# What do you think about this "Master"?



## fightingfat (Sep 11, 2006)

Hey guys, what do you make of these two Wing Chun "Masters"?





 
:mst:


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 11, 2006)

fightingfat said:


> Hey guys, what do you make of these two Wing Chun "Masters"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I know billy davidson knows his stuff but i've never really seen paul smith before.  Interesting demo being watched over by sifu sam kwok, i quite liked it although i'm sensing you aren't so sure about it?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 11, 2006)

I don't know anything about these people, so I can't comment based on their reputation or anything like that.

This was clearly a demonstration designed to illustrate the effectiveness of the art, presumably against individuals using a more "street fighting" or other martial arts approach.  But as a demonstration, it is clearly geared toward showing the art as more effective than the streetfighter.  It can be assumed that the participants, including the "streetfighter" are acting in a manner to emphasize the effectiveness of Wing Chun over the other approach.

While this is not a true and real demonstration (as it includes some degree of choreography, or at least cooperation), because it is impossible to predict how an unknown assailant would act, it is still a reasonable demonstration of the art.  Really, anybody who demonstrates their art is going to do their best to present it in a positive way, focusing on its strengths and portraying it as highly effective.

Interesting clip.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Sep 12, 2006)

My Sifu who has studie Wing Chun for 50 years does not refer to himself as a master, so I fail to see how to term "Master" can be applied to these gentlemen. Me thinks it is a term too losely used in our modern MA terminology. I looked at the video, that does not look a great deal like Wing Chun to me.


----------



## fightingfat (Sep 12, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:


> My Sifu who has studie Wing Chun for 50 years does not refer to himself as a master, so I fail to see how to term "Master" can be applied to these gentlemen. Me thinks it is a term too losely used in our modern MA terminology. I looked at the video, that does not look a great deal like Wing Chun to me.


 
My sentiments precisely. I don't personally see any Wing Chun in the demo, except the kicks perhaps at the end which are recognisable as Wing Chun techniques, but not executed "well". The fact that these two blokes proclaim themselves as Master really suprised me!

Now this bloke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4Iyl-Efx4&mode=related&search= you can see his Wing Chun. yes it's a demo, yes it's a bit pre-prescribed, but it's sharp and the techniques are clearly demonstrated. What do you think?


----------



## Stu (Sep 12, 2006)

Hi FightingFat,

I see that your located in England, why don't you travel to Manchester and take a lesson under Billy Davidson and see his Wing Chun first hand?

I just think its a little harsh to pass judgment on somebodies skill only reffering to one small video clip found on the internet that holds no information as the context of the demonstration without ever seeing him first hand. 

Surely you realise that you have to look at the bigger picture before you can understand the full context of anything?

Sorry if this post is a little sharp, I just feel quite passionately about this sort of thing.


----------



## fightingfat (Sep 12, 2006)

It's a good point Stu. My comments are based largely at the tag of "MASTER" that seems a little out of context with the display, which, the MASTER is obviously proud of (Or why would he post it on the internet?)

As for a visit, what purpose could it possibly serve? I'm not particularly bothered how good MASTER Billy _really _is (the way you put it is that he is somehow misleading us in this clip and hiding his true MASTER ability ). The fact that he thinks this clip demonstrates how good he easy pretty much tells me I don't want to train with the man. My point is more that it is a shame that WC gets represented in this way...I wanted to see what other people thought; whether this standard prevails, if others thought this represented WC well!


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 12, 2006)

Yeah master doesn't really mean that much when you look at the ammount of people that use the term - and we all know those who master the system are among the very few.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Sep 12, 2006)

fightingfat said:


> My sentiments precisely. I don't personally see any Wing Chun in the demo, except the kicks perhaps at the end which are recognisable as Wing Chun techniques, but not executed "well". The fact that these two blokes proclaim themselves as Master really suprised me!
> 
> Now this bloke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4Iyl-Efx4&mode=related&search= you can see his Wing Chun. yes it's a demo, yes it's a bit pre-prescribed, but it's sharp and the techniques are clearly demonstrated. What do you think?




Yes A lot sharper, you can at least distinguish this as wing chun, the technique seems fairly crisp, and the partner seems to be employing a more fluid attack than the other partner did on the previous vid. The only criticism I have, and I preface this by saying I know there needs to be a bit of polish for the vid, is that there are only the chain punches offered by the aggressor. I would love to see some more technique from the partner, a flaw I find in a lot of Wing Chun vids. You know what I mean, a little more  Wing Chun v grappling, kicking etc. Still for what it is it is a fine display of fundamental WC skill.


----------



## Si-Je (Sep 18, 2006)

From what I saw in that video clip, honestly, the technique was not what I would consider clean wing chun.  Do you have any other video clips from him that may show more effective technique?


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 19, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> From what I saw in that video clip, honestly, the technique was not what I would consider clean wing chun. Do you have any other video clips from him that may show more effective technique?


 
He's a direct student of sifu sam kwok, and sams approach is similar.  I would suggest seekingmout some of his DVD's if you are interested.


----------



## Thewayofthewarriorispeace (Sep 19, 2006)

hmm...to be honest, the first clip looks somewhat like western 'play boxing', I dont really see much wing chun other than maybe the kicks and some of the hand positions (right neutral).   To me it looks like they are hopping around too much,  and  some of it looks pretty sloppy for  "masters."  However, I know Sifu Kwok has studied under Yip Chun, and if he is the teacher here I am in no position to argue with his method.   The second video to me looks much more like Wing Chun, even if it is rehearsed...good show of technique, looks very smooth and clean.   The thing is, even if they were free sparring in the first video, shouldnt they be using both hands simultaniously? Ive seen some wing chun sparring, and it usually looks similiar to chi sau except for partners break contact and move around a lot more. 
just my $.10


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 20, 2006)

Thewayofthewarriorispeace said:


> The thing is, even if they were free sparring in the first video, shouldnt they be using both hands simultaniously? Ive seen some wing chun sparring, and it usually looks similiar to chi sau except for partners break contact and move around a lot more.
> just my $.10


 
Only if you are working chi sau in a free flowing sparring type of way like gor sau.  Otherwise if your sparring is working a broader scheme i.e with entries, kicks and distancing then you wouldn't really be using the chi sau position except for momentarily when you clash hands and it would be chi sau principles you apply at that point its doubtful it would look like chi sau.  But then what is looks vs. effectiveness.


----------



## Thewayofthewarriorispeace (Sep 21, 2006)

ed-swckf said:


> Only if you are working chi sau in a free flowing sparring type of way like gor sau. Otherwise if your sparring is working a broader scheme i.e with entries, kicks and distancing then you wouldn't really be using the chi sau position except for momentarily when you clash hands and it would be chi sau principles you apply at that point its doubtful it would look like chi sau. But then what is looks vs. effectiveness.


 
I see what you mean, but that video still doesnt look much like wing chun lol


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 22, 2006)

Thewayofthewarriorispeace said:


> I see what you mean, but that video still doesnt look much like wing chun lol


 
Depends how you look at it.  What are the qualities you are looking at to make it wing chun?  Is it just looks?  Are principles being broken with what is being shown?


----------



## ami (Feb 14, 2007)

bcbernam777 said:


> My Sifu who has studie Wing Chun for 50 years does not refer to himself as a master, so I fail to see how to term "Master" can be applied to these gentlemen. Me thinks it is a term too losely used in our modern MA terminology. I looked at the video, that does not look a great deal like Wing Chun to me.


 
in many asian cultures, the term 'master' as translated to english, simply means teacher. don't jump the gun.


----------



## Changhfy (Feb 15, 2007)

Generally what Ami said is correct.

The term of a master would be the same as a Sifu. (the qualifications are that you must have to be some type of authority on what your occupation is)

For instance you would call a head Chef a Sifu, or in todays Western culture they would be called a Master Chef. (thus the term Master)

So its really not a big leap for them to label themselves as Masters.
(but I do understand where your coming from)


take care,
zai jian


----------



## grydth (Feb 15, 2007)

The video clearly shows two friends/colleagues putting on a choreographed demo with only very light contact. 

Wing Chun is not my art, so I cannot comment on their representation.


----------



## grydth (Feb 16, 2007)

Here's a new, but unintentionally humorous, low - I just got a negative reputation for the above post which reads as follows,  " really unuseful commentry."

Okay, if you write, spell and think that poorly..... should you be making any 'commentry' about the quality of anyone else's posts?

Outside of a trained tutor or dedicated special ed teacher, it is highly unlikely anyone here can post anything which is not 'unuseful' to this individual......who, of course, was anonymous.:barf:


----------



## Lisa (Feb 16, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite, respectful and on topic.  Please feel free to use the ignore feature which can be found in the users profile if you do not wish to read their posts.

Also, if you feel you are being unfairly targeted by negative rep, please feel free to contact any Assist. Admin or Admin from the site and they will gladly look into it for you.

Now, lets get back on topic please.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin*


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 16, 2007)

The term Master should speak of the level of ones education and understanding, or the ideal of family lineage. The family lineage or education/understanding may be different from others, and then it would be difficult to judge others master abilities. 

Some major universities teach different from other universities but have the same ideal.After all education is education no different from grade school through collage, it is what it is and thats knowledge, just from a different tree. 

Ali.


----------



## grydth (Feb 16, 2007)

My original point was that the degree of "mastery" can not be judged by what is obviously a choreographed production. 

I would have welcomed an *open* debate on that - or any other point on any other post. 

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly cannot see how one can use the Ignore function if you don't know what sneak did it! That's the problem with allowing anonymous digs.

I personally think you should not be able to avoid a discussion you'd lose just by keying somebody's reputation door anonymously..... and that you should not be able to neg rep if you don't enter the discussion...... or give your cyber name..... 

But rules are rules and I am not the moderator. I am clearly not going to win this one, so I'll leave this thread now and not post on it again. Better a walk than a suspension.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 17, 2007)

ami said:


> in many asian cultures, the term 'master' as translated to english, simply means teacher. don't jump the gun.


 
Then why dont they use the word teacher?

Ami no one is jumping the gun here, they clearly utilise the word master as a marketing ploy. The basic jist of my post was to demonstrate that if my 65 year old Sifu from Hong Kong takes great pains to detatch himself from the notion of a master, then i hardly see how anyone who has been studying the art even over 20 years can call themselves master.

The point is this, the fact that the term master is bandied around the MA community the way that it is, to my mind shows nothing more than the egocentric attitude that to a large degree has done no small favours for the image of MA, particulary in the gung fu set, where we seem to be producing masters almost by osmosis. These so called masters of course (much to the embarresment of the Gung Fu community) do ridiculaous things like goading other MA practicioners into a fight, by making extravigant claims about their prowess etc etc, they then either get soundly trounced, or come up with some miserable excuse why they cannot fight.

On the other side of the coin there is the shear exploitive aspect to bandying yourself around to be some MA master. Sure, we all know that its a marketing ploy, we may even have a little chuckle to ourselves, but at the end of the day, there are no end of starry eyed students who dream of punching through a solid wall, or who believe themselves to be the next Bruce Lee, who hear the term master and wet their damn panties. I know at the end of the day its semantics, but it does leave certain impressions that i believe only have negative, n ot positive connatations. 

As for me, I will never be a master, though I may be a Sifu, but I will definitly be a student for the rest of my life.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 18, 2007)

Most do not have or come from legitimate wing chun families, and cannot back up their claim of lineage. And some sifus are self-taught, base on the fact that you had to be a very close friend of a friend to be consider a group student of Yip Man. And its a lot of so-call masters out there that were group student of Yip Man and claim mastery of the wing chun system under Yip Man himself, when all group classes were taught by Leung Sheung, Wong Shung Leung and others. 

So that should speak in volumes all by its self And there are those who are cursed with legitimate wing chun families straight from Yip Man himself, and therefore the title of Master will fall in place naturally just from hard work alone, so other wise there are some who can not claim the title of Master under the Yip Man wing chun system, because their linage dose not give them the privilege. 

Thats what it is and nothing more then a privilege and blessing, not a cursed or marketing scam. But the title falls in ones lap from tradition and tradition only, if your wing chun family is legitimate or straight from Yip Man himself. 

I put in a lot of hard work over the years and taught well over a 2000 students and proved my abilities physically and in person, as well against all comers and truly earned the title of Master, and with the lineage and family to back me up. And there are many, many more that are like myself. 

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 18, 2007)

Against popular belief, Yip Mans circle was very, very small

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 18, 2007)

Yip Man only worked with a small number of people while in Hong Kong, if you wasnt one of the five disciple or one that didnt spend hundreds of dollars on private session with Yip Man, even one that was not a student of these five master or disciple of Yip Man 

Then the term of master within the Yip Man system may not lap in your lap traditionally. And here are the names those five Grandmasters (only after the death of Yip Man), Chen Kou, Leung Sheung, Lok Yil, Tsui Sheung Tin and Wong Shun Leung


----------



## DaveyBoy (Feb 19, 2007)

Hi all,

This is my first post on here after a few months of browsing the forum. First of all I'd like to thank everyone that has posted on here - I've found many of the posts to be eye-opening and extremely helpful for my training. There are clearly a lot of people here with a deep understanding of Wing Chun & I for one appreciate (and benefit!) from the sharing of your knowledge. Respect.




Ali Rahim said:


> Yip Man only worked with a small number of people while in Hong Kong, if you wasnt one of the five disciple or one that didnt spend hundreds of dollars on private session with Yip Man, even one that was not a student of these five master or disciple of Yip Man
> 
> Then the term of master within the Yip Man system may not lap in your lap traditionally. And here are the names those five Grandmasters (only after the death of Yip Man), Chen Kou, Leung Sheung, Lok Yil, Tsui Sheung Tin and Wong Shun Leung


 
Ali, you didn't mention Yip Chun or Yip Ching in your post. I'd have expected that, given they are Yip Man's sons, they'd also have trained privately & fairly intensely with him. Is there a reason why you didn't include them in your list? Please don't think I'm trying to cause any dispute - there are already far too many silly Wing Chun politics wars IMHO. I'm simply interested in hearing other people's opinions.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 19, 2007)

That is true Yip Mans two son are a given; to me they would be the sole heir of the Yip Man system as far as todays sanders, without a doubt. My sifu feels the same about that statement as well But they were not apart of the 1951 boom in Hong Kong. 
As I heard it said; from King to Prince it only makes sense

Ali.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 19, 2007)

Ali Rahim said:


> Against popular belief, Yip Mans circle was very, very small
> 
> Ali.


 
Though it was small it certinally wasn't restricted to the five, Ali have you seen the Yip man aniversiry book? it was distributed amongst former students of YM, my Sifu let me borrow it for a while and I was going to scan some of it in but I felt that somehow I shouldn't, there are a lot of photos taken from the early to mid fifties (funny enough there are almost no photo's from after that period). There are a numbedr of other students who did train privatly with Sigung, even though they didn't pay great sums of money, Yip Man would work with people who showed promise, amongst them was Bruce, Sifu Fung, Victor Kan, Hawkins Chueng. The main reason why people refer to the 5 is because they are the students who had inititallly started with Sigung, the first of the first so to speak, they where my sifus, Si-Hueng's, and Bruces Si-Hueng's etc.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 19, 2007)

bcbernam777 said:


> Though it was small it certinally wasn't restricted to the five, Ali have you seen the Yip man aniversiry book? it was distributed amongst former students of YM, my Sifu let me borrow it for a while and I was going to scan some of it in but I felt that somehow I shouldn't, there are a lot of photos taken from the early to mid fifties (funny enough there are almost no photo's from after that period). There are a numbedr of other students who did train privatly with Sigung, even though they didn't pay great sums of money, Yip Man would work with people who showed promise, amongst them was Bruce, Sifu Fung, Victor Kan, Hawkins Chueng. The main reason why people refer to the 5 is because they are the students who had inititallly started with Sigung, the first of the first so to speak, they where my sifus, Si-Hueng's, and Bruces Si-Hueng's etc.


 

It all started in 1951, those names that you mention were not apart of the original members of the restaurant union hall in kowloon Hong Kong, they came some time later and were still teenagers at the time they showed up.

I taught thousand of students consistently in-group setting, along with my assistant instructors and only have 8 close students yet a lot of people were my students, but only a few is asked to carry the legacy. And in terms cannot use the title master. 

Ali.


----------



## monji112000 (Feb 19, 2007)

Both these topics are way off topic but hey who cares? Its a forum..

terms specifically &#8220;master&#8221;. As I have been told by many people who speak the language that the term Sifu means teacher/father not master. This is because you were accepted as the person's live in &#8220;Diciple(apprentice)&#8221; and that person basically adopted you.  So he was responcible for you just like a father was. This relationship mirrored your relationship with your own father in almost everyway. These terms and in some cases practices were continued and still are done.  I don't think that The following generations will continue this practise in this exact way becouse it doesn't hold to our times. 

 So when someone says They were a &#8220;student&#8221; of Ip man what does that mean? I will say that maybe 3 types of people learned from Ip . Students from his school , Disciples , people who paid for private lessons.

 Its very controversial to start saying who was diciple or a private student and who learned what from who. So if you want to know the truth go ask someone who was there.   The fact is that Ip man taught in different stages and places. Most people just think of one short amount of time that he taught. Allot of people don't know the other people, because people traveled and were not able to visit often. 

Many people have said they are a Disciple or a closed door student .. but its not really important who was or wasn't. Because nobody can prove anything. This is one of the main reasons why Wing Chun is so different to so many people. The &#8220;principles&#8221; vary from lineage to lineage. What Chi sao is changes from school to school.  

 The fact is that no official list exists in the public of who were his few &#8220;disciples&#8221;.Some are known, like Duncan Leung while most aren't. Nobody knows his private students. Why becouse they were private. So if someone says they were.. then you just believe or you don't. Its very possible they were. Ip Man was known for teaching people just for money. He was only human and he had a very demanding habit. Some people paid allot of money and didn't really learn much. While others I am sure paid less or more and learned allot. The people who know about these things don't talk because they aren't interested in politics.

 Ip Man never said he was the Grandmaster, which would mean the leader of the style. He wasn't given that role from the Leader of the style. If you call him Grandmaster because you are translating Sigung as teacher's teacher, then I guess that works. The main issue is translations. In one culture things mean allot while in American culture they don't. Ip man gave nobody the title Master or Grandmaster. I know only one person who he gave permission to open a school.  It seems very complicated,  because no structure was created. It would seem like Ip Man wasn't interested in creating a giant organization , but only to having a income and passing down his knowledge to a few &#8220;worthy&#8221; people.  


 Just about everybody believes what their Sifu or Sigung says... and everybody says they were "private" students or disciples. Its really silly to talk about it because nobody can prove anything. Everybody is a expert and nobody was even around at the time most of all not me. Just try to understand that these terms don't translate well and the original means don't really exist in our culture today.  


 And just as a historical point it all did not start in 1951.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

monji112000 said:


> And just as a historical point it all did not start in 1951.


 


LOL LOL LOL LOL 

That was the first time that Yip Man taught anyone in a group setting in Hong Kong in a neighborhood church in 1951 And in 1949 is when he started with the first 5 and taught them only and maybe a few of their friends until 1951 Yip Man was a fugitive from the Foshan War and was salt out by the military and hided in Hong Kong 


So he did not open up publicly until some time later, because of his ordeal in Foshan... Any true Yip Man follower would know when he left Foshan for Hong Kong and that was in 1949, I knew that for over 25 year,, Oh yeah you forgot to tell us the original date it started for group classes in Hong Kong

LOL LOL LOL LOL


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

We dont know what Yip Man said, we were not there  But we do know that his students call him Master And those in group classes call him Grand Master, back then everyone consider him as one of a kind and gave him a title accordingly, which is a martial art tradition (titles)   

Ali.


----------



## monji112000 (Feb 20, 2007)

well if Ip Man came to HK in 1949, (I didn't know it was that year), then I am sure he had people he was teaching before he came to HK. Maybe even a disciple. 



I don't know exactly when his Nephew started training with him, but I think they both lived in the same city in china(could be wrong).  I know when his formal school opened. I know about the restaurant union.  I am not a Ip Man follower, he is simple the "innovator" of the style of martial arts I train. I never met him, I don't know anything about him. I have never seen any trustworthy information about him outside of one or two facts. So its really just myths and legends, along with people saying stuff that allows them to gain more credit and more students. I do know some of his family (not his sons), and have heard many good (some bad) things about him. HE did change allot of people.

nobody called him master he didn't speak English. He was called Sifu, which translates to father or teacher. Master is a completely different word.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

monji112000 said:


> well if Ip Man came to HK in 1949, (I didn't know it was that year), then I am sure he had people he was teaching before he came to HK. Maybe even a disciple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

They all called him Master Chen Kou, Leung Sheung, Lok Yil, Tsui Sheung Tin and Wong Shun Leung, and my sifu called him that as well, if they didnt call him that to his face, they always said it to others outside of the family but yet he was called Master 

Many other wing chun greats as well called him that such as Leung Ting,, Wong Shun Leung and Tsui Sheung Tin all called him Master in their instructional tapes or DVDs, and while in seminars

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

I have heard this debate for years Let me break this down for you as a known fact The term sifu puts one in immediate accessibility of ones time or space, meaning having immediate intention of that person time and consistently. 

The Chinese is notorious for using the term sifu keeping them in the graces of others by hurting those with direct lineage to the Yip Man wing chun family, when their lineage dose not lead them to the very beginning of Yip Mans Hong Kong wing chun system... 

So the term Master, was hated by those who couldnt link themselves to the first five students of Yip Man and therefore making themselves followers and on the same level of training and respect

And for those who do not know fall right into that bucket of crap!!! 

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

And it hurts a lot more when a Non- Asian has this opportunity being titled Masters within A lineament wing chun family of Yip Mans

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

*The Chinese is notorious for using the term sifu keeping them in the graces of others by hurting those with direct lineage to the Yip Man wing chun family, when their lineage dose not lead them to the very beginning of Yip Mans Hong Kong wing chun system...*

Especially when there are non-Asian students involved in the equation

Ali.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 20, 2007)

Ali Rahim said:


> It all started in 1951, those names that you mention were not apart of the original members of the restaurant union hall in kowloon Hong Kong, they came some time later and were still teenagers at the time they showed up.
> 
> I taught thousand of students consistently in-group setting, along with my assistant instructors and only have 8 close students yet a lot of people were my students, but only a few is asked to carry the legacy. And in terms cannot use the title master.
> 
> Ali.


 
I know that, thats why I said that the former where the first of the first, however that doesn't, in my opinion invalidate the fact that these people I mention where to some level taught by Yip Man at times in a school setting and at times privatly by Yip Man. The fact that they cam on board only a short time later does not invalidate anything. Take for example Sifu Fung, Sifu started teaching in 1979, He taught a number of students before me, I started with Sifu 2004, but he asked me to teach for him even though he had students who had been with him close to 10 years, I dont really see how being first gives anyone automatic entitlement, infact if we really wanted to be technical, yip man did teach in china before arriving at Hong Kong.

Anyway thats all moot because I still dont believe that anyone has the right to claim master, in any martial art, not even my sifu whom I dearly love and respect, and am in awe of his skill, but if someone wants to call themselves master I guess that is their own choice, but as a student, I would personally avoid those who bandy themselves as a master, I believes it shows a level of ego that is restrictive in Martial Arts. As the good book says "Let another man praise you".


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

The term Master is against my religion, and my students are not allowed to call me that because of that same reason alone, but yet my Sifu cursed me with that title being a second generation student of Yip Man, he has the privilege to do so. 

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

If you are not connected to the first five disciples, you can not use the term Master openly, Yip Man spend more time with them then any students that he had, they all had at least a two year ahead start over everyone and were his closes students even in the mid 50s through the 60s, because he didnt teach group classes, their were taught by the first five Yip Man made a few appearances but rarely lead the group classes 

Yip Man did have outrageous fees for his private session Remember his was a head police detective in Foshan and had a certain life style that he enjoyed, just because we look at those picture of this kind old man sitting in a chair, makes us feel or believe that if someone he liked came by he will teach them for free or for very little price. I dont think so, thats when the first five came in to play, to keep the pressure off him (Yip Man)

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

Im only taking about Hong Kong and Hong Kong wing chun only, from 1949 on...

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

bcbernam777 said:


> Take for example Sifu Fung, Sifu started teaching in 1979, He taught a number of students before me,


 

Is this the Fung that you are referring too?
http://www.wingchun.com.au/article_excellence.shtml

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

This is real interesting. 

http://www.wingchun.com.au/lineage.shtml


----------



## monji112000 (Feb 20, 2007)

First if I may make a respectful request. Could you keep your responses contained to one or two posts? so many posts to scroll it seems very hard to respond or even follow what you are saying.

If you are only talking about HK wing chun thats fine, but Wing Chun didn't start in HK and it didn't end in HK. Its also a known fact that because of the policies of the Chinese Government most Kung Fu Masters immigrated to countries like Taiwan. 



> If you are not connected to the first five disciples, you can not use the term Master openly



thats fine if you want to believe that.

Its common knowledge what Sifu means and the history around the term and idea of Disciples.

Again no formal hierarchy exists and Ip Man himself was never Given the right to teach or be called Sifu. He gave only one person formal permission that I know of. He just started teaching just as all of his students when they feel its time. What title you are called is your own choice. If you don't like the connotations of Master and you want something in English why not teacher? or Mr xyz or Sir or hey you.

Again nobody called him "master" he didn't speak English. 

I don't see anywhere else this conversation can go, because its really a very simple subject. (without all the Political BS) Everyone will believe their own linage's propaganda . Everyone was a private student or Disciple, who learned secret things that nobody else knows. Its really sad what people do for the sake of money.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 20, 2007)

One who speaks of secrets speaks of limitation; I only speak of family lineage, no secretes just history and no politic, its nothing political about this

http://www.wingchun.com.au/lineage.shtml

Ali.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 21, 2007)

Ali Rahim said:


> Is this the &#8220;Fung&#8221; that you are referring too?
> http://www.wingchun.com.au/article_excellence.shtml
> 
> Ali.


 
No that is Jim Fung who learnt under Choi sheung Ting, my Sifu is Derek fung his chinese name is Fung Ping Boi, he is a first generation who learnt from Yip Man, you will find his lineage on websites that contain the Yip man family tree.

Also his prowess as a fighter was confirmed to me by David Peterson, (whom you may know as Wong Shung Leungs student) when I was in Melbourne 18 months ago, as he was told about Sifu Fung by Wong Shueng Leung himself.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 21, 2007)

Let me make something clear because I can see where this is all going, I believe in the importance of lineage, I believe in the fact that there where genuine students under Yip Man who dedicate4d themesleves to the learning of the art, I believe in the knowledge that they have learnt and passed on as being pure, and as being effective (yes I know pure is a reletive term), I believe that when you learn under a truely skilled fighter under any art you will become (or rather you have the potential) to become a skilled fighter yourself. I have touched hands with people from other wing chun schools at least 2-3 generations removed from Yip Man, and I have yet to find anything that matches Sifu's Wing Chun (and I mean that as pure fact, not as a boast, I just haven't found the same quality elsewhere), _*which is first generation*_, I doubt at this stage of my life I could effectivly pass on martial skill (neither do I desire to despite Sifu asking me at one point to start teaching [good students are hard to find]), yet despite all of this if we become so enamoured with lineage we may well miss sight of the woods from looking at the trees. Lineage makes no Iron clad guareentees, it assures a studnet of nothing, it cannot produce a great student, all these factors are for the decision of the student and the teacher.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 21, 2007)

Im not talking skill level far as knowledge; Im not talking fighting ability because all of my student can fight for real at least 90% of them, and most were great fighter before they even met up with me and still are.

Im just talking history and family tree, not politics Hmmmm, family tree (titles) Great Grandfather, Grandfather, Father, Uncle and brother, but only in a martial arts stand point After all family is family 

But when one is self promoting, then the family tree system which helps keep it real far as who is who in the Hong Kong wing chun system becomes a bad ideal for those who lineage does not bring them back to the beginning, when that happens one may say. 

Hey everybody, lets just say sifu and throw away the word master, because most will not have that title among themselves. How very sad that is 

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 21, 2007)

I wouldnt abandon my brother because he is weaker then myself, far as skill level, my sons should respect him still as their uncle, and thats respecting the family tree, which is truly missing in the martial art world today, just from greed alone. 

Ali.


----------



## graychuan (Feb 22, 2007)

bcbernam777 said:


> I doubt at this stage of my life I could effectivly pass on martial skill (neither do I desire to despite Sifu asking me at one point to start teaching [good students are hard to find]), yet despite all of this if we become so enamoured with lineage we may well miss sight of the woods from looking at the trees. Lineage makes no Iron clad guareentees, it assures a studnet of nothing, it cannot produce a great student, all these factors are for the decision of the student and the teacher.


I just finished following this grand discussion amongst Masters(lol, excuse the pun, not meant to offend anyone in particular. Just considering the subject I thought we could use a little humour to lighten things up.). 
With regards to your post, BC, Ive read some of your other posts and i admire your position on a lot of the subjects. You seem to be very competent about wing chun and martial arts in general. You also have a very non-egotistic philosophy about your training and your art. A person like you would do a great benefit to the martial community, especialy wing chun, if you did consider taking on a couple of students. Taking the ego out of your training, teaching, or even just everyday interaction with people in general will give everyone you come in contact with something to learn from you. You are in a position to set a very good and strong 'internal' example of being a martial artist for any students you decide to take on.
    That being said. I wholly encourage you to take the advice of your Sifu. You should teach! Teaching gives you even more of an opportunity to let go of ego and be there for the two most important reasons...the art(which has been here long before us and will be here when we are gone) and for the student( who is the reason why the art will remain after we are gone).  Let us not forget that master,sifu,sensei, big brother almighty...whatever title you choose...what do the masters do? THEY TEACH. This does not mean that they take on large school projects with 200 students and all that. It could mean that they only take on 1-3 students that they can devote real time into developing real skills and to plant the seed of the art for the next generation and maybe make a little scratch on the side to pay the bills or support any personal habits (sound familliar?).
   All in all I look forward to hearing from you more in the future and this forum. Whatever path you choose, good luck!

4th dan in Shaolin Kempo Karate, student of SIFU Ali Rahim, 

GrayChuan


P.S.    We could all just meet up and knuckle up. Whomever is left standing gets the tiltle. Or we could all fight over the title 'headband' like in 'AFRO SAMURAI' on Spike TV. (roflmao)


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 22, 2007)

graychuan said:


> That being said. I wholly encourage you to take the advice of your Sifu. You should teach! Teaching gives you even more of an opportunity to let go of ego and be there for the two most important reasons...the art(which has been here long before us and will be here when we are gone) and for the student( who is the reason why the art will remain after we are gone). Let us not forget that master,sifu,sensei, big brother almighty...whatever title you choose...what do the masters do? THEY TEACH. This does not mean that they take on large school projects with 200 students and all that. It could mean that they only take on 1-3 students that they can devote real time into developing real skills and to plant the seed of the art for the next generation and maybe make a little scratch on the side to pay the bills or support any personal habits (sound familliar?).


 


That only makes since to teach when asked I truly agree, when you start to teach you move self out of the way, trying to make your student just as good as yourself or even better Bringing truth to the saying, that your student is you best teacher.

Ali.


----------



## profesormental (Feb 22, 2007)

Greetings!

I love teaching!

I am videoing almost all my classes so I can learn from that which I teach... sometimes I teach stuff that I didn't know I knew even though at the time I knew what I know I was gonna teach. Hehe.

Knowing that, I record the trainings, and when I see them again, I gain new insight, I better myself and better my students.

Yet I know this is not for everyone, so I feel there is no obligation to teach, even though it is very useful. My task is to give them the opportunity to teach and my encouragement. Also, teaching classes is not the only way to give back the Combat Sciences.

Writing, as in these forums or articles, etc. is a good way to give back to the Sciences.

That said, I want to thank all those that post here for their contributions. Very stimulating and enlightening.

Apreciatively,

Si Fu Juan M. Mercado

P.S. On the subject of "Master", it's a title of respect that is usually given by the students... they just call you that for some reason.

Here most call me "Profesor" or "Profe". Others call me "Maestro". I didn't tell them. They just did.

Yet in the family tree, to them I am Si Fu. That's it. When they make their own martial family, to THEIR students, I'll be Si Gung. That's it.


----------



## Changhfy (Feb 25, 2007)

Hey Ali laoshi,

I have to respectfully disagree with your post about the 5 masters under Ip Man.

Due to the fact it would be hard to prove that any of Ip Man's students were titled as Masters.

Because Ip Man himself never claimed to be a Grandmaster or a Master at all. (so it would be hard to claim that his students are now Master or Grandmasters based on the Ip Man legacy)

Dont get me wrong the term based on mastery of skill is truly theres for the taking. (but to have the claim as Master of Wing Chun doesnt seem logical)

I hope you forgive me if this post seems disrespectful in anyway. (as im only stating my point of view, and its not meant to take away anything that youve earned or obtained.) As Ive always had tremendous respect for Ali laoshi and the rest of the Leung Sheum family.

I wish you the best!


take care,
Zach


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 25, 2007)

I will only believe that if Yip Man himself wrote it in a document (We don't know what Yip Man heard or said, but have documents of some of the disciples and others)and that will deter me from believing the fact that his 1st 4 known disciples recognizes him as Master or Grand Master when introducing him to others or the public; as such, in seminar and instructional footage and still recognizes him as Master today. 

Why would Yip Man allow this to continue? And if Yip Man didnt hear them call him that, then should we respect the first 5 disciples word as the Hong Kong family tree concurs as true history? Or should we believe that they and others are no telling the truth when it comes to the Hong Kong Yip Mans wing chun system and history? Or should we not believe in the discipleship of the 1st 5 students of Yip Man, as shown in most wing chun family trees of Yip Man from generation to generation as truth?


Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 25, 2007)

Why are all the other Masters or Disciples of the wing chun family tree are recognized as such, from "Yim Yee Tai" on down But when it comes to Yip Man on down his disciples are excuses as such.

Know thats politics!!!

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 25, 2007)

Its seem to me that most do believe that Yip Man himself didnt or couldnt produces any students that could carry on the wing chun family tree or history as recorded from generation to generation even before Yip Man as truth. Well it seems that it all stops at the feet of Yip Man, and his Hong Kong wing chun family could not exist

Ali.


----------



## Changhfy (Feb 26, 2007)

Hey Ali laoshi,

Thanks for the reply, I hope all is well with you and your to dai.

And also Ive really enjoyed the vid's that you have been posting on you tube.

Keep up the awesome work!

Back to the topic, In order for Ip Man himself to be the Grandmaster he would have to of been awarded the title of Buen Juyn.

In which case there is no evidence to indicate that he was and never admitted himself to be the buen jyun, If he were the Buen Jyun then it would make logical since that he would have made a successor.

If he were given the title of Grandmaster then he would have to of chosen the next Buen Jyun. (in which case he never did)

Dont get me wrong everyone and their cousin would never dispute that any of the 5 disciples that you mentioned are masters in their own right.

But based on tradition, none of them are able to claim such a title as Grandmaster or Buen Jyun.

Generally speaking the Buen Jyun would generally be the gate keeper and have some type of record of his status, such as a book, paper or some other form of record indicating that they are the Grandmaster.

In which case Ip Man himself is known to have none of these.

Again I could be mistaken, so I hope you can forgive me if my information is wrong.

Besides that, I would definitely say that Ip Man himself was more than capable of producing students. (in which case im glad he did or I most likely would have never found Wing Chun)

Again what im saying isnt disputing their skill, which I can only imagine is phenomenol. And is truly diserving of the title of Grandmaster in realms of skill and teaching ability. 

But in alot of Chinese systems only the Buen Jyun can bai si (pai sze) the to dai.


Anyways I wish you the best.


take care,
Zach


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 27, 2007)

In that case, we did not hear of any leaders or elders of the wing chun family tree make that clam (title of Buen Juyn) Does that mean that the whole wing chun family tree should not exist, based on what we may not know of, or what one might have said or heard Or are there simply no master within the wing chun system?

If that is the case then that will put all of the elders, master and disciples into the point of double jeopardy, and the history of wing chun as well as the Hong Kong Wing chun history to And if that was the case, what would give Yip Man the right and authority to teach within the origins of the original wing chun family tree? Then why would Yip Man teach his 1st five for two years before opening his group classes that only his 1st five taught? 

And it would be hard to believe that this system is without masters Only those who cant make a direct link to Yip Man or his 1st five disciples makes such clams This is mostly coming from or out of Asia or Hong Kong, killing history to make themselves even more on scale with others (far as history), making Yip Mans history false while making their history or self promotion strong. 

Ali.


----------



## Gufbal1982 (Feb 27, 2007)

fightingfat said:


> My sentiments precisely. I don't personally see any Wing Chun in the demo, except the kicks perhaps at the end which are recognisable as Wing Chun techniques, but not executed "well". The fact that these two blokes proclaim themselves as Master really suprised me!
> 
> Now this bloke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4Iyl-Efx4&mode=related&search= you can see his Wing Chun. yes it's a demo, yes it's a bit pre-prescribed, but it's sharp and the techniques are clearly demonstrated. What do you think?


 

I like that one better than the original link on this thread.  I don't know Wing chun, but from a prospective student perspective, I will just say that I would go with the 2nd person's link over the first.  It's more appealing!


----------



## Changhfy (Feb 28, 2007)

Hey Ali laoshi,

Not particularly, Wing Chun is Win Chun.

As you know there are alot of other expressions of Wing Chun other than Ip Man's.

For example lets say my expression of Wing Chun is called X Wing Chun and yours is Y Wing Chun. 

I made up my own expression so there for Im the Grandmaster of my own expression of Wing Chun. (that doesnt mean that I can automatically assume the role of Buen Jyun of Wing Chun Kuen in general)

I would have to say that Ip Man himself was definitely the Grandmaster of his own expression, but not Hung Suen Wing Chun in general. (there were quite a few other students in Hung Suen Wing Chun other than Ip Man)

Actually there are quite a few systems of Wing Chun that have inheritors of that expression for example Hung Fa Yi has a Buen Jyun, Chi Sim has a Buen Jyun, Shaolin Wing Chun, Yuen Kay San, Gu Lao, etc...

Where as when Ip Man himself trained in Wing Chun there were already seniors other than himself. (so by tradition it would be hard to believe that they would pass up his seniors and give him the title of Buen Jyun of Hung Suen Wing Chun or in this case Leung Jan's expression)

take care,
Zach


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 28, 2007)

I see what what you are saying but its a question of different times, different lineage or family tree, and even different parts of the county, but of the same fruit (wing chun) Because one family does it one way, does not make the other family void of titles within their wing chun system

None of those names that you mention are within the Yip Mans family tree or before Yip Man himself. In a way youre talking apples and orange, because the Yip Man family has nothing do with those particular wing chun groups There are no connections between them but the word wing chun. 

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 28, 2007)

When Yip Man started to teach in Hong Kong openly, his seniors were already dead and he was the only one left to carry the family tree.

http://www.wingchun.com.au/lineage.shtml

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Feb 28, 2007)

Oops,, there is one name that you mention that is within the Yip Man's family tree (Leung Jan) But he died way before Yip Man was even born.

Ali.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Mar 1, 2007)

graychuan said:


> I just finished following this grand discussion amongst Masters(lol, excuse the pun, not meant to offend anyone in particular. Just considering the subject I thought we could use a little humour to lighten things up.).
> With regards to your post, BC, Ive read some of your other posts and i admire your position on a lot of the subjects. You seem to be very competent about wing chun and martial arts in general. You also have a very non-egotistic philosophy about your training and your art. A person like you would do a great benefit to the martial community, especialy wing chun, if you did consider taking on a couple of students. Taking the ego out of your training, teaching, or even just everyday interaction with people in general will give everyone you come in contact with something to learn from you. You are in a position to set a very good and strong 'internal' example of being a martial artist for any students you decide to take on.
> That being said. I wholly encourage you to take the advice of your Sifu. You should teach! Teaching gives you even more of an opportunity to let go of ego and be there for the two most important reasons...the art(which has been here long before us and will be here when we are gone) and for the student( who is the reason why the art will remain after we are gone). Let us not forget that master,sifu,sensei, big brother almighty...whatever title you choose...what do the masters do? THEY TEACH. This does not mean that they take on large school projects with 200 students and all that. It could mean that they only take on 1-3 students that they can devote real time into developing real skills and to plant the seed of the art for the next generation and maybe make a little scratch on the side to pay the bills or support any personal habits (sound familliar?).
> All in all I look forward to hearing from you more in the future and this forum. Whatever path you choose, good luck!
> ...


 

Wow, what can I say after that? Thanks for that, I am glad I have made some level of impact, and hope to do more in the future.


----------



## Changhfy (Mar 1, 2007)

Hey Ali laoshi,

Based on the Ip Man lineage.

The Chan Wah Shun lineage already has a inheritor. (from the Chan family)
(and Ip Man was the last student of Chan Wah Shun)

So for Ip Man to be a Buen Jyun he would have had to inherit the system from Leung Bik. (which I have never heard a record of, not to say it doesnt exist)

But thanks for your info, alot of the stuff you mention really broadens my knowledge.


take care,
Zach


----------



## Ali Rahim (Mar 1, 2007)

I never heard of anyone taking that clam in the Yip Mans family tree, "Chan Wah Shun" was just a moneychanger, he brought dollars he was not that liked among ordinary people, he was not that special at all and no one really liked him

Before Yip Man started teaching in Hong Kong, all of his seniors were dead he was the only one left, if what you are saying is true, then Yip Man should not exist in the wing chun family tree or his Hong Kong wing chun family also, which opens up I whole new can of worms.

Ali.


----------



## Changhfy (Mar 2, 2007)

Hey Ali laoshi,

From what I understand. Chan Guo Ji (great grandson of Chan Wah Shun)
Is claiming to be the gate keeper or Buen Jyun for the Chan family.

Heres a link sorry its only in Chinese.

http://www.sc168.com/file/sdnews/sdnews/200411090028.htm

This may be true, but I have no relations to the Chan family. (but he had claimed to have written records following Chan Wah Shun)



I wish you the best.


take care,
Zach


----------



## Ali Rahim (Mar 2, 2007)

Changhfy said:


> Hey Ali laoshi,
> 
> From what I understand. Chan Guo Ji (great grandson of Chan Wah Shun)
> Is claiming to be the gate keeper or Buen Jyun for the Chan family.
> ...


 


This is why I find that hard to believe, when the art of wing chun came about it was during the time of war, the Ching Dynasty takeover The Manchurians were more or less the secret police for the Ching Dynasty. It got so bad for the rebels that were fighting against the Ching and Manchurians that the war spread over into the Shoalin Temples where some of the rebels were hiding, in cause and effect the temple were under attack, and most of them were burned to the ground

By the time that the Manchus got to the Sli Lum temple the system was created and all of the masters that created this system went each their own way, never making anyone a leader or heir to the system in which they all created and if anyone was to be the head man,, it would surely be the head fighting monk Jun sheen head monk or guardian of Forever Spring Time training hall in the Sil Lum Temple.

The wing chun system was a secret fighting art that could easily identified you as a rebel or a rebel supporter Fighting arts were easy to identify just as a gun caliber is today The five master that created this system were always running for their lives and no one took such an oath within this family tree, unless it was "Yim Yee Tai" and he would not have a right too do so From my 20 years of research within this system, I have never hard of such a clam Only the five masters could make that decision,, and there was no record of them ever meeting up as a unit again 

Ali.


----------



## Ali Rahim (Mar 2, 2007)

Now if the wing chun system was created by five different masters at Sli Lum temple and none of them were elected head man,, so it had to be a united title far as master is concerned (all of them were master in this system) so it would only be recognized through the family lineage not from one who makes such clams as head man or sole hire of  this system,, that would eliminate all the different branches of the five grandmaster and their wing chun family tree as well 

Only Yim Yee Tai could make such clams but he died of bronchitis well before the Chan famlily were involved of place into the wing chun family tree,, Yim Yee Tai did not make Dr. Leung a master in this system because he did not have the right,,  from  common since one can tell; that is nothing more then a scam,, or one calling himself a master of ones expression and not the sloe heir of the wing chun system. 

Ali.


----------



## Changhfy (Mar 3, 2007)

I would have to agree with you in your post

Being that Wong Wah Bo was also the senior of Yee Tai and Dai Fa Min Kam it would seem logical that Wong Wah Bo would be the lineage holder of Hung Suen Wing Chun.

But one thing to remember history as with many things is sometimes hard to find concrete proof giving the conditions of secrecy that had to be maintained in that era.

I've heard quite a few different quotes and takes on the history and development of Wing Chun. (which is true and which is false really isnt as important as the big picture of what Wing Chun really is)

But the history of Wing Chun is defintely an interesting topic.

As far as the Buen Jyun of Hung Suen Wing Chun, maybe its best that thats never known.

Each Sifu that I have seen have all had something important and different to be shown. (so I guess their uniqueness is whats most important, and understanding the bigger picture as opposed to small differences that set most families apart)

Hopefully in the future as more info is released we can broaden our understandings. (that would be great)


take care,
Zach


----------



## Ali Rahim (Mar 3, 2007)

You are 100% right about it being so many different stories; it would be really hard to find the whole truth, but if you start from Yim Yee Tai on down it will be hard to get lost on who is who or what is what, because the Yip Man's system stems from Yim Yee Tai himself 

Its not that often that someone gets me in my history mode and you seem to know your business its always a pleasure taking with you I really like you a lot as person and never once did you trip out, you stay in there just nice and calm and with knowledge also.

Stay up my kung fu brother. 

Ali.


----------



## Changhfy (Mar 4, 2007)

Thanks alot Ali laoshi,

Its awesome to have a Sifu of your caliber and knowledge on the forums.

Its not said very often but your knowledge is appreciated, maybe as more knowledge on Wing Chun's history becomes available the Wing Chun community can keep having civilized debates. I know we all can learn and grow from exchanging knowledge.

Im going to try and start looking up more info on various aspects of Wing Chun's history in more detail. 

Ill post them and see what your ideas of these are.

I wish you the best.


take care,
Zach


----------

