. Our wing chun is what we do. Everyone else's is theirs and its what they do. 

Lo Kwais wing chun was based and is based on fighting effectiveness only. To get to the point where you can actually be considered qualified you have to have demonstrated your actually ability to use wing chun Kuit in a fight against another trained fighter is a fair contest.


----------



## Cynik75

hunschuld said:


> ...Lo Kwais wing chun was based and is based on fighting effectiveness only. To get to the point where you can actually be considered qualified you have to have demonstrated your actually ability to use wing chun Kuit in a fight against another trained fighter is a fair contest.


All WC lineage claim that are based on fighting effectiveness. But available videos of fights between pure WC stylist and a trained fighter/sport combat athlete show that WC practitioners without modern sport upgrade cannot fight even on low amateur MMA/boxing/MT/etc level. Even very often metioned Alan Orr and his students are (at the best) mediocre fighters (and their WC is very much upgraded with MMA training methodology).
Do you have any evidence that "Lo Kwai's Wing Chun is based on fighting effectiveness only"?


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> This link is as good as any for brief background.The History of Wing Chun According to Lo Kwai - By Chao Tseng-Ming and Brian Scanlon | eWingChun.
> Lo Kwai was a student of Leung Jan and along with Leung Jan developed the Knife form. Leung Jan did not teach knife form in Gulo The form was more of a Lo Kwai Fatsan thing  Stories outside the family have him as the person that acted as Leung Jans second in challenges etc. he was the one that Fung Siu Ching's people reached out to to keep things calm when Chan Wah got upset that someone else was in Fatsan claiming to be a wing chun expert and had no ties to Leung Jan.
> 
> There is no representative . We do not teach publicly or for money. We have original writings going back to 1870's of what was taught etc. However we make no claims and have no interest in being part of wing chun politics and religious like zealotry often seen. Our wing chun is what we do. Everyone else's is theirs and its what they do.
> 
> Lo Kwais wing chun was based and is based on fighting effectiveness only. To get to the point where you can actually be considered qualified you have to have demonstrated your actually ability to use wing chun Kuit in a fight against another trained fighter is a fair contest.


 
@hunschuld  I'm going to move this Lo Kwai Q&A into its own thread...


----------



## ShortBridge

[QUOTE=


----------



## wckf92

?


----------



## ShortBridge

Misfire. My bad.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> Being very Covid Bored I found myself on this site and a read this thread. I have not posted on any forum in at leats 8 years maybe longer. Since it has been 2 years I won't ad anything unless there is actual interest . As it would be fair to say I am  the foremost expert on Lo Kwai's Wing Chun in the west since I was the first westerner to learn the art I would be happy to answer the questions about this version of wing chun that were raised in the thread.



I knew I'd read this before on MT, someone claiming to be the first non-Asian to learn the Lo Kwai lineage, but this was 7 years ago and a different poster.  

I'm confused now, but that's typical.

William Cheung's Biu Jee


----------



## hunschuld

Wow already starting to remember why I have avoided forums for 10 years or so. There is nobody else claiming to be the first westerner. I don't claim anything. The Chao family have stated I was the first to learn from them. I have been given no reason to believe that is not true. . My good friend and student John Simmons learned from Stephan Chao, Danny Chao and myself about 10 years ago. He is another American that can rightfully claimed he learned directly from the family . I learned from Danny and Stephan's Grandfather in the late 90's . I also learned from Stephan and Danny . I have also learned wing chun from a great many others. When I had students I learned from them. If anyone claims to have learned the system and they are not Asian then they are frauds unless they trace back to me or John.and even John traces back to me.. The family does not have schools and does not teach for money.

There were questions raised about the Families wing chun. I saw them I am bored  so I thought I would answer them. Thats it. The only agenda I have is that I have and have been treated for a brain Tumor. The tumor started me training again. That changes your outlook on things. I decided I wanted to make my knowledge available to whoever would want it . This begins with my old students that I taught Yip Man wing chun to with a bit of Kwai wing chun thrown in. I will not charge anything. I was hoping to do a seminar in Florida where I have several old students. I thought is would be a fun vacation. Not interested in money but I did want an excuse to get warm. Then the virus hit and while work is going just fine its slow.


----------



## Oily Dragon

I was just curious if I'm reading two different people claim the same thing, or one person re-claiming what they wrote previously.  You just claimed you were the first Westerner, but so did the other guy 7 years ago.  So am I reading something you were BOTH told, or are you that old poster returned from the dead, saying the same thing you did before.

I'm a simple guy, I ask simple questions.

I too am very bored.


----------



## wckf92

Oily Dragon said:


> I was just curious if I'm reading two different people claim the same thing, or one person re-claiming what they wrote previously.  You just claimed you were the first Westerner, but so did the other guy 7 years ago.  So am I reading something you were BOTH told, or are you that old poster returned from the dead, saying the same thing you did before.
> 
> I'm a simple guy, I ask simple questions.



No, I think "hunt1" is the same person as "hunschuld"...


----------



## hunschuld

Same person. I forgot I had ever been on this forum. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Makes sense.  Too bad, I love a good lineage war.  

I raised this point because the claim is pretty extraordinary to begin with, but it's not uncommon in kung fu circles to hear similar.


----------



## hunschuld

LOl,

Nothing fun like that. My learning was only dumb luck.  The people from the Taiwan Trade consulate in Chicago at the time lived in the same building I lived in. I was in 1 racquet ball court every morning at 6:30 training wing chun and they  ( a group of about 10) were in the other doing what they were doing. and Chao Kwai's granddaughter told me her grandfather would like to fix my wing chun. . I thought I knew wing chun at this point but boy was I wrong.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> LOl,
> 
> Nothing fun like that. My learning was only dumb luck.  The people from the Taiwan Trade consulate in Chicago at the time lived in the same building I lived in. I was in 1 racquet ball court every morning at 6:30 training wing chun and they  ( a group of about 10) were in the other doing what they were doing. and Chao Kwai's granddaughter told me her grandfather would like to fix my wing chun. . I thought I knew wing chun at this point but boy was I wrong.



I remember your posts from years ago about the time I started delving into Wing Chun and started reading forums.  I think it was the Shannon Moore v Karate Guy video, you made some interesting points.

When lineages grow beyond families, there are branches grown nobody will ever know about.  Yours seems to be one of those.

Several of the best kung fu masters of the last 100 years have been butchers, tradesmen, people who were really good with their hands in general but never became famous until years later when their writings were republished.


----------



## yak sao

hunschuld said:


> Wow already starting to remember why I have avoided forums for 10 years or so. There is nobody else claiming to be the first westerner. I don't claim anything. The Chao family have stated I was the first to learn from them. I have been given no reason to believe that is not true. . My good friend and student John Simmons learned from Stephan Chao, Danny Chao and myself about 10 years ago. He is another American that can rightfully claimed he learned directly from the family . I learned from Danny and Stephan's Grandfather in the late 90's . I also learned from Stephan and Danny . I have also learned wing chun from a great many others. When I had students I learned from them. If anyone claims to have learned the system and they are not Asian then they are frauds unless they trace back to me or John.and even John traces back to me.. The family does not have schools and does not teach for money.
> 
> There were questions raised about the Families wing chun. I saw them I am bored  so I thought I would answer them. Thats it. The only agenda I have is that I have and have been treated for a brain Tumor. The tumor started me training again. That changes your outlook on things. I decided I wanted to make my knowledge available to whoever would want it . This begins with my old students that I taught Yip Man wing chun to with a bit of Kwai wing chun thrown in. I will not charge anything. I was hoping to do a seminar in Florida where I have several old students. I thought is would be a fun vacation. Not interested in money but I did want an excuse to get warm. Then the virus hit and while work is going just fine its slow.



We have a small group of Wing Chun people here in Kentucky.
If you ever want to travel to this part of the country we would love to have you do a seminar here.


----------



## wckf92

yak sao said:


> We have a small group of Wing Chun people here in Kentucky.
> If you ever want to travel to this part of the country we would love to have you do a seminar here.



Heck yeah! I'll bring the bourbon!


----------



## yak sao

wckf92 said:


> Heck yeah! I'll bring the bourbon!



No need...probably a dozen distilleries within 20 miles of my house


----------



## hunschuld

Cynik75 said:


> All WC lineage claim that are based on fighting effectiveness. But available videos of fights between pure WC stylist and a trained fighter/sport combat athlete show that WC practitioners without modern sport upgrade cannot fight even on low amateur MMA/boxing/MT/etc level. Even very often metioned Alan Orr and his students are (at the best) mediocre fighters (and their WC is very much upgraded with MMA training methodology).
> Do you have any evidence that "Lo Kwai's Wing Chun is based on fighting effectiveness only"?




You have a point and I don't mean to imply better than any other wing chun. I will explain though what I mean.
First you can't teach some one to fight unless you have fought. The shock of a broken jaw or nose etc can only be experienced and you will never know how it will effect you until you have gone through it. Just our belief.

When a student thinks they are ready I will arrange for them to spar at an MMA school. I haven't really taught a student to that level in over 10 years.  The test then is to see if you can put the KUIT into practice.
I have seen several videos on you tube where someone is said to be a master and they don't perform the basics. For example. Receive what comes is basic but in these videos they perform opponent comes and I run away.   I see a lot of" charge with flailing straight punches". However I am not aware of a Kuit that says charge blindly and hope something lands. Find the bridge,cross the bridge, destroy the bridge. In videos I never see a wing chun master that bridges other than make the bridge with your face and his hand which again is not a Kuit of which I am aware.. No matter how long someone trains Wing Chun. If they can't follow the Kuit when fighting they are not qualified in our opinion. It doesn't mean you win all your fights but wing chun has an instruction manual it has to be followed and its not complicated.If its not put into practice its not wing chun. Its just some shapes and a desire to look like a movie fighter.


----------



## Poppity

hunschuld said:


> You have a point and I don't mean to imply better than any other wing chun. I will explain though what I mean.
> First you can't teach some one to fight unless you have fought. The shock of a broken jaw or nose etc can only be experienced and you will never know how it will effect you until you have gone through it. Just our belief.
> 
> When a student thinks they are ready I will arrange for them to spar at an MMA school. I haven't really taught a student to that level in over 10 years.  The test then is to see if you can put the KUIT into practice.
> I have seen several videos on you tube where someone is said to be a master and they don't perform the basics. For example. Receive what comes is basic but in these videos they perform opponent comes and I run away.   I see a lot of" charge with flailing straight punches". However I am not aware of a Kuit that says charge blindly and hope something lands. Find the bridge,cross the bridge, destroy the bridge. In videos I never see a wing chun master that bridges other than make the bridge with your face and his hand which again is not a Kuit of which I am aware.. No matter how long someone trains Wing Chun. If they can't follow the Kuit when fighting they are not qualified in our opinion. It doesn't mean you win all your fights but wing chun has an instruction manual it has to be followed and its not complicated.If its not put into practice its not wing chun. Its just some shapes and a desire to look like a movie fighter.



Thank you for posting it is genuinely very interesting to hear about Lo Kwai wing chun. In our school when I started sparring I was constantly told to use the art instead of just fighting and not rely on brute strength, which is a bit of a default of any amateur, well and panic.

If you dont mind me asking, does Lo Kwai fists include claw, beak etc.?

In either case I am very sorry to hear about the tumour and really wish you the very best and a full and complete recovery.


----------



## hunschuld

Snark said:


> Thank you for posting it is genuinely very interesting to hear about Lo Kwai wing chun. In our school when I started sparring I was constantly told to use the art instead of just fighting and not rely on brute strength, which is a bit of a default of any amateur, well and panic.
> 
> If you dont mind me asking, does Lo Kwai fists include claw, beak etc.?
> 
> In either case I am very sorry to hear about the tumour and really wish you the very best and a full and complete recovery.



 Only real animal shape would be a percussive strike using a crane shape hand. Sine we grab you could say it is a claw but we wouldn't refer to it that way just a lop.


----------



## Poppity

hunschuld said:


> Only real animal shape would be a percussive strike using a crane shape hand. Sine we grab you could say it is a claw but we wouldn't refer to it that way just a lop.



Thank you.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> Only real animal shape would be a percussive strike using a crane shape hand. Sine we grab you could say it is a claw but we wouldn't refer to it that way just a lop.



Only one?  Hmm.

How many animal shapes are you familiar with, in the southern Chinese sense?


----------



## hunschuld

Oily Dragon said:


> Only one?  Hmm.
> 
> How many animal shapes are you familiar with, in the southern Chinese sense?


It's not something I ever paid attention to. I suppose a Bui is a snake hand and bong is a crane wing etc but my knowledge of other Chinese arts is limited other than general viewing pleasure.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> It's not something I ever paid attention to. I suppose a Bui is a snake hand and bong is a crane wing etc but my knowledge of other Chinese arts is limited other than general viewing pleasure.



"Hok" is the word for crane.  Biu, not bui, means to dart (like a snake).  And crane wing is Hok Yik Sao.  Bong (綁) means to tie up.  

There are at least 3 animals associated with Wing Chun.  It's not quite as terrible as the Liu He Ba Fa with the dozen animals, or Hung Ga's five.


----------



## Poppity

H


Oily Dragon said:


> "Hok" is the word for crane.  Biu, not bui, means to dart (like a snake).  And crane wing is Hok Yik Sao.  Bong (綁) means to tie up.
> 
> There are at least 3 animals associated with Wing Chun.  It's not quite as terrible as the Liu He Ba Fa with the dozen animals, or Hung Ga's five.



Hi, If you don't mind could you explain the reason you referenced the bong symbol you did?.

the"bong" you referenced does mean tie up, but it is not the symbol or word referenced when people in wing chun generally refer to bong, the latter being 膀 meaning, shoulder and wing and being used because of the bongs default position at shoulder height.

This symbol 膀 also appears in Moy yats stone kuen kuit, approved by Ip man.

Interestingly the "biu" Moy yat uses on the kuen kuit is not darting at all, but is 標 meaning top most branches of a tree, again these were approved by Ip man.

I am not trying to be difficult but would generally like to know why you referred to 綁 as the wing chun bong?


----------



## wckf92

Oily Dragon said:


> Bong (綁) means to tie up.



Yup! 

Good post man!


----------



## Poppity

wckf92 said:


> Yup!
> 
> Good post man!



Would you mind explaining this as I may be missing something.

All the martial literature I have seen shows bong as 膀. 

綁 does not appear anywhere though it sounds similar if you ignore tonal shifts.

It seems similar to someone saying do you have any pears?, well Yes I have two bananas.
Oh yes, good point.


----------



## wckf92

Snark said:


> Would you mind explaining this as I may be missing something.



I wish I could explain; but I don't parlay the language so I can't. All I know is that @Oily Dragon is the only other person to define/describe Bong like that so it caught my attention. 

"Tied up" is how I'd heard it described many years ago and it seemed to make sense to me based on how we trained that concept. 

Sorry, not much help I know but... hopefully more knowledgeable folks will chime in.


----------



## Poppity

wckf92 said:


> I wish I could explain; but I don't parlay the language so I can't. All I know is that @Oily Dragon is the only other person to define/describe Bong like that so it caught my attention.
> 
> "Tied up" is how I'd heard it described many years ago and it seemed to make sense to me based on how we trained that concept.
> 
> Sorry, not much help I know but... hopefully more knowledgeable folks will chime in.



Thank you.


----------



## geezer

Snark said:


> Thank you.



_Snark!_ I know from comments I heard from my old Chinese Sifu many years ago that there are a lot Of "double meanings" in Wing Chun terms. He was a reasonably well educated man having completed college in Hong Kong and he spoke Cantonese, Mandarin, and reasonably good English. He also travelled to Fo'shan on the mainland to do WC research back in the 80's when that was still closed territory to most outsiders. So early on he made a study of the different ways WC terms were written down in Chinese and English.

He pointed out that many of the different English names and spellings used in WC (for example: Siu Lam Tao, Siu Nim Tao, Siu lum Tao etc.) came not just from different regional accents being translated imperfectly into the English alphabet, but also had to do with the fact that over the generations of WC's evolution, many sifus were not very literate in their own language and often didn't know the correct characters for certain terms. This is one factor that has led to different WC groups today using similar sounding names but with different Chinese characters and/or English spellings, with different meanings. 

And, to confuse matters even more, when certain terms sound similar to the Cantonese speaker's ear (even though they may be written differently, often the second meaning is also significant ...almost like cockney rhyming jargon ("apples and pears" for "stairs"). This is a Cantonese cultural thing. So for example, the number 4 in Cantonese is considered bad luck because it _sounds like_ the Cantonese word for death. 

So, when talking about Wing Chun terms like bong sau, many say that the real meaning of bong sau is "tying up arm" since _that's what it does_ to your opponent's arms. On the other hand, using different characters, bong sau has been translated as "wing arm" ...which roughly describes _it's appearance,_ and fits nicely with some origin stories regarding Ng Mui being inspired to create the art by watching a fight between a crane and a snake, fox, rat... or another animal (depending on your lineage).

My old Sifu's position was that sure, some spelling differences were a simple matter of right and wrong (as he held regarding his preferred use of the spelling Siu Nim Tau for the first form), others were a matter of lineage identity such as "Wing Chun" or "Weng Chun" (the latter being a significantly different art) or, as with "Wing Chun" (generic) vs. "Wing Tsun" (his own specific, trademarked subsystem). Then there is the third category (like "bong sau") where the existence of multiple interpretations results from words sounding alike and, regardless of the original version, both versions work together adding to the meaning and depth of understanding ...sort of like a WC double entendre.

Finally, my personal favorite version of the two animals in conflict observed by Ng Mui: A _graceful crane_ and a rampaging _bull elephant!  _The crane observed the approach of the gigantic and enraged beast crashing through the forest ...and casually spread it's wings and flew away.


----------



## Poppity

geezer said:


> _Snark!_ I know from comments I heard from my old Chinese Sifu many years ago that there are a lot Of "double meanings" in Wing Chun terms. He was a reasonably well educated man having completed college in Hong Kong and he spoke Cantonese, Mandarin, and reasonably good English. He also travelled to Fo'shan on the mainland to do WC research back in the 80's when that was still closed territory to most outsiders. So early on he made a study of the different ways WC terms were written down in Chinese and English.
> 
> He pointed out that many of the different English names and spellings used in WC (for example: Siu Lam Tao, Siu Nim Tao, Siu lum Tao etc.) came not just from different regional accents being translated imperfectly into the English alphabet, but also had to do with the fact that over the generations of WC's evolution, many sifus were not very literate in their own language and often didn't know the correct characters for certain terms. This is one factor that has led to different WC groups today using similar sounding names but with different Chinese characters and/or English spellings, with different meanings.
> 
> And, to confuse matters even more, when certain terms sound similar to the Cantonese speaker's ear (even though they may be written differently, often the second meaning is also significant ...almost like cockney rhyming jargon ("apples and pears" for "stairs"). This is a Cantonese cultural thing. So for example, the number 4 in Cantonese is considered bad luck because it _sounds like_ the Cantonese word for death.
> 
> So, when talking about Wing Chun terms like bong sau, many say that the real meaning of bong sau is "tying up arm" since _that's what it does_ to your opponent's arms. On the other hand, using different characters, bong sau has been translated as "wing arm" ...which roughly describes _it's appearance,_ and fits nicely with some origin stories regarding Ng Mui being inspired to create the art by watching a fight between a crane and a snake, fox, rat... or another animal (depending on your lineage).
> 
> My old Sifu's position was that sure, some spelling differences were a simple matter of right and wrong (as he held regarding his preferred use of the spelling Siu Nim Tau for the first form), others were a matter of lineage identity such as "Wing Chun" or "Weng Chun" (the latter being a significantly different art) or, as with "Wing Chun" (generic) vs. "Wing Tsun" (his own specific, trademarked subsystem). Then there is the third category (like "bong sau") where the existence of multiple interpretations results from words sounding alike and, regardless of the original version, both versions work together adding to the meaning and depth of understanding ...sort of like a WC double entendre.
> 
> Finally, my personal favorite version of the two animals in conflict observed by Ng Mui: A _graceful crane_ and a rampaging _bull elephant!  _The crane observed the approach of the gigantic and enraged beast crashing through the forest ...and casually spread it's wings and flew away.




Thank you for a very clear and appreciated response. 

I have been told that Chinese has a more broad and poetic meaning, and my own studies, to use the bull as an example, came across the term bull fighting which I found also refers to the star Altair, which is a cowherd in a chinese myth and associated with the middle dan tian. It took me months to discover that.

Sifu Donald Mak has also alluded to westerners needing to adopt a broader acceptance of wing chun meanings as opposed to trying to apply western exactness to it.

My curiosity with oily dragons post is that Ip man was sufficiently educated to correct Moy yats carvings of the kuen kuit before they were set in stone. So the correct  symbol (whichever it is)  should have been used.

I fully accept that bong can have many different meanings, to tie up or a wing, but I have never seen any literature with the alternative tie up symbol used. It would be very exciting to know if anyone is aware of it actually being written.


----------



## wckf92

Snark said:


> Thank you for a very clear and appreciated response.
> 
> I have been told that Chinese has a more broad and poetic meaning, and my own studies, to use the bull as an example, came across the term bull fighting which I found also refers to the star Altair, which is a cowherd in a chinese myth and associated with the middle dan tian. It took me months to discover that.
> 
> Sifu Donald Mak has also alluded to westerners needing to adopt a broader acceptance of wing chun meanings as opposed to trying to apply western exactness to it.
> 
> My curiosity with oily dragons post is that Ip man was sufficiently educated to correct Moy yats carvings of the kuen kuit before they were set in stone. So the correct  symbol (whichever it is)  should have been used.
> 
> I fully accept that bong can have many different meanings, to tie up or a wing, but I have never seen any literature with the alternative tie up symbol used. It would be very exciting to know if anyone is aware of it actually being written.



@Snark  back in the 90s, Duncan Leung produced some VHS tapes. In it, he describes Bong as "tied up". Here is a video of his son saying the same thing, and the character... hope this helps?


----------



## wckf92

Something to keep in mind, the wing chun of Duncan and the Applied WC folks doesn't sit well with the majority of the wing chun community. Not saying one is right or wrong...just a commonly observed fact. 
Now, I have no idea why Moy Yat's stuff is different... ?


----------



## Poppity

wckf92 said:


> Something to keep in mind, the wing chun of Duncan and the Applied WC folks doesn't sit well with the majority of the wing chun community. Not saying one is right or wrong...just a commonly observed fact.
> Now, I have no idea why Moy Yat's stuff is different... ?




Thank you again! This is very interesting. It is also a very well put together and clear video. The Sil Nim Tao varies significantly from our own in many of the details.

Our sigung is said to have received notes from Ip man which he passed to my sifu and from which my sifu drew up his curriculum, the symbols in the curriculum  match Moy yats so I am very interested in alternatives in representation and approach.

Edit: just to say, not because one way is right and one wrong, i am sure multiple meanings were taught, but it will help to provide a broader understanding.


----------



## geezer

Snark said:


> ...I am sure multiple meanings were taught, but it will help to provide a broader understanding.



I have my hands full trying to get one sifu's interpretation down pat. Still, I wish more people would share like this. Often looking at different interpretations or approaches really helps me get the big picture.

But maybe that's me just looking at things as a professional educator. I value transmission of knowledge and  developing critical thinking skills. Others may put a greater emphasis on "being right" as in being the ultimate authority ...and perhaps on lining their wallet or "filling their rice-bowl".


----------



## Poppity

geezer said:


> I have my hands full trying to get one sifu's interpretation down pat. Still, I wish more people would share like this. Often looking at different interpretations or approaches really helps me get the big picture.
> 
> But maybe that's me just looking at things as a professional educator. I value transmission of knowledge and  developing critical thinking skills. Others may put a greater emphasis on "being right" as in being the ultimate authority ...and perhaps on lining their wallet or "filling their rice-bowl".



100% agree


----------



## Oily Dragon

Snark said:


> H
> 
> 
> Hi, If you don't mind could you explain the reason you referenced the bong symbol you did?.
> 
> the"bong" you referenced does mean tie up, but it is not the symbol or word referenced when people in wing chun generally refer to bong, the latter being 膀 meaning, shoulder and wing and being used because of the bongs default position at shoulder height.
> 
> This symbol 膀 also appears in Moy yats stone kuen kuit, approved by Ip man.
> 
> Interestingly the "biu" Moy yat uses on the kuen kuit is not darting at all, but is 標 meaning top most branches of a tree, again these were approved by Ip man.
> 
> I am not trying to be difficult but would generally like to know why you referred to 綁 as the wing chun bong?



You've hit the ultimate mystery of kung fu.  Homophonism is used heavily, especially in the southern styles, and especially depending on your depth, to create the learning material.

綁 is used in several southern family styles to describe a very similar technique to 膀 in Wing Chun, so here's where we see the spectrum from physical basics (bong sao uses the human elbow, so we can use 膀 to describe it in Wing Chun class notes) to technique specifics (bong sao is a tying hand block) to the metaphorical concepts (_it is like a Crane's wing fighting off his fattened enemies_).

Or, bong means bong means bong in three different ways at the same time, like a troika doll.  You could probably write it using a dozen other different characters, too, depending on how sneaky and creative you wanted to be.  That's why we have 内 bong sao, 外 bong sao...


----------



## Oily Dragon

Snark said:


> Would you mind explaining this as I may be missing something.
> 
> All the martial literature I have seen shows bong as 膀.
> 
> 綁 does not appear anywhere though it sounds similar if you ignore tonal shifts.
> 
> It seems similar to someone saying do you have any pears?, well Yes I have two bananas.
> Oh yes, good point.



What tonal shifts?  As far as I know, both bongs are tonally identical.  póng.


----------



## Poppity

Oily Dragon said:


> What tonal shifts?  As far as I know, both bongs are tonally identical.  póng.



Whoops! My mistake, your quite right.


----------



## Poppity

Oily Dragon said:


> You've hit the ultimate mystery of kung fu.  Homophonism is used heavily, especially in the southern styles, and especially depending on your depth, to create the learning material.
> 
> 綁 is used in several southern family styles to describe a very similar technique to 膀 in Wing Chun, so here's where we see the spectrum from physical basics (bong sao uses the human elbow, so we can use 膀 to describe it in Wing Chun class notes) to technique specifics (bong sao is a tying hand block) to the metaphorical concepts (_it is like a Crane's wing fighting off his fattened enemies_).
> 
> Or, bong means bong means bong in three different ways at the same time, like a troika doll.  You could probably write it using a dozen other different characters, too, depending on how sneaky and creative you wanted to be.  That's why we have 内 bong sao, 外 bong sao...




Thank you very much, very appreciated!

This is all very interesting.

In our own style bong has a wider range of uses than just tying up as it might be used in Kwan sau (binding arm) and so the wing arm is generally used to describe it I guess to cover it's various guises and applications.

Though our 膀 can certainly be used as a 綁 in certain applications. 

This has been very informative and useful for me so thank you.


----------



## FinalStreet

Wing Xhun hand name like the style, very unique but Not mysterious because the purpose is too evolve. So hand name's not important.


----------



## Marnetmar

FinalStreet said:


> Wing Xhun hand name like the style, very unique but Not mysterious because the purpose is too evolve. So hand name's not important.



Fascinating. Tell us more.


----------



## FinalStreet

Marnetmar said:


> Fascinating. Tell us more.



Hand names can make the style more beautiful.


----------



## FinalStreet

And can hide it's secrets. technique "A" can be labelled a similar or different name to hide it's characteristics and meaning. _And can be used by those who know it, to keep away those who don't. _


----------



## Oily Dragon

FinalStreet said:


> Hand names can make the style more beautiful.



Good point.  Wing Chun is a beautiful name.  

Entire countrysides are named with it.


----------

