# Master leung Bik



## yipman_sifu

I have recently read many articles regarding Wing Chun history. I found many differences in the history of the Yipman lineage. we all know master Leung Bik, which was the son of the king of Wing Chun (Dr. Leung Jan). This master was yipman's second teacher when he moved to HK for studying.

Leung Bik history is not really confirmed by many people. But I believe he existed, because Yipman's Wing Chun really has changed from hard to soft after returning back to Fatshan, and that concludes that he learned a different concept from a different master. According to what I read about the master history, it was said that his father Leung Jan taught him the real Wing Chun alongside with his borther Leung Chun, while he taught master Chan Wah Shun some different kind of more hard style. Chan Wah Shun was more of a gifted fighter that depended more in his strength to win battle, and that was due to his big body that helped him.

In a history narrated by William Cheung was different. He said that after Leung Jan's death, Chan Wah Shun fought against Leung Jan's sons and defeated them to send them out from Fatshan so he could claim Wing Chun for himself, well that's a strange story?.

Also regarding the encounter Yipman had with Leung Bik as the challenge fight, William Cheung said that it took place in a small boat where Yipman was down several times in the water, while other Sifus stated that he fought against him in a backyard owned by Yipman's friend family in which owned a factorry where Leung Bik worked.

I wonder why the history is not that clear?, I think that we must really care about knowing such things, because without history, you cannot know the past, and if you don't know your past, you can never predict the future.


----------



## Jeansus

My friend, did you ever wonder why there is not a photo of Leung Bik? Did you ever wonder why there is not his grave? Did you ever wonder who teached Yip Man after the death of Chan Wah Sun? (When Chan Wah Sun died, Yip Man was just 13 years old.. Where was Leung Bik before his coming in Hong Kong? Search the truth in Gulo village my friend.
Yip Man was just a person who never told the truth about his education.


----------



## Eric_H

Jeansus said:


> My friend, did you ever wonder why there is not a photo of Leung Bik? Did you ever wonder why there is not his grave? Did you ever wonder who teached Yip Man after the death of Chan Wah Sun? (When Chan Wah Sun died, Yip Man was just 13 years old.. Where was Leung Bik before his coming in Hong Kong? Search the truth in Gulo village my friend.
> Yip Man was just a person who never told the truth about his education.



There has been at least one photo floated of a man purported to be Leung Bik.

People outside of Wing Chun have met him/have stories about him.

Ip Man credited him as a teacher.

If you chose not to believe the TWC story, that's fine/up to you, but the guy clearly had *something* to do with Yip Man's WC.


----------



## paitingman

It's much more likely that after moving to Hong Kong he did in fact change his wing chun or continue to grow after training with and sharing knowledge with other practitioners in the area like Yuen Kay San. 
Legitimizing lineage stories like Leung Bik are not at all uncommon in martial arts


----------



## Nobody Important

Leung Bik was his nickname, Fung Wah his birth name. Chan Wah Shun & Fung Wah were training brothers, Fung was senior & him and his younger brother were "adopted" by Leung Jan. There is a thread around here from a while back discussing this.


----------



## wckf92

Jeansus said:


> Search the truth in Gulo village my friend. Yip Man was just a person who never told the truth about his education.



@Jeansus  ... interested to hear more about this. Can you post more?


----------



## Jeansus

Hi my friends.
Leung Jan was the most famous Wing Chun Grand Master in China. The last years of his life, he was in Gulao. None of his 3 personal students  knew about his......5 sons. They knew only about his real son, who died in young age. Who wrote about Leung Bik in Baike (Chinese wikipedia); Leung Ting. Who uploaded the photo of Leung Bik in Baike? Leung Ting. (You can check everythinh I say). I listened from you that many persons met Leung Bik, but can you wonder who of them has a photo of the meeting? NONE.
I still wonder, where is e grave of Leung Bik? Why Leung Bik never went in Gulao when his......father was retired there or at his funeral?
 Ip Man went at Hong Kong in 1909 and the article in Baike says that Leung Bik died in 1911. When Leung Bik teached Ip Man and for how many years?
Something important.......Why none of his.....5 sons did not Inherited his famous pharmacy? (The pharmacy of Leung Jan there is and none of his......sold it).
I want to believe that I am a serious Wushu researcher in China. I don't teach Wing Chun but I try to learn about the history of Wushu. My name is George Tsimpinoudakis and it will be a honor for me to talk with all of you. (You can find me in Facebook).


----------



## Jeansus

Jeansus said:


> Hi my friends.
> Leung Jan was the most famous Wing Chun Grand Master in China. The last years of his life, he was in Gulao. None of his 3 personal students  knew about his......5 sons. They knew only about his real son, who died in young age. Who wrote about Leung Bik in Baike (Chinese wikipedia); Leung Ting. Who uploaded the photo of Leung Bik in Baike? Leung Ting. (You can check everythinh I say). I listened from you that many persons met Leung Bik, but can you wonder who of them has a photo of the meeting? NONE.
> I still wonder, where is e grave of Leung Bik? Why Leung Bik never went in Gulao when his......father was retired there or at his funeral?
> Ip Man went at Hong Kong in 1909 and the article in Baike says that Leung Bik died in 1911. When Leung Bik teached Ip Man and for how many years?
> Something important.......Why none of his.....5 sons did not Inherited his famous pharmacy? (The pharmacy of Leung Jan is still there......closed).
> I want to believe that I am a serious Wushu researcher in China. I don't teach Wing Chun but I try to learn about the history of Wushu. My name is George Tsimpinoudakis and it will be a honor for me to talk with all of you. (You can find me in Facebook).


----------



## Jeansus

My name is George Tsimpinoudakis. It will be a honor to talk with all of you about that. You can find me in Facebook.


----------



## Jeansus

Leung Jan - Wikipedia


----------



## wckf92

Jeansus said:


> Hi my friends.
> Leung Jan was the most famous Wing Chun Grand Master in China. The last years of his life, he was in Gulao. None of his 3 personal students  knew about his......5 sons. They knew only about his real son, who died in young age. Who wrote about Leung Bik in Baike (Chinese wikipedia); Leung Ting. Who uploaded the photo of Leung Bik in Baike? Leung Ting. (You can check everythinh I say). I listened from you that many persons met Leung Bik, but can you wonder who of them has a photo of the meeting? NONE.
> I still wonder, where is e grave of Leung Bik? Why Leung Bik never went in Gulao when his......father was retired there or at his funeral?
> Ip Man went at Hong Kong in 1909 and the article in Baike says that Leung Bik died in 1911. When Leung Bik teached Ip Man and for how many years?
> Something important.......Why none of his.....5 sons did not Inherited his famous pharmacy? (The pharmacy of Leung Jan there is and none of his......sold it).
> I want to believe that I am a serious Wushu researcher in China. I don't teach Wing Chun but I try to learn about the history of Wushu. My name is George Tsimpinoudakis and it will be a honor for me to talk with all of you. (You can find me in Facebook).



Thanks Jeansus. Interesting. 
So are you saying that Yip Man learned from a different son or student of Leung Jan other than Leung Bik?


----------



## Vajramusti

yipman_sifu said:


> I have recently read many articles regarding Wing Chun history. I found many differences in the history of the Yipman lineage. we all know master Leung Bik, which was the son of the king of Wing Chun (Dr. Leung Jan). This master was yipman's second teacher when he moved to HK for studying.
> 
> Leung Bik history is not really confirmed by many people. But I believe he existed, because Yipman's Wing Chun really has changed from hard to soft after returning back to Fatshan, and that concludes that he learned a different concept from a different master. According to what I read about the master history, it was said that his father Leung Jan taught him the real Wing Chun alongside with his borther Leung Chun, while he taught master Chan Wah Shun some different kind of more hard style. Chan Wah Shun was more of a gifted fighter that depended more in his strength to win battle, and that was due to his big body that helped him.
> 
> In a history narrated by William Cheung was different. He said that after Leung Jan's death, Chan Wah Shun fought against Leung Jan's sons and defeated them to send them out from Fatshan so he could claim Wing Chun for himself, well that's a strange story?.
> 
> Also regarding the encounter Yipman had with Leung Bik as the challenge fight, William Cheung said that it took place in a small boat where Yipman was down several times in the water, while other Sifus stated that he fought against him in a backyard owned by Yipman's friend family in which owned a factorry where Leung Bik worked.
> 
> I wonder why the history is not that clear?, I think that we must really care about knowing such things, because without history, you cannot know the past, and if you don't know your past, you can never predict the future.


-----------------------------Cheug is no historian. What can be seen today to trained eyes is that Ip Man's concepts and wing chun is far different from Chan Wah Son. Was his last teacher Leung Bik or a Mr. X.  Does not matter.His wing chun as passed to a few top
students is simply superb.


----------



## Jeansus

"The worst blind is the blind who doesn't want to see". Chan Wah Shun and his old students, the brothers Ng Siu Lo & Ng Chung Sok were the teachers of Yip Man. Just 6 yeas of education. (Remember that Bruce Lee was under the direction of Yip Man only for......5 years too). The problem is that all the students of Yip Man use a different way to teach. In Gulo (and all the others lineages of Leung Jan), have only one way to teach. You know that..........
Wing Chun is ONE..........and maybe you must serach the truth.


----------



## wckf92

Jeansus said:


> "The problem is that all the students of Yip Man use a different way to teach. In Gulo (and all the others lineages of Leung Jan), have only one way to teach.



It's difficult to follow your writing style George, but I think you are saying that Yip Man had 3 teachers (Shun, Lo, and Sok) and that is why Yip Man's students all teach differently (?)
Whereas in Gulo, you are saying they all teach the same way? 
Can you maybe provide an example?


----------



## Jeansus




----------



## Jeansus

I am from Greece and I don't speak english very well. Yip Man was student of Chan Wah Shun and after the death of Chan Wah Sun, he was under the direction of his old students. None teached Yip Man after. That's why Yip Man changed many times his personal Wing Chun style.


----------



## Jeansus




----------



## Jeansus




----------



## Jeansus

Fung Chun was the last old teacher of Leung Jan Wing Chun.


----------



## wckf92

Jeansus said:


> Fung Chun was the last old teacher of Leung Jan Wing Chun.



Is it still taught then? Heard it is taught in Boston (USA). Anywhere else?


----------



## Vajramusti

Jeansus said:


> "The worst blind is the blind who doesn't want to see". Chan Wah Shun and his old students, the brothers Ng Siu Lo & Ng
> 
> 
> 
> Chung Sok were the teachers of Yip Man. Just 6 yeas of education. (Remember that Bruce Lee was under the direction of Yip Man only for......5 years too). The problem is that all the students of Yip Man use a different way to teach. In Gulo (and all the others lineages of Leung Jan), have only one way to teach. You know that..........
> Wing Chun is ONE..........and maybe you must serach the truth.


-----------------------------------------------------
Ip Man's structure and footwork is quite different from Chan Wah Son and his students. He had to make a living from scratch after escaping from Foshan to HK.
He 'taught" many students in the general class and only a very  few who paid huge sums to learn privately.Very few learned from Ip Man for 3 years or more.No surprise that most teach differently among themselves.That is why the spreading of wing chun is a disaster.


----------



## Nobody Important

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------
> Ip Man's structure and footwork is quite different from Chan Wah Son and his students. He had to make a living from scratch after escaping from Foshan to HK.
> He 'taught" many students in the general class and only a very  few who paid huge sums to learn privately.Very few learned from Ip Man for 3 years or more.No surprise that most teach differently among themselves.That is why the spreading of wing chun is a disaster.


It sounds like, from your own admission, that the spreading of Wing Chun is disastrous due to Yip Man purposely teaching bad Wing Chun to good students simply because they were poor and couldn't afford what he considered the real material. 

Wing Chun shouldn't take a real long time to learn well, over all it isn't very athletic; like Northern Shaolin, it doesn't contain a lot of material and it was billed as a system that could be learned much quicker than other TCMA's.

To withhold material & information from a student base from who you rely on financially to support yourself, simply because they are poor and you don't believe them to be worthy is quite deceitful.

Seems to me this is either a bold face lie to support a narrative of superiority, or Yip Man evolved his method over his lifetime as new understandings were developed, or he truly was of shitty moral character. Which is it?


----------



## Vajramusti

Neither a lie or a matter of character. Good wing chun takes time to learn and wing chun had to make a living after the japanese invasion and Mao's revolution. Ego of students is a big factor in made up wing chun.


----------



## Nobody Important

Vajramusti said:


> Neither a lie or a matter of character. Good wing chun takes time to learn and wing chun had to make a living after the japanese invasion and Mao's revolution. Ego of students is a big factor in made up wing chun.


While true, so is the ego of the teacher. All things take time to master, not necessarily to learn. Yip Man didn't study that long with a formal teacher. He had 3 years with Chan Wah Shun as a child and few years with Ng Chung So after. If we are to believe the Leung Bik story, he only had around 2 years training as an adult while in college. If he couldn't impart the full system in 3-4 years to his own full time students, what does that tell of his own background and ability to teach effectively? Especially since his fractured training wasn't  much more.

Kano studied Jujutsu for 3- 4 years before developing Judo, Ueshiba around 3 - 4 years in Aikijutsu before developing Aikido, Lee around 3 - 4 years in Wing Chun before developing Jeet Kune Do, Lewis received a black belt in Okinawa in just under 2 years prior to becoming a kickboxing champion, etc.

Time isn't a factor, instruction is, student is. When an instructor purposefully withholds because of money,  an incohesive training regimen, lack of developed or finalized ideas, or because they themselves are still learning and developing, who is to blame? The student? That is a poor excuse to rationalize "true transmission" and marginalize "broken transmission" by labeling the student as ignorant. Could it be that the blame lies more in inconsistent and evolving methodology as taught by an instructor teaching while still developing and refining his art?


----------



## KPM

There is no doubt that what Ip Man taught in Foshan prior to moving to HK is different from what he taught early on in HK which is again different from what he taught near the end of his career in HK.  To deny that Ip Man's Wing Chun evolved and changed over time is just foolish.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------
> Ip Man's structure and footwork is quite different from Chan Wah Son and his students. He had to make a living from scratch after escaping from Foshan to HK.
> .



What is your reference for Chan Wah Shun's structure and footwork to compare to Ip Man's?


----------



## wckf92

Is Yip Man's "final version" of his own WC at all similar to the Gulo Leung Jan stuff?

I think KPM has said or posted that the Pin Sun lineage/curriculum doesn't contain the knives? Is that correct?


----------



## KPM

*Is Yip Man's "final version" of his own WC at all similar to the Gulo Leung Jan stuff*?

---Not really.  Maybe in the sense that he seemed to pivot more deeply and maybe used more of a "side body" position.  But Yuen Kay Shan did that as well.


*I think KPM has said or posted that the Pin Sun lineage/curriculum doesn't contain the knives? Is that correct?*

---That is correct.   However, some Pin Sun people have added it to their curriculum in more recent years.  But the Ku Lo guys say that Leung Jan did not teach the knives in Ku Lo village.   Some historical references put the origin of the knives with Fok Bo Chuen, who was Leung Jan's classmate under Wong Wah Bo.  So it is possible that Leung Jan did not do the knives.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> However, some Pin Sun people have added it to their curriculum in more recent years



Is this what is taught up in the Boston area? (i.e. Kulo... + the knives?)


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Is this what is taught up in the Boston area? (i.e. Kulo... + the knives?)



No.  Sifu Henry Mui does not know or teach the butterfly knives.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> No.  Sifu Henry Mui does not know or teach the butterfly knives.



Cool. Thx KPM!


----------



## APL76

KPM said:


> *Is Yip Man's "final version" of his own WC at all similar to the Gulo Leung Jan stuff*?
> 
> ---Not really.  Maybe in the sense that he seemed to pivot more deeply and maybe used more of a "side body" position.  But Yuen Kay Shan did that as well.
> 
> 
> *I think KPM has said or posted that the Pin Sun lineage/curriculum doesn't contain the knives? Is that correct?*
> 
> ---That is correct.   However, some Pin Sun people have added it to their curriculum in more recent years.  But the Ku Lo guys say that Leung Jan did not teach the knives in Ku Lo village.   Some historical references put the origin of the knives with Fok Bo Chuen, who was Leung Jan's classmate under Wong Wah Bo.  So it is possible that Leung Jan did not do the knives.



Fok Bu Chuen learned from Dai Fa Min Gam, not Wong Wah Bo.


----------



## Jeansus

Nobody Important said:


> While true, so is the ego of the teacher. All things take time to master, not necessarily to learn. Yip Man didn't study that long with a formal teacher. He had 3 years with Chan Wah Shun as a child and few years with Ng Chung So after. If we are to believe the Leung Bik story, he only had around 2 years training as an adult while in college. If he couldn't impart the full system in 3-4 years to his own full time students, what does that tell of his own background and ability to teach effectively? Especially since his fractured training wasn't  much more.
> 
> Kano studied Jujutsu for 3- 4 years before developing Judo, Ueshiba around 3 - 4 years in Aikijutsu before developing Aikido, Lee around 3 - 4 years in Wing Chun before developing Jeet Kune Do, Lewis received a black belt in Okinawa in just under 2 years prior to becoming a kickboxing champion, etc.
> 
> Time isn't a factor, instruction is, student is. When an instructor purposefully withholds because of money,  an incohesive training regimen, lack of developed or finalized ideas, or because they themselves are still learning and developing, who is to blame? The student? That is a poor excuse to rationalize "true transmission" and marginalize "broken transmission" by labeling the student as ignorant. Could it be that the blame lies more in inconsistent and evolving methodology as taught by an instructor teaching while still developing and refining his art?


----------



## Jeansus

My friend  "Nobody Important" , I almost agree with you. I'll explain you what I mean.....almost!
The problem of Yip Man was not his talent but his education. The talent is not enough to teach.....if there is not education. I have seen many athletes in China with talent to be champions.......but not great teachers. I am sure that you understand me.


----------



## Jeansus

Only in Hong Kong and the west, you need many years for a complete education of a traditional style. Not in China.


----------



## KPM

APL76 said:


> Fok Bu Chuen learned from Dai Fa Min Gam, not Wong Wah Bo.



That depends on whose lineage you are going by!     I believe the Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun people state that Fok Bo Chuen learned from Wong Wah Bo and that it was Fung Siu Ching that learned from Dai Fa Min Gam.   Having studied Weng Chun myself, I can testify that it is very different from Ip Man Wing Chun and what I have seen of YSK Wing Chun.  So I find it very likely that YSK's primary teacher was Fok Bo Chuen (Wing Chun via Wong Wa Bo) and he did some additional supplementary study with Fung Siu Ching (Weng Chun via Dai Fa Min Gam).   No Weng Chun lineage I have ever seen claims Fok Bo Chuen as part of Weng Chun.


----------



## APL76

Only last Friday night my sifu (who was a disciple of Sum Nung) was showing me a history of wing chun that he wrote down word for word from a history of wing chun that Sum Nung wrote down as Yuen Kay San told it to him. In it, Fok Bo Chun is a student of Dai Fa Min Kam. There is no connection to Wong Wah Bo other than him being a contemporary/kung fu brother to Dai Fa Min Kam. Given that it came directly from Yuen Kay San, to Sum Nung then to my Sifu stating that Fok Bo Chun is Dai Fa Min Kam’s student I don’t know why anyone would think that Yuen kay San people would think of him as Wong Wah Bo’s student; Im third generation from Yuen Kay San so most definitely part of that line, and we have never heard of any connection of Fok Bo Chun with Wong Wah Bo. I could be wrong of course but in twenty years of being my sifu’s student I have never heard him make such a connection; though he is willing to say quite openly that there isn’t a great deal known about Fok Bo Chun other than before he taught Yuen Kay San that he was a very well known fighter and a student of Dai Fa Min Kam.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> There is no doubt that what Ip Man taught in Foshan prior to moving to HK is different from what he taught early on in HK which is again different from what he taught near the end of his career in HK.  To deny that Ip Man's Wing Chun evolved and changed over time is just foolish.


-----------------------------------------------
superfcial analysis-wandering without a compass.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------
> superfcial analysis-wandering without a compass.



Head in the sand.  Refusing to look at what seems pretty obvious to most people.


----------



## KPM

WingChunPedia | WCP / YuenKayShan browse

But it seems that various lineages have different versions, so its really hard to know for sure.  But as I noted....if you believe that both Fok Bo Chuen and Fung Siu Ching were solely students of Dai Fai Min Gam, then you have to explain why YKS's Wing Chun looks so much more like Ip Man's Wing Chun than it does the Weng Chun that came down from Fung Siu Ching's students (other than YKS).  The Weng Chun lineages do NOT teach the 3 form version of the art....Siu Nim Tao, Chum Kiu, Biu Gee.   So where would YKS have learned this, if not from Wong Wah Bo via Fok Bo Chuen as WWB's student? 

I came across one lineage history that tried to explain this away by saying that it was Fok Bo Chuen that came up with the 3 form structure.  But then how do you explain Leung Jan teaching the 3 forms?   Leung Jan was Wong Wah Bo's student. 

Whatever you think of Sifu Sergio, his book does give some decent historical background on the arts.  And what he says corresponds pretty well to what I have seen over the years from other sources and matches what my Sifu in Tang Yik Weng Chun has said.  If you recall, several teachers of Weng Chun came together at the Dai Duk Lan in HK in the 1950's to share notes and train together.  It is very clear that none of them had learned the 3 form version of Wing Chun, and while related, their art was quite different from both Ip Man's and Yeun Kay Shan's Wing Chun.   They all traced back to Dai Fai Min Gam and a couple directly to Fung Siu Ching.  None of them noted Fok Bo Chuen in their lineages.  If you deny YKS's connection to the Wing Chun branch via Fok Bo Chuen to Wong Wah Bo, then you have a LOT of explaining to do to figure out why his system is so much like Ip Man's and nothing like the Weng Chun guys!


----------



## Nobody Important

In Yuen Chai Wan lineage, Fok  Bo Chun' s primary teacher was Dai Fa Min Kam, during the opera ban he studied awhile under his sibo Wong Wah Bo. 

Wing Chun of Dai Duk Lan primarily trace lineage to Fung Siu Ching. Fung taught a lot of San Sik, his students beyond Yuen family added a lot of Hung Kuen.


----------



## wckf92

@KPM 
Which Sergio book are you talking about?


----------



## APL76

I know extremely little about Weng Chun so I’m not going to comment on that. I suspect the three form format with dummy and knives predates the Red Boat opera generation (according to everything I have heard the pole was incorporated at that level); or, if the three form format wasn’t around prior to that it was probably put together at that level. Personally I think it’s older.



My Sifu was saying the other night that he suspects Fong Sui Ching added the darts into the system which Yuen Kay San was very good at, he taught them to Sum Nung however he decided it was more important to train his punch than the darts so stopped practicing them (I also vaguely remember something about Yuen Kay San telling sigung he was better off training his punch and buying a gun instead of doing the darts too); so now that’s lost; as is the bamboo dummy, Yuen Kay San told sigung about that on his death bead so even Sum Nung never learned the bamboo dummy. But my sifu at least is coming to figure Fung Sui Ching probably refined the Wing Chun he had a lot in light of the many fights he had and so leading to the reasons that Guangzhou Wing Chun is like it is today.



As for Yip Man’s Wing Chun and Yuen Kay San Wing Chun looking similar, its superficial. I learned both from my sifu (he was also Yip Chun’s private student before he became Sum Nung’s disciple). The differences go right to the core. They are at a surface level the same format, same footwork (assuming people know how to put it together, Guangzhou style has elements of footwork not in Yip Man style too) but beyond that they may as well be different martial arts. So much so that as my Sifu’s private student I was forbidden from ever even comparing them much less mixing them together. They are to be kept completely separate. If I broke that rule I would never learn any more Guangzhou Wing Chun.



Ultimately, on Friday night, I saw a history of our line of Wing Chun that came directly from Yuen Kay San and written down by Sum Nung who told my sifu to copy it all down. It puts Fok Bo Chun as a student of Dai Fa Min Kam definitely not Wong Wah Bo. I figure since Yuen Kay San learned from him he ought to know. I’ll take the word of Yuen Kay San, Sum Nung and my Sifu about Guangzhou Wing Chun over anything else that’s floating about the internets.


----------



## wckf92

APL76 said:


> Guangzhou style has elements of footwork not in Yip Man style too.



Interesting. Thx APL76
Can you provide further info on this aspect? Or perhaps an example or two?


----------



## APL76

wckf92 said:


> Interesting. Thx APL76
> Can you provide further info on this aspect? Or perhaps an example or two?



Well, I will to an extent, we tend to be very protective of Guangzhou Wing Chun. What I will say is that while the basic structure of the footwork found in Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma (as the foundation of it) the turning stance and stepping sequences in Chum Kue and the turning elements of Bui Ji as well as the circling leg components are more or less the same, same kind of thing at least. What’s extra in Guangzhou style consist of various trapping, sweeping and crushing techniques that aren’t in any YM style I have ever seen. I’m not willing to go into details or specifics.


----------



## KPM

APL76 said:


> As for Yip Man’s Wing Chun and Yuen Kay San Wing Chun looking similar, its superficial. I learned both from my sifu (he was also Yip Chun’s private student before he became Sum Nung’s disciple). The differences go right to the core. They are at a surface level the same format, same footwork .



Superficial similarities still count.  Because YKS Wing Chun does not have even these superficial similarities to Weng Chun.   Again....no Weng Chun system that traces back to Dai Fa Min Gam or Fung Siu Ching has the 3 form format...they don't abduct the knees inward in the basic stance....they don't have the butterfly knives....they don't have the same footwork, etc.


----------



## APL76

I don’t see why that should matter. Ku Lo wing chun doesn’t have three forms etc., yet no one seems to have a problem with that having the same origins as Yip Man’s wing chun; what’s to say that, assuming Fung Sui Ching does have some connection to Weng Chun, he just didn’t pass on the three form format and so on in that stream?

But my point still stands, when I see something that has come directly from Yuen Kay San, to Sum Nung to my sifu I’ll take that over anything people generations upon generations away from the source have to say about the lineage of Guangzhou Wing Chun.


----------



## wckf92

APL76 said:


> Well, I will to an extent, we tend to be very protective of Guangzhou Wing Chun. What I will say is that while the basic structure of the footwork found in Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma (as the foundation of it) the turning stance and stepping sequences in Chum Kue and the turning elements of Bui Ji as well as the circling leg components are more or less the same, same kind of thing at least. What’s extra in Guangzhou style consist of various trapping, sweeping and crushing techniques that aren’t in any YM style I have ever seen. I’m not willing to go into details or specifics.



Ok thx man. No worries. I understand


----------



## Nobody Important

@APL76, you said, "Yuen Kay San telling sigung he was better off training his punch and buying a gun instead of doing the darts too); so now that’s lost; as is the bamboo dummy".

As an FYI, Yu Choi who studied under Yuen Chai Wan passed on Bamboo Dummy. I learned 2 versions of it, all loose technique no form. I can't speak for Yu Choi lineage as to whether or not they have a Bamboo Dummy form, but know they practice it, it is rare but not lost. Agree with you that most of the dart skills are lost, myself I know very little of Yuen Chai Wan's Flying Coin Darts, just a few throwing techniques. Don't know who else preserves it.

If I'm not mistaken Yu  Choi lineage says Fok Bo Chun was a student of Lee Man Mau  or Law Man Gung, don't know the validity of that. Yuen Chai Wan lineage maintains Fok was a student of Dai Fa Min Jan and learned a little bit from Wong Wah Bo for a brief period during the opera ban, but Dai Fa Min Man was his sifu.


----------



## APL76

Ok, don’t know what Yu Choi ever did but as far as I know Sum Nung considered the bamboo dummy lost with Yuen Kay San’s death.


----------



## Nobody Important

APL76 said:


> Ok, don’t know what Yu Choi ever did but as far as I know Sum Nung considered the bamboo dummy lost with Yuen Kay San’s death.


Hard to say for certain, every lineage has a piece of the Wing Chun puzzle.


----------



## APL76

yep, I can only go off what I have been told, who really knows whats out there.

So you are in the Yuen Chai Wan line via Veietnam? A while ago we had a guy from Vietnam come in. He was 4th generation from Yuen Chai Wan and did some wing chun with us. It had been all consolodated in one form rather than the three initial forms, and his chi sao was so different to what we did it was kinda hard to do chi sao with him. Very nice guy though. had obviously trained hard at what he did.


----------



## Nobody Important

APL76 said:


> yep, I can only go off what I have been told, who really knows whats out there.
> 
> So you are in the Yuen Chai Wan line via Veietnam? A while ago we had a guy from Vietnam come in. He was 4th generation from Yuen Chai Wan and did some wing chun with us. It had been all consolodated in one form rather than the three initial forms, and his chi sao was so different to what we did it was kinda hard to do chi sao with him. Very nice guy though. had obviously trained hard at what he did.


Yes, Chai Wan lineage. My Sigung came from the Chinese patriots association in the North when Chai Wan was still only teaching Chinese. My Sigung was also a student of Ng Chung So prior to leaving China. There are many branches coming from Chai Wan now, especially after he went south. I have the 3 standard forms, pole & knives. No dummy form, just loose techniques, chi gung & San Sik. Some branches do just Siu Lim Tau, pole & Dummy. Some mixed it with 5 Animals style. Some altered it by adding lots of Chi Gung. There is no consistency. Wing Chun in Vietnam was used as a tool to elevate other styles, as a result a myriad of approaches. My system is best described as similar to Yuen Kay San with Yu Choi flavor, but not as stylish. Related but not the same, we have a heavy focus on Sut Gow & Kum Na.


----------



## APL76

thanks for that. I do get the impression that what Yuen Chai Wan taught in Vietnam has gone on more different tangents than Yuen Kay San Wing Chun in China, probably because he only had Sum Nung as a desciple. Thanks again.


----------



## Nobody Important

APL76 said:


> thanks for that. I do get the impression that what Yuen Chai Wan taught in Vietnam has gone on more different tangents than Yuen Kay San Wing Chun in China, probably because he only had Sum Nung as a desciple. Thanks again.


Yes, very true. What is your impression of Mai Gei Wong and Yu Choi? Mai Gei Wong was a student of Yuan Kay San and Yu Choi of his brother Yuan Chai Wan. I realize Mai Gei Wong wasn't a disciple and added a few things to his Wing Chun and Yu Choi also studied from Ng Chung So, But personally, I see Yuan family signature in their styles and like the look and approach of their methods very much. I know very little of Yuan Kay San's/Sum Nung's approach, is there any overlap with Mai Gei Wong and Yu Choi in your opinion?


----------



## APL76

I have never really seen enough from Mai Gei Wong or Yu Choi lines to risk forming an opinion. For about 20 years I simply did what my sifu taught me and never paid attention to what others were doing. Only in the last couple of years since starting my own school have I started having a look around on the internet.

My sifu has seen a lot of Wing Chun, he saw Yip Man style in both Hong Kong, and in Fat San, he got to know Pan Nam pretty well, he visited the people in Ku Lo village and saw Yu Choi Wing Chun as well. However, my sifu is pretty tight lipped when it comes to his opinions of other’s Wing Chun, will always find something nice to say about all of them at the very least, I have never heard him say a bad word about anyone else or their Wing Chun. So I can’t make a judgement either from my experience or from what I have been told by my sifu in regard to either of those lines of Wing Chun regarding any parallels with Yuen Kay San style.


----------



## Nobody Important

APL76 said:


> I have never really seen enough from Mai Gei Wong or Yu Choi lines to risk forming an opinion. For about 20 years I simply did what my sifu taught me and never paid attention to what others were doing. Only in the last couple of years since starting my own school have I started having a look around on the internet.
> 
> My sifu has seen a lot of Wing Chun, he saw Yip Man style in both Hong Kong, and in Fat San, he got to know Pan Nam pretty well, he visited the people in Ku Lo village and saw Yu Choi Wing Chun as well. However, my sifu is pretty tight lipped when it comes to his opinions of other’s Wing Chun, will always find something nice to say about all of them at the very least, I have never heard him say a bad word about anyone else or their Wing Chun. So I can’t make a judgement either from my experience or from what I have been told by my sifu in regard to either of those lines of Wing Chun regarding any parallels with Yuen Kay San style.


That's fair and I can appreciate that. I like many other versions of Wing Chun, some more than others, but at the end of the day I'll stick with what I was taught, because to me it makes sense. I understand it and for me it's cohesive, some others methods contradict mine, doesn't mean they are less worthy, just different and no less original. If I run across another Wing Chun branch, even if they are radically different, if they have something useful to contribute to my own understanding, that's great, if not that's OK too. I only frown upon hubris and claims of superiority and originality. Take care, have fun on the forum, there's some knowledgeable people here.


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> @KPM
> Which Sergio book are you talking about?



BOOK: Sifu Sergio - 6 Core Elements (2nd Ed)


In the book he makes a pretty good case for Wong Wah Bo being the one that organized the Wing Chun syllabus into the 3 form format, and Fok Bo Chuen as being the one that introduced the double knives to the Wing Chun system.  He connects Fok Bo Chuen to Wong Wah Bo.  He is bringing together feedback from multiple Wing Chun lineages and styles and his wide travels and research in China and Hong Kong.  So a good portion of it is "connecting the dots" rather than finding dusty old documents that proves anything.  But that really is the nature of Wing Chun "research" at this point.  What he says makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of what we see today in various lineages.   Lineage stories themselves are notoriously unreliable.  You have to do a lot of "reading between the lines" in most cases.


----------



## KPM

*I don’t see why that should matter.*

---It absolutely does matter.  What you call "superficial" are often signature features of each Wing Chun system.  It is part of their "DNA" which helps us identify which is related to which. 

*Ku Lo wing chun doesn’t have three forms etc., yet no one seems to have a problem with that having the same origins as Yip Man’s wing chun*

---That's because even the Ku Lo guys acknowledge that Leung Jan taught an "abbreviated" San Sik-based method when he retired to the village because he knew he would have limited time to impart his knowledge.  None of the Ku Lo guys claim that Leung Jan never taught the 3 form system in his past.


; *what’s to say that, assuming Fung Sui Ching does have some connection to Weng Chun, he just didn’t pass on the three form format and so on in that stream?*

---So your premise is that Fung Siu Ching taught two totally different versions of Wing Chun?  Two versions different not only in the forms taught but the biomechanics used?  Highly unlikely!   More likely that Fok Bo Chuen learned the 3 form system from Wong Wah Bo as other lineages claim and then taught this to Yuen Kay Shan.  As I said, none of the Weng Chun guys that trace to Fung Siu Cheng have anything to say about Fok Bo Chuen.  And what the guys that trace to Fung Siu Ching do does not even have the superficial resemblances to YKS's Wing Chun that you mentioned.


*But my point still stands, when I see something that has come directly from Yuen Kay San, to Sum Nung to my sifu I’ll take that over anything people generations upon generations away from the source have to say about the lineage of Guangzhou Wing Chun.*

---Fair enough.  But one should keep an open mind  as well.  Lineage stories are notoriously inaccurate.  Some are told to save face, improve position, give credit to some ancestor, etc.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> BOOK: Sifu Sergio - 6 Core Elements (2nd Ed).



Holy expensive book Batman!!! 

Just did the Euro-to-USD conversion...$110 w/shipping to the States. Holy cow.


----------



## DanT

Jeansus said:


> Only in Hong Kong and the west, you need many years for a complete education of a traditional style. Not in China.


What do you mean exactly?


----------



## APL76

What are these superficial things that I mentioned, all I said were the similarities between Yip Man style and Guangzhou style are superficial. I didn’t single anything in particular out. However I’ll elaborate a little, I can do that because I know both styles well. The fact that the two styles are organised similarly suggests to me a common origin however compared to more core aspects and subtleties these similarities are superficial. The power generation is different, the understanding of efficiency is completely different, understanding of centreline is completely different, understanding of structure is completely different, understanding of trajectory of movements is completely different, understanding of simultaneous attack and defence is completely different. They may be organised in a similar way however that is where the similarities end.

 And I’m not making any premise that Fung Sui Ching ever taught two systems, I know he taught Yuen Kay San from what Yuen Kay San told Sum Nung and what he told my sifu, and they all place him as Dai Fa Min Kam’s student, and they say Fok Bo Chun also learned from Dai Fa Min Kam. If Weng Chun people like to claim Fung Sui Ching and Dai Fa Min Kam that’s their business and nothing to do with me, I know nothing about Weng Chun.

 All I’m saying is that I have seen a lineage of Guangzhou Wing Chun passed from Yuen Kay San to Sum Nung to my sifu that places both Fok Bo Chun and Fung Sui Ching as Dai Fa Min Kam’s students.


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Holy expensive book Batman!!!
> 
> Just did the Euro-to-USD conversion...$110 w/shipping to the States. Holy cow.



Yes!  The first edition in paperback wasn't as expensive, but still expensive!  And it shipped to the US from Holland.


----------



## APL76

Nobody Important said:


> @APL76, you said, "Yuen Kay San telling sigung he was better off training his punch and buying a gun instead of doing the darts too); so now that’s lost; as is the bamboo dummy".
> 
> As an FYI, Yu Choi who studied under Yuen Chai Wan passed on Bamboo Dummy. I learned 2 versions of it, all loose technique no form. I can't speak for Yu Choi lineage as to whether or not they have a Bamboo Dummy form, but know they practice it, it is rare but not lost. Agree with you that most of the dart skills are lost, myself I know very little of Yuen Chai Wan's Flying Coin Darts, just a few throwing techniques. Don't know who else preserves it.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken Yu  Choi lineage says Fok Bo Chun was a student of Lee Man Mau  or Law Man Gung, don't know the validity of that. Yuen Chai Wan lineage maintains Fok was a student of Dai Fa Min Jan and learned a little bit from Wong Wah Bo for a brief period during the opera ban, but Dai Fa Min Man was his sifu.






Hi Nobody Important.



Would you mind if I ask you a question about the bamboo dummy that you do? As far as I can remember my sifu always told me that Sum Nung considered the bamboo dummy lost with Yuen Kay San’s death.



He died quite suddenly. He and sigung were in a restaurant and Yuen Kay San had an altercation with a waiter, something about him telling the waiter off about something and the waiter getting offended and throwing some tea from a teapot in his face. Yuen Kay San became so enraged he seems to have probably had a stroke (he was also quite old by that stage too). Anyway, before he died they got him home and into bed where he told Sum Nung all he could about Wing Chun that he hadn’t had a chance to teach him yet. The bamboo dummy was one of the things he told Sum Nung as he was dying.



When I asked my sifu what the bamboo dummy was about he said that he didn’t, and probably no one, knew anymore but what Sum Nung told him was that if you do the wooden dummy properly that you shouldn’t need to do the Bamboo dummy. So I got the impression that it might have been some sort of corrective thing if one had gotten too hard on the wooden dummy, so using hard force.



From what you were taught about the bamboo dummy does this idea sound familiar? If you would rather not discuss it I totally understand.


 Thanks.

A.


----------



## Nobody Important

APL76 said:


> Hi Nobody Important.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind if I ask you a question about the bamboo dummy that you do? As far as I can remember my sifu always told me that Sum Nung considered the bamboo dummy lost with Yuen Kay San’s death.
> 
> 
> 
> He died quite suddenly. He and sigung were in a restaurant and Yuen Kay San had an altercation with a waiter, something about him telling the waiter off about something and the waiter getting offended and throwing some tea from a teapot in his face. Yuen Kay San became so enraged he seems to have probably had a stroke (he was also quite old by that stage too). Anyway, before he died they got him home and into bed where he told Sum Nung all he could about Wing Chun that he hadn’t had a chance to teach him yet. The bamboo dummy was one of the things he told Sum Nung as he was dying.
> 
> 
> 
> When I asked my sifu what the bamboo dummy was about he said that he didn’t, and probably no one, knew anymore but what Sum Nung told him was that if you do the wooden dummy properly that you shouldn’t need to do the Bamboo dummy. So I got the impression that it might have been some sort of corrective thing if one had gotten too hard on the wooden dummy, so using hard force.
> 
> 
> 
> From what you were taught about the bamboo dummy does this idea sound familiar? If you would rather not discuss it I totally understand.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> A.


There are 2 versions of Bamboo Dummy, thick arm & thin arm. It is basically a wall mounted board (half the size of a sheet of plywood). Several holes are drilled into the wood where the arms are attached. Thin bamboo arms are for sensitivity & correction training. The thick arm is rare, it reminds me of the peg board in gym class. Thick arm dummy isn't much different than the traditional Wooden Dummy in use, outside the fact that the pegs can be arraigned in any pattern. Sand bags are hung in between arms for striking.


----------



## KPM

I've seen others comment on the bamboo dummy and even saw a picture of one once.  I would guess that if there was an actual form to be practiced on the bamboo dummy it was lost upon YKS's death, and this is what Sum Nung was referring to.  But others likely continued to train on the bamboo dummy, probably "freestyle". But I'm just guessing.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> I've seen others comment on the bamboo dummy and even saw a picture of one once.  I would guess that if there was an actual form to be practiced on the bamboo dummy it was lost upon YKS's death, and this is what Sum Nung was referring to.  But others likely continued to train on the bamboo dummy, probably "freestyle". But I'm just guessing.


Correct, I do not know of a Bamboo Dummy form, nor have I ever seen one, everything is freestyle.


----------



## APL76

Nobody Important said:


> There are 2 versions of Bamboo Dummy, thick arm & thin arm. It is basically a wall mounted board (half the size of a sheet of plywood). Several holes are drilled into the wood where the arms are attached. Thin bamboo arms are for sensitivity & correction training. The thick arm is rare, it reminds me of the peg board in gym class. Thick arm dummy isn't much different than the traditional Wooden Dummy in use, outside the fact that the pegs can be arraigned in any pattern. Sand bags are hung in between arms for striking.



thanks for that, the sensitivity and correction training seems to make sense in light of what I was told about it.

Thanks again.


----------



## Juany118

Jeansus said:


> My friend, did you ever wonder why there is not a photo of Leung Bik? Did you ever wonder why there is not his grave? Did you ever wonder who teached Yip Man after the death of Chan Wah Sun? (When Chan Wah Sun died, Yip Man was just 13 years old.. Where was Leung Bik before his coming in Hong Kong? Search the truth in Gulo village my friend.
> Yip Man was just a person who never told the truth about his education.




Well this wouldn't be surprising given the circumstances.  Lets look at what we can prove.

1.  YM was a student of WC when he lived on the main land.  He studied under Chan Wah-Shun, a student of Leung Jan.  He traveled to HK to study and then returned to the Main Land at 24 where he became a police officer.  He then fled to HK when the Maoists won the Civil War.

2.  He had never planed on being a Sifu and so, as many of us do, made the Art he studied his own art.  If the Maoists had lost he would have retired from the Force and simply lived the life of a retiree. It was suggested by friends in HK that he now teach however to make a living.  WSL told his personal students of times when they would watch Yip Man working the Mook seemingly trying to remember what he had been taught AND having to modify the form.  Remember the wall mounted Mook is a HK invention due to "apartment living", on the mainland they traditionally used free standing Mooks.

3. So what we seem to have is a person who is an INCREDIBLE Martial Artist but who after 30 years or so suddenly has to go from practitioner to Sifu.  Clearly his curriculum, NOT the principles but the curriculum, is going to be colored by both his experience as a police officer and simply the passage of time as he remembers and then goes to fill in the gaps.

4.  He was not the only person teaching WC in HK but, due to the dynamics of 2 and 3 his WC would clearly be different.  Lineage is VERY important to the TCMA world so how do you explain the differences?  You create a fiction, in this case Leung Bik the "son" of Leung Jan.  Someone with "secret" knowledge to explain the differences.

None of this takes away from the practical effectiveness of the art.  When you are a police officer in the Chaos that was China at the time, if you had formal training you would get A LOT of experience using it. However like any art you make it your own.  Then decades later when you suddenly change tracks and decide to teach, your life experience, flawed memory etc will create a new curriculum and due to tradition these changes need to be explained.  If you are trying to market your Art to make a living that will influence the explanation.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^  And remember too, that all of these lineage stories are notoriously unreliable.  I just recently read a translation of an article published in the 1960's that traced Fung Sui Ching's lineage to Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yi Tai, and traced Leung Jan's lineage NOT through Wong Wah Bo and the Red Boats at all!  Seems everyone has a little different story to tell!


----------



## Jens

Leung Bik's grandson is alive in Hong Kong, his name is Leung Man Lok


----------



## geezer

Jens said:


> Leung Bik's grandson is alive in Hong Kong, his name is Leung Man Lok



...So, there seems to be more information coming out to suggest that Leung Bic was real and lived for a time in Hong Kong. But even if we can factually determine this much, the rest of the story about him .. whether he actually had contact with Yip Man and influenced his Ving Tsun, and so on, will always be debated.

Until further evidence is provided, I'm just going  along with the written account left by Grandmaster Yip, but will always be open to hear other points of view.


----------



## hkreporting

Just FYI, there was a movie and Hong Kong TV series about Leung Jan and Leung Bik.  Some of the clips are on Youtube. I think the full movie is there.  There are clips of just the fight scenes too if you want to skip all the drama parts.  I think if you just google "Wing Chun TV series" a bunch of stuff will come up. Not sure how good the fighting is and if it really represents the Gulao style of really close range fighting.


----------

