# Master wong lineage



## celestial_dragon

I have been doing research on master wong's w/c style. He won't say his lineage, but his movements are the same as the Pan Nam lineage movements. And yes, I am a student of his.


----------



## chinaboxer

i asked before on his channel and the comment was "deleted". if you are his student, then why not just ask him?


----------



## Takai

chinaboxer said:


> if you are his student, then why not just ask him?





celestial_dragon said:


> He won't say his lineage,



I believe that he already did.


----------



## mook jong man

Most Wing Chun guys are proud to say who their Sifu was.
The ones who aren't probably have something to hide.


----------



## geezer

mook jong man said:


> Most Wing Chun guys are proud to say who their Sifu was.
> The ones who aren't probably have something to hide.



Or they have a "problem" with their Sifu. For many years, my sifu was Leung Ting. As I no longer study under him or pay him any royalties, I can no longer claim association with him and don't mention his name to my students. I also train with another former student of LT's, a highly skilled man who is actually _legally prohibited_ from using LT's name, so if the subject comes up simply I simply refer to LT as "my old sifu" unless they specifically ask his name. Then I make it clear that I am no longer his to-dai. Of course, whatever else may have happened over the years, I will always respect his skill and the training he gave me. But that is in the past. And just as well considering some of the things attributed to him in more recent years. 

Ironically, LT himself wouldn't say the name of his first instructor, Leung Sheung, since the two of them had a nasty feud, and also because LT wanted to emphasize his later training under GM Ip Man, claiming GM Ip as his Si-fu rather than his Si-Gung. Whatever. Politics in the MA are a pretty strange thing.


----------



## mook jong man

geezer said:


> Or they have a "problem" with their Sifu. For many years, my sifu was Leung Ting. As I no longer study under him or pay him any royalties, I can no longer claim association with him and don't mention his name to my students. I also train with another former student of LT's, a highly skilled man who is actually _legally prohibited_ from using LT's name, so if the subject comes up simply I simply refer to LT as "my old sifu" unless they specifically ask his name. Then I make it clear that I am no longer his to-dai. Of course, whatever else may have happened over the years, I will always respect his skill and the training he gave me. But that is in the past. And just as well considering some of the things attributed to him in more recent years.
> 
> Ironically, LT himself wouldn't say the name of his first instructor, Leung Sheung, since the two of them had a nasty feud, and also because LT wanted to emphasize his later training under GM Ip Man, claiming GM Ip as his Si-fu rather than his Si-Gung. Whatever. Politics in the MA are a pretty strange thing.



Just send him a cheque for five bucks every time you mention his name , that'll shut him up.
But even if you don't say who your Sifu was , someone will still know that you trained under LT , or with enough digging they can find out.

But some of these other characters no one seems to know anything about who taught them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

While I don't know much about WC lineage, some simple questions. Do you like how/what he teaches? Does he know more about WC than you? Can you verify that what he is teaching is legitimate and correct WC? If you can answer all these questions and like every (not just some, but EVERY) answer, than I honestly wouldn't worry about it. If you can't, then you have a problem.

EDIT: is the cost of the school disproportional to his level of skill and the enjoyment/usefulness of your classes? If yes, than you have a different problem. Not entirely related, but felt like I should add it.


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> Or they have a "problem" with their Sifu. For many years, my sifu was Leung Ting. As I no longer study under him or pay him any royalties, I can no longer claim association with him and don't mention his name to my students. I also train with another former student of LT's, a highly skilled man who is actually _legally prohibited_ from using LT's name, so if the subject comes up simply I simply refer to LT as "my old sifu" unless they specifically ask his name. Then I make it clear that I am no longer his to-dai. Of course, whatever else may have happened over the years, I will always respect his skill and the training he gave me. But that is in the past. And just as well considering some of the things attributed to him in more recent years.
> 
> Ironically, LT himself wouldn't say the name of his first instructor, Leung Sheung, since the two of them had a nasty feud, and also because LT wanted to emphasize his later training under GM Ip Man, claiming GM Ip as his Si-fu rather than his Si-Gung. Whatever. Politics in the MA are a pretty strange thing.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had heard but do not know or care-that one of Leung Sheung's students- a relative of LT was his first sifu. There is the story of Leung Sheung  ripping off the first arm band(white?) worn by LT at IM's funeral-the band was to be worn by IM's direct students.LT has produced lots of good fghters.


----------



## celestial_dragon

kempodisciple said:


> While I don't know much about WC lineage, some simple questions. Do you like how/what he teaches? Does he know more about WC than you? Can you verify that what he is teaching is legitimate and correct WC? If you can answer all these questions and like every (not just some, but EVERY) answer, than I honestly wouldn't worry about it. If you can't, then you have a problem.
> 
> EDIT: is the cost of the school disproportional to his level of skill and the enjoyment/usefulness of your classes? If yes, than you have a different problem. Not entirely related, but felt like I should add it.



I agree with you, the reason I started this thread was to make known, that you study the movements and forms, not the lineage.


----------



## mook jong man

kempodisciple said:


> While I don't know much about WC lineage, some simple questions. Do you like how/what he teaches? Does he know more about WC than you? _*Can you verify that what he is teaching is legitimate and correct WC?*_ If you can answer all these questions and like every (not just some, but EVERY) answer, than I honestly wouldn't worry about it. If you can't, then you have a problem.
> 
> EDIT: is the cost of the school disproportional to his level of skill and the enjoyment/usefulness of your classes? If yes, than you have a different problem. Not entirely related, but felt like I should add it.



And this is where the rubber hits the road for me.


----------



## OzPaul

Just for the laughs... thanks Master Wong


----------



## almost a ghost

celestial_dragon said:


> I agree with you, the reason I started this thread was to make known, that you study the movements and forms, not the lineage.



Then do you know his lineage as a student?

If an instructor choices not to be public with their lineage, then that's their choice, but if they keep that information from their own students then to me that raises a red flag.


----------



## celestial_dragon

almost a ghost said:


> Then do you know his lineage as a student?
> 
> If an instructor choices not to be public with their lineage, then that's their choice, but if they keep that information from their own students then to me that raises a red flag.


No, only he knows his lineage, as stated before he want tell anyone his lineage, that is his right. I for one like his style, his teachings and he is funny to watch. But, by the way he does his movements, like sil lim tao, chum kiu and biu jee, he is of the Pan Nam lineage. Which, I believe is a more truer form of the Foshan Wing Chun, than the Ip Man lineage, beacause Pan Nam if from Foshan, and Ip Man even though he is from Foshan, he ended up teaching in Hong Kong.


----------



## Steve

OzPaul said:


> Just for the laughs... thanks Master Wong


Why aren't his videos flagged for mature audiences?  The guy is pretty freely dropping f-bombs throughout the videos.  

Also, is he speaking English with a chinese-british accent?  Just curious about that.  I like listening to Renzo Gracie speak English, because he speaks with a bit of his Brazilian accent crossed with some New York.  It's a cool mix.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Master Wong's answer to the question

"Who is master Wong's master"
http://masterwongacademy.com/ask-question/academy-faq.html



> If I told you I would have to kill you! To the serious point what does it matter? Would it affect your training? Is knowing whom I train from going to make any difference to your training? Surely there are more important things to concentrate on then whom I socialise with? e.g your training.
> 
> I will not use my Master's name to promote myself. Should I become successful I know it's not because I have been name droping to get where I am.


----------



## celestial_dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> Master Wong's answer to the question
> 
> "Who is master Wong's master"
> http://masterwongacademy.com/ask-question/academy-faq.html


right on, that is what i have been saying


----------



## almost a ghost

celestial_dragon said:


> No, only he knows his lineage, as stated before he want tell anyone his lineage, that is his right. I for one like his style, his teachings and he is funny to watch.


 
You're correct, that is his right, and yes he's very funny to watch. He reminds me of a guy I knew that owns a Chinese Restaurant in Massachusetts, he's from Taiwan but spent a lot of time in Boston's Chinatown. He cusses *a lot* and in a Chinese/Boston accent.



> But, by the way he does his movements, like sil lim tao, chum kiu and biu jee, he is of the Pan Nam lineage.


 
If lineage doesn't matter then why are you hypothesizing where it might of come from?



> Which, I believe is a more truer form of the Foshan Wing Chun, than the Ip Man lineage, beacause Pan Nam if from Foshan, and Ip Man even though he is from Foshan, he ended up teaching in Hong Kong.



This is totally hypocritical to what you were saying before. If the names of who taught who make little difference, then shouldn't the location of where one learned and taught be held in the same regard? Also, using a term like 'truer form' is the type of loaded BS that starts mind numbing lineage arguments.


----------



## celestial_dragon

Well, that makes me only human, my bad.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

"I will not use my Master's name to promote myself."

Actually that's the correct attitude to have. You should not always live under your teacher's shadow. What your teacher could do doesn't mean that's what you can do. On the other hand, you didn't just crawl out of a hole and became master yourself oneday.


----------



## Vajramusti

Xue Sheng said:


> Master Wong's answer to the question
> 
> "Who is master Wong's master"
> http://masterwongacademy.com/ask-question/academy-faq.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Imitationwing chun IMO- check his so called chi sao video.
Being athlet5ic looking does not make it wing chun. IMO.


----------



## geezer

Apparently Master Wong doesn't want to exploit his own teacher's name for his own benefit. He doesn't want to be "name dropping" because he is such a modest and humble fellow! :uhyeah:


----------



## celestial_dragon

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Imitationwing chun IMO- check his so called chi sao video.
> Being athlet5ic looking does not make it wing chun. IMO.


Every branch of wc has their own movements, and modified forms of movements.


----------



## celestial_dragon

Steve said:


> Why aren't his videos flagged for mature audiences?  The guy is pretty freely dropping f-bombs throughout the videos.
> 
> Also, is he speaking English with a Chinese-british accent?  Just curious about that.  I like listening to Renzo Gracie speak English, because he speaks with a bit of his Brazilian accent crossed with some New York.  It's a cool mix.


He speaks English with a Chinese/ British accent, because at ten years old he moved from Vietnam to England, and has lived in England most of his life.


----------



## mook jong man

celestial_dragon said:


> Every branch of wc has their own movements, and modified forms of movements.



That they do , but that can also be a convenient excuse to justify the incorrect interpretation of Wing Chun core principles.
Though the techniques may differ slightly, the application of the principles should be universal.


----------



## Danny T

mook jong man said:


> Though the techniques may differ slightly, the application of the principles should be universal.



Absolutely. The principles must upheld and applied, the manner they are applied to create technique, for the most part, is unimportant. That is style not the system. When one breaks from the core principles and does things that are completely void of the systematic methods you can call it whatever you want,  but it isn't Wing Chun.


----------



## chinaboxer

Wing Chun practitioners IMO fall into two basic categories.

1. those that use the movements with physical muscle and physical speed to get the job done.
2. those that use the movements with the least amount of physical muscle and physical speed to get the job done.

the difference between the two is huge. the first example is almost always brought about because of a lack of understanding of "structure", that's why in order to make their wing chun work, they have to get physical.

the second example must have an understanding of "structure" or else they would never be able to get their wing chun to work. obviously, this way is more in line with a "woman's martial art" and "using the least amount of (physical) effort to get the job done".

to understand the "structure" of wing chun, means to understand the concepts and principles. there is no short cut or way to avoid it. 

as far as "Master Wong" is concerned, all i can do is work from what he demonstrates on his video Tutorial, so my opinion is solely based on that. but it's very obvious that he's relying on physical muscle and physical speed. 

i'm not saying that this way is wrong, but when wing chun is practiced this way, how can you keep it up? how can you maintain this method in your later years? this type of training only leads to retirement, and becomes no different than boxing or muay thai etc...in the sense that eventually they all have to "bow out" to the younger, faster practitioners.

now as far as his lineage is concerned, i agree...who really cares, because when i see him teach wing chun on his videos, it's pretty clear to me that his understanding of it is very "physical" and not very "conceptual". and physical wing chun is something that anyone with a brain, can learn from a few videos, seminars and books, without a sifu, because the focus is on what wing chun should look like on the "outside" rather than what it should feel like on the "inside".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

celestial_dragon said:


> I for one like his style,...



I like his style too. I have never met him in person. From his clips, I can see that he understands what "combat" is all about. If all Taiji guys are taking his approach, people won't laught at Taiji that much today. I have not seen his WC clips but I have seen a lot of his Taiji clips. I like his Taiji clips better than those famous Taiji guys such as CMC, CXW, ... that can bore you to death. I can see some hope in Taiji by the way he is teaching. I had said this in another forum and I say the same in this forum too.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

I've already stated my opinion, basically that as long as it can be verified as real wing chun, who cares, but have one reservation I'd like to add. If he has a student who is really interested in lineage, whether for scholarly purposes, practical purposes or some other reason, he seems like he will not give that student the information(I may be wrong, don't personally know him). To me, this seems unfair to the student and/or future instructor in the style who wants to know his lineage, or verify it to friends/family/other martial artists/students. He may share it with a student if they have enough of a need, but if not I feel as if it's not fair to withhold the information.


----------



## celestial_dragon

Even though he has never said his lineage, by the way he executes his movements, they are almost the same as GM Pan Nam.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

But could a student of his claim that lineage truthfully if pressured to state their lineage? He may, but unless it's really clear (don't know enough about Wing Chun to cross examine the two) I would feel a bit guilty claiming a lineage to GM Pan Nam while studying under Master Wong.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Imitationwing chun IMO- check his so called chi sao video.
> Being athlet5ic looking does not make it wing chun. IMO.



I have no opinion of his Wing Chu nor do I feel I am qualified to, however you are qualified and I respect your view. Also I really do not understand why, when asked, he just doesn't say "My sifu was....." that is not doing anything based on his sifu's reputation. There are a lot of people out there with lineages to Yang Chengfu or the current Yang family who are horrible at Yang Taijiquan. There are those that are impressed by lineage and those that look a little closer at the skill. Lineage is, IMO, important to root out the occasional fake but they are no measure of skill and understanding. Heck I know a guy that is claiming lineage to a (deceased) famous Taiji sifu and he did likely train with him but I doubt that sifu ever considered him a student. I trained with Chen Zhenglei but he would not know me and certainly would not consider me a student or part of the Chen family lineage...but I am sure there are a few that were there and trained with him that are claiming it.

I just went to his website to see if he had an answer.

His Taiji is not that good either and he really does not understand it based on what I saw but then he really does not care what I think either.


----------



## Vajramusti

Xue Sheng said:


> I have no opinion of his Wing Chu nor do I feel I am qualified to, however you are qualified and I respect your view. Also I really do not understand why, when asked, he just doesn't say "My sifu was....." that is not doing anything based on his sifu's reputation. There are a lot of people out there with lineages to Yang Chengfu or the current Yang family who are horrible at Yang Taijiquan. There are those that are impressed by lineage and those that look a little closer at the skill. Lineage is, IMO, important to root out the occasional fake but they are no measure of skill and understanding. Heck I know a guy that is claiming lineage to a (deceased) famous Taiji sifu and he did likely train with him but I doubt that sifu ever considered him a student. I trained with Chen Zhenglei but he would not know me and certainly would not consider me a student or part of the Chen family lineage...but I am sure there are a few that were there and trained with him that are claiming it.
> 
> I just went to his website to see if he had an answer.
> 
> His Taiji is not that good either and he really does not understand it based on what I saw but then he really does not care what I think either.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just a matter of the roots of his learning.He just does wing chun wrong. See his chi sao tape full of muscle force rather than skill.


----------



## WingChunIan

celestial_dragon said:


> He speaks English with a Chinese/ British accent, because at ten years old he moved from Vietnam to England, and has lived in England most of his life.


So that should narrow down his lineage. Until very recently the UK Wing Chun community was fairly restricted. Most of the senior players trace their lineage through Ip chun, Ip Ching, Wong Shun Leung, Victor Kam, Leung Ting and Lee Shing through various routes and pretty much all of it until recently was Ip Man derived. More recent introductions have come in the guise of mainland lineages and folks like Alan Orr etc and there are one or two other key individuals teaching Wing Chun as part of a broader kung fu syllabus. Maybe this will help you in your quest.


----------



## WingChunIan

celestial_dragon said:


> I have been doing research on master wong's w/c style. He won't say his lineage, but his movements are the same as the Pan Nam lineage movements. And yes, I am a student of his.



By student, do you mean in person or over youtube?


----------



## wtxs

chinaboxer said:


> Wing Chun practitioners IMO fall into two basic categories.
> 
> 1. those that use the movements with physical muscle and physical speed to get the job done.
> 2. those that use the movements with the least amount of physical muscle and physical speed to get the job done.
> 
> the difference between the two is huge. the first example is almost always brought about because of a lack of understanding of "structure", that's why in order to make their wing chun work, they have to get physical.
> 
> the second example must have an understanding of "structure" or else they would never be able to get their wing chun to work. obviously, this way is more in line with a "woman's martial art" and "using the least amount of (physical) effort to get the job done".
> 
> to understand the "structure" of wing chun, means to understand the concepts and principles. there is no short cut or way to avoid it.




Right on the dot ... as to overall knowledge and understanding.

Example 1:  Practitioner level

Example 2: Master level


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Sometime you don't want to tell your students who your WC teacher is. Here is one example.

You learned WC from teacher A. You come to teacher B and fall in love with his art X and you become deciple of teacher B. After you have finished learning style X with teacher B, you start your own school. In your school you teach both style X and WC. Since your WC did not come from your teacher B, in order to respect your teacher B, you won't mention teacher A's name.

What I have just described did happen in the real word expecially if teacher A and teacher B don't get along.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you don't want to tell your students who your WC teacher is. Here is one example.
> 
> You learned WC from teacher A. You come to teacher B and fall in love with his art X and you become deciple of teacher B. After you have finished learning style X with teacher B, you start your own school. In your school you teach both style X and WC. Since your WC did not come from your teacher B, in order to respect your teacher B, you won't mention teacher A's name.
> 
> What I have just described did happen.



Why would you not simply say " The X I teach comes from B, and the WC I teach comes from A"? Surely there is no disrepect to *either* teacher to acknowledge what you learned from each. To my mind, it seems disrepectful of A not to recognise the value of what you learned from him. Especially if you're teaching it to others.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Dirty Dog said:


> Why would you not simply say " The X I teach comes from B, and the WC I teach comes from A"? Surely there is no disrepect to *either* teacher to acknowledge what you learned from each. To my mind, it seems disrepectful of A not to recognise the value of what you learned from him. Especially if you're teaching it to others.


The problem may be:

- teacher A and teacher B don't get along.
- teacher A is one or more generation below teacher B.

Here are 2 examples: 

Person X mentions his style A teacher infront of his style B teacher. His style B teacher said, "Your style A teacher is one generation below me. He would call me teacher. Now you call him as your teacher infront of me as if he and I are on the same generation".

B is C's teacher. B takes C to meet B's teacher A. C then learns directly under A and becomes A's disciple. Should C call B as "teacher" or "brother"?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem may be:
> 
> - teacher A and teacher B don't get along.
> - teacher A is one or more generation below teacher B.
> 
> Here are 2 examples:
> 
> Person X mentions his style A teacher infront of his style B teacher. His style B teacher said, "Your style A teacher is one generation below me. He would call me teacher. Now you call him as your teacher infront of me as if he and I are on the same generation".
> 
> B is C's teacher. B takes C to meet B's teacher A. C then learns directly under A and becomes A's disciple. Should C call B as "teacher" or "brother"?



The implication of the post I quoted and replied to was that different material (even different arts, since you specified X and WC) from A and B. So other than ego, this seems a non-existent issue. I would call my current teacher my teacher, and my former teacher my former teacher. Simple. Easy. Accurate. Respectful.


----------



## Eric_H

Kung Fu Wang said:


> B is C's teacher. B takes C to meet B's teacher A. C then learns directly under A and becomes A's disciple. Should C call B as "teacher" or "brother"?



Out of respect both B and C let A make that call.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

From these situations, still see no reason other than the ego of yourself or your teachers to keep hidden who taught you. As for disrespecting them, surely it's more disrespectful to a teacher to not acknowledge them than it is to acknowledge them along with your other teacher(s)?


----------



## Aiki Lee

In my experience, when someone doesn't want to say the name of his instructor, it comes out that he hasn't trained with anyone more than a couple years. He may have been "doing martial arts" for decades, but if you don't have at leaset one teacher that you've spent years with and are proud to have been associated with (at least in terms of skill), then you may not be qualified to teach martial arts in my opinion.


----------



## Jake104

Himura Kenshin said:


> In my experience, when someone doesn't want to say the name of his instructor, it comes out that he hasn't trained with anyone more than a couple years. He may have been "doing martial arts" for decades, but if you don't have at leaset one teacher that you've spent years with and are proud to have been associated with (at least in terms of skill), then you may not be qualified to teach martial arts in my opinion.


 
I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s). The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system. Since at the time the Japaneese weren't making it a habit of teaching westerners.  The Gracies boast about how they changed the art into what we see today and could angurably be considered one of the most effective MA on the planet. Good thing there wasn't an internet back in the 1900's to discourage Carlos's self expression or to tell  him on what he can can't do.


----------



## geezer

Jake104 said:


> I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s). The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system....



Good point. Think how many really great figures in the fighting arts did something similar. They typically started with legitimate training but then went off and did their own thing and developed something even better than what existed before. As others have pointed out, it's not who you trained under, but what you can do that matters. 

Unfortunately, I doubt that "Master Wong" is one of these. I suspect he refuses to talk about his background because he has something to hide. Whatever. It doesn't really concern me. BTW Jake, its good to see you posting again. Check your PMs.


----------



## celestial_dragon

geezer said:


> Good point. Think how many really great figures in the fighting arts did something similar. They typically started with legitimate training but then went off and did their own thing and developed something even better than what existed before. As others have pointed out, it's not who you trained under, but what you can do that matters.
> 
> Unfortunately, I doubt that "Master Wong" is one of these. I suspect he refuses to talk about his background because he has something to hide. Whatever. It doesn't really concern me. BTW Jake, its good to see you posting again. Check your PMs.



They said the same thing about bruce lee.


----------



## mook jong man

He can do what ever he wants , just don't call it Wing Chun.
It could be a modified form of Wing Chun or a hybrid , but strictly speaking it is not Wing Chun.

Most lineages would be aware of the five main principles of Wing Chun.

Simplicity
Directness
Economy of movement
Minimum use of brute strength 
Practicality

These principles should be the test of any Wing Chun system , they form the basis of the system and will help to preserve it into the future.
If we throw them out or start bending the meaning of them to suit our own personal artistic expression , are we still doing Wing Chun ?
I say we are not.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

celestial_dragon said:


> They said the same thing about bruce lee.


I believe that was his point. Fighters exist who do similar things and become great. He's just stating that he doesn't believe Master Wong is at the same level of skill/talent/the special "something" that makes someone that great.If you mean people doubted bruce lee was one of those, I'm pretty sure most people who came in contact with him did not doubt him. May be wrong, but I don't think so.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

mook jong man said:


> He can do what ever he wants , just don't call it Wing Chun.
> It could be a modified form of Wing Chun or a hybrid , but strictly speaking it is not Wing Chun.
> 
> Most lineages would be aware of the five main principles of Wing Chun.
> 
> Simplicity
> Directness
> Economy of movement
> Minimum use of brute strength
> Practicality
> 
> These principles should be the test of any Wing Chun system , they form the basis of the system and will help to preserve it into the future.
> If we throw them out or start bending the meaning of them to suit our own personal artistic expression , are we still doing Wing Chun ?
> I say we are not.


If you saw his videos, did Master Wong throw out those principles? Genuine question, because the two that were linked looked different than Wing Chun I've seen in the past, and actually looked a bit like Shaolin Kempo combinations/DM's, though I could be wrong...
(Not exactly like them, was not a DM that I'm familiar with, just followed similar concepts to the concepts behind the ones I've learned).


----------



## mook jong man

kempodisciple said:


> If you saw his videos, did Master Wong throw out those principles? Genuine question, because the two that were linked looked different than Wing Chun I've seen in the past, and actually looked a bit like Shaolin Kempo combinations/DM's, though I could be wrong...
> (Not exactly like them, was not a DM that I'm familiar with, just followed similar concepts to the concepts behind the ones I've learned).



I haven't seen much , and I don't need to.
His chi sau and his Chum Kiu form were enough for me.

His Chum Kiu form had a lot of vertical movement in the stepping which indicates a lack of foundation.
In his chi sau he uses a lot of brute strength and his hips were unlocking , again indicating a lack of foundation and body unity.


----------



## WingChunIan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> B is C's teacher. B takes C to meet B's teacher A. C then learns directly under A and becomes A's disciple. Should C call B as "teacher" or "brother"?


 depends upon how long you study with each and the nature of your relationship with both. This is unfortunately far too common especially when the learning from the teacher's teacher actually only constitutes a few lessons. I have kung fu brothers who have followed the path you describe with the blessing of their first sifu and now proudly call both Sifu. If a student has genuinely moved on to another sifu then there is nothing wrong with crediting your new sifu but one should never deny the influence and input of their earlier training. In all cases whilst you may not make a big song and dance about who you learnt from it is highly unusual to refuse to name anyone that has taught you even when directly questioned as appears to be the case here.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Jake104 said:


> I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s).



Let's look at what I actually said.

*"He may have been "doing martial arts" for decades, but if you don't have at leaset one teacher that you've spent years with and are proud to have been associated with (at least in terms of skill), then you may not be qualified to teach martial arts in my opinion."*

I never said you needed decades of training (it certainly doesn't hurt though). What I said was one can claim to have studied martial arts for decades, but never stayed with a teacher for more than a couple years which is never enough time to learn enough of a system that would qualify him to teach. When people don't give the name of there instructors I usually discover that it is because they have not had much instruction at all. I don't know how long Gracie spent training with his teacher, but I would bet it's more than a couple years. Plus Gracie revealed the name of his instructor so he has a verifiable line of quality instruction, which this Wong guy is not displaying. So you pretty much missed the whole point of what I said.



Jake104 said:


> The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system. Since at the time the Japaneese weren't making it a habit of teaching westerners.



Again, from what has been said on the thread, Wong has not talked much at all about who he studied under. That is the opposite to openly admiting that "he was not taught the complete system". Gracie seemed up front on honest about his training if what your saying is true. Wong seems to dodge it; that's sneaky behavior and sets off a red flag for me.



Jake104 said:


> The Gracies boast about how they changed the art into what we see today and could angurably be considered one of the most effective MA on the planet. Good thing there wasn't an internet back in the 1900's to discourage Carlos's self expression or to tell  him on what he can can't do.



First, any martial art can be considered "one of the most effective MA on the planet". If people didn't think their martial art was effective they wouldn't train in it. What makes an art effective is if it does what it claims to do in the environment it was designed for. Second, I have no problem with people branching off to do their own thing so long as they are qualified to do so. If someone spent years studying martial arts, and I mean _actually studying_ not just mimicking what they see, then he or she would develope the qualifications to create their own organization or their own art (so long as they understand what makes their art different from what already exists). Third, I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything. I'm not qualified to look at a CMA practitioner and know if what they are doing is correct. Other people on this site are and I would defer to their opinion on the matter. All I'm saying is either Wong had a major falling out with his teacher (which does happen), or he never had enough quality instruction to name a teacher. From some of the comments made by other posters who practice CMA, it sounds like the latter to me.

I have no idea why you made this about Gracie. I see no similarities between him and this Wong fellow.


----------



## Domino

He may have had a few teachers but I believe from what I have seen it is almost a mish mash of various styles and approaches that he chooses to be most efficient.

The Gracie example I think shows how they changed it up to suit themselves and made something their own and how it can work.

I mean, in class I see new students trained by novices but the new students are naturally good fighters regardless of wing chun knowledge.


----------



## Thunder Foot

I personally think its silly to dodge the "lineage" bullet... and when I encounter someone who does this, I immediately feel they are hiding something. I'm a believer in honesty being the greatest policy, and when someone isn't honest (I consider withholding the truth a form of dishonesty), it speaks to me of their integrity as a Martial Artist.

"Master" Wong (who has given him this title anyway?) has a similar situation with his Jeet Kune Do lessons he teaches.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> I personally think its silly to dodge the "lineage" bullet... and when I encounter someone who does this, I immediately feel they are hiding something. I'm a believer in honesty being the greatest policy, and when someone isn't honest (I consider withholding the truth a form of dishonesty), it speaks to me of their integrity as a Martial Artist.
> 
> "Master" Wong (who has given him this title anyway?) has a similar situation with his Jeet Kune Do lessons he teaches.




I agree with this. My taiji sifu will not tell you who his teacher was unless asked, however if you ask him he will tell you. He is not using his sifu to impress anyone or going on the coat tails of his sifu, he is just teaching taijiquan


----------



## Dirty Dog

Xue Sheng said:


> I agree with this. My taiji sifu will not tell you who his teacher was unless asked, however if you ask him he will tell you. He is not using his sifu to impress anyone or going on the coat tails of his sifu, he is just teaching taijiquan



This is entirely reasonable. Not all students give a flying fart about lineage. And putting up signs saying "Master Toughguy, student of Immortal Imperial Grand Poobah Great GrandMaster of All Arts whatchaknow" seems silly. But refusing to answer questions about ones training, while sometimes understandable, is always going to send a Big Red Flag up the pole for me.


----------



## Vajramusti

Xue Sheng said:


> I agree with this. My taiji sifu will not tell you who his teacher was unless asked, however if you ask him he will tell you. He is not using his sifu to impress anyone or going on the coat tails of his sifu, he is just teaching taijiquan


--------------------------------------------------------Much ado about nothing!!!


----------



## Wingsingh

Hi, I would just say Master Wong doesn't say his methods are 'traditional.' His methods are designed for the 'modern world.' 

Master Wong's Wing Chun system uses most of Wing Chun's main principles, but with a lot more realism for actual 'use.' (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful)

As for his lineage, if he doesn't want to discuss it, that's his business.


----------



## Nabakatsu

A lot more realism.. I doubt anyone who has trained other WC/WT/VT systems and than trained with Mr. Wong would agree with that.. of course it sounds disrespectful.
Sure it's his business what he chooses to do.. but it does seem shady. 
I hope this didn't sound disrespectful


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

Ya know honestly, good for "master" wong for being such a entrepenuer. But IMO he is fake as a push up bra. He won't tell you the lineage? RED FLAG! I've never met anyone who actually trained in person with him. Just people who have learned from his "online" courses. And it is terribly embaressing to have people say they "know" wing chun from the internet. There isn't any possible way you can become even mediocre at martial arts over the internet.

He's a phoney, I would have to swear.

And as for the Sifu Nam lineage debaucle, I can see a little bit in there, but I haven't seen too much of the snake style business in Wong's WC. If ya'll haven't had a chance to read it, pick up LT's book "Roots and Branches of Wing Tsun". It has a whole section on Pang Nam (And his students)...

Matter o' fact, I might just have to go pull mine outta the book rack and see if Wong's stuff matches up.

All the best, and sorry for sounding disrespectful if I came off that way. I was just being brazenly honest.



Jeff


----------



## jks9199

Folks,
MartialTalk has a rule against fraudbusting.  You can discuss qualifications, in a factual and non-accusatory manner.  Stay objective, and support your opinion, and keep away from labeling someone a fraud.


----------



## geezer

jks9199 said:


> Folks,
> MartialTalk has a rule against fraudbusting.  You can discuss qualifications, in a factual and non-accusatory manner.  Stay objective, and support your opinion, and keep away from labeling someone a fraud.



We are, however allowed to critique a persons presentations, promos, videos, etc. from an _artistic _perspective. I think Wong is about the funniest guy out there. Some of his clips are hilarious. Good marketing, I'll grant him that!


----------



## blindsage

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like his style too. I have never met him in person. From his clips, I can see that he understands what "combat" is all about. If all Taiji guys are taking his approach, people won't laught at Taiji that much today. I have not seen his WC clips but I have seen a lot of his Taiji clips. I like his Taiji clips better than those famous Taiji guys such as CMC, CXW, ... that can bore you to death. I can see some hope in Taiji by the way he is teaching. I had said this in another forum and I say the same in this forum too.


His Taiji videos are worse than his Wing Chun videos.  I see no hope in Taiji by the way he is teaching.


----------



## OzPaul

GOLD!


----------



## punisher73

Jake104 said:


> I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s). The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system. Since at the time the Japaneese weren't making it a habit of teaching westerners.  The Gracies boast about how they changed the art into what we see today and could angurably be considered one of the most effective MA on the planet. Good thing there wasn't an internet back in the 1900's to discourage Carlos's self expression or to tell  him on what he can can't do.



The difference is that Carlos Gracie wasn't claiming to teach Judo and then refusing to answer who he learned it from.  Same with Bruce Lee, he said who he learned what from where etc.  He didn't just "invent" Jun Fan/JKD and then make it look like he learned the system from someone and refused to say from whom.


----------



## wingchunguy

It is very possible that it COULD be Pan nam wing chun which is very similar to the Ip Man style of wing chun. Pan nam DOES NOT USE THE TEN CONCEPTS like modified wc. So this could be a possibility. Funny, though, how he WON'T mention his lineage, almost as if he is ashamed of it. But one thing I WILL say about Master Wong. He is a great teacher, and one hell of a funny guy! You can and should use his tutorials, along with others. Not every master knows all the subtle details of wing chun, so I recommend you do as many tutorials as possible,  even from modified masters like Moy Yat. Sifu Wayne Benonha has great tutorials. He is a student of Moy Yat and his techniques are pure perfection. The only thing I DON'T like about the modified style is that they use that crappy 70/30 stance instead of a 50/50. 60/40 stance they use in traditional. This causes your energy to go BACKWARDS instead of FORWARDS (Which is one of the principles of wing chun, to ALWAYS MAINTAIN FORWARD MOMENTUM), causing your energy to be overrun by your opponent very easily and also can push you backwards, off balance. I also recommend you do as much research as possible. There are books out there that will help you understand more deeply the concepts and their proper application in a fight. This is very important if you want to become a great fighter! Just stay away from ANY tutorials by Leung Ting. He is not very good and not a good teacher, even though he IS very charismatic!


----------



## blindsage




----------



## yak sao

wingchunguy said:


> .  Just stay away from ANY tutorials by Leung Ting. He is not very good and not a good teacher, even though he IS very charismatic!



*Sigh* Seven posts and already making waves.
There are many people on this forum who have trained in the Leung Ting lineage, some directly under LT himself.

One simply needs to look at a given sifu's students/grand students to see if the teacher is any good: Keith Kernspecht, Allan Fong, Emin Boztepe, Norbert Maday, Carson Lau, Victor Gutierrez, Alex Richter, Jeff Webb, Michael Casey, Cheng Chuen Fun......................................................................................................................................................


----------

