# Yip Man's multiple forms(?)



## wckf92 (Jun 27, 2016)

Through reading and searching this forum...it appears the consensus is YM interacted with other lineage masters in the dai duk lan (spelling?) and most likely picked up other aspects of WC from different families (i.e. YKS? Pan Nam? Weng Chun? etc?) Perhaps things like pole forms, knife work, gerk jong/post training etc?

But, did he intentionally pass down different versions of the same form? For an example, there are short versions of the pole form, and longer versions. Is this YM teaching selective students different things? Or is it YM passing down forms as he was tinkering with them throughout his career?

I've read on here and other forums that YM knew A LOT, but ultimately wanted to strip the system down to what it is today. So, would an example be: perhaps YM knew a longer pole set (say, perhaps like the Tang Yik pole?) but stripped out what he wanted, and only taught his 'creation'?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Through reading and searching this forum...it appears the consensus is YM interacted with other lineage masters in the dai duk lan (spelling?) and most likely picked up other aspects of WC from different families (i.e. YKS? Pan Nam? Weng Chun? etc?) Perhaps things like pole forms, knife work, gerk jong/post training etc?
> 
> But, did he intentionally pass down different versions of the same form? For an example, there are short versions of the pole form, and longer versions. Is this YM teaching selective students different things? Or is it YM passing down forms as he was tinkering with them throughout his career?
> 
> I've read on here and other forums that YM knew A LOT, but ultimately wanted to strip the system down to what it is today. So, would an example be: perhaps YM knew a longer pole set (say, perhaps like the Tang Yik pole?) but stripped out what he wanted, and only taught his 'creation'?


We do know, according to his own nephew, that the students he personally taught were taught according to their personal strengths and weaknesses.  He also did "tinker" however.  That said we will never know the answers to your questions because much of the stuff about him learning from other Lineages and people were, at least in part marketing for his school, which wasn't uncommon...

WingChunPedia - The One and Only Wing Chun Encylopedia! | WCP / Leung Bik browse

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> We do know, according to his own *nephew*, that the students he personally taught were taught according to their personal strengths and weaknesses.



Hi Juany... do you know who the nephew is?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Hi Juany... do you know who the nephew is?


I will find the interview.  I posted it in the"concept" thread.

Edit: found it... Lo Man KamWing Chun Grandmaster Yip Man

" The way of Yip Man’s instruction depended on every student’s degree of knowledge, natural ability, personal habits, and interests. Yip Man’s great innovation was to personalize instruction by making each student’s progress dependent on his own habits and will to succeed..."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Vajramusti (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Hi Juany... do you know who the nephew is?


Probably Lo Man Kam. FWIW I don't regard him as an authority.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 27, 2016)

So, was YM keen on teaching a more intricate form to a student if he thought that student had the capacity for it? Whereas, on the other hand, if a particular student was just interested in fighting...maybe he got a "shorter" more "tactical" version of the system?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Probably Lo Man Kam. FWIW I don't regard him as an authority.


Well since everyone of his "senior" students says "this is YM WC" but teaches something different, some subtly different others grossly, the statement I quoted seems proven in practice.  Also see my response below for consistency with the statements and Confucian teaching methods.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> So, was YM keen on teaching a more intricate form to a student if he thought that student had the capacity for it? Whereas, on the other hand, if a particular student was just interested in fighting...maybe he got a "shorter" more "tactical" version of the system?


I wouldn't go that far.  YM was a traditional teacher in the Chinese/Confucian manner, according to the majority of his older students.  They even called him the epitome of the Confucian gentleman.  In the end he wanted to teach WC, he might not demand as much of a "lesser" student bit he would not teach a more "tactical" form.  I mean more of a  (speaking as YM) "okay I am 5'3" and weigh little.  "Bob" here however is 5'10" and has a more powerful frame, so techniques less suitable for me may work for him so let's see if they work better for him.". 

Something else makes a difference as well... the Confucian method of teaching is similar to the Socratic method.  You explain the concept/idea once and briefly.  This is done with the expectation that the student asks questions to encourage critical thinking.  If a student didn't ask questions they would likely misunderstand or simply not get it at all.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Jun 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Something else makes a difference as well... the Confucian method of teaching is similar to the Socratic method.  You explain the concept/idea once and briefly.  This is done with the expectation that the student asks questions to encourage critical thinking.  If a student didn't ask questions they would likely misunderstand or simply not get it at all.




I think this is the key thing!   Ip Man is often described as a rather "indifferent" teacher.  What you describe fits that perfectly.  This "Confucian gentleman" attitude would also mean if a student did something and said "look what I figured out Sifu!  Isn't this great!"...he would be likely to say "sure!" rather than correct them.  This is how many variations might have come into the system from various students that became teachers.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 27, 2016)

Perhaps. I've never heard of 'Confucian' or 'Socratic' teaching methods so...
I guess I'm puzzled as to why his students' stuff look different. I mean, maybe I am being too literal for a conceptual system?
But the differences are EVERYWHERE from empty hand forms, jong, post work, weapons, etc.
It boggles the mind!


----------



## KPM (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> But, did he intentionally pass down different versions of the same form? For an example, there are short versions of the pole form, and longer versions. Is this YM teaching selective students different things? Or is it YM passing down forms as he was tinkering with them throughout his career?




That's hard to know, since none of us were there.  I get the impression that in the Ip Man system the pole was often taught as a loose set of exercises.  Then different people put them together in different ways and this is why we see such different pole forms.  The other factor is that the pole was typically learned at the end of the curriculum.  So someone that didn't stick around long enough with Ip Man to learn the pole form likely saw others practicing it and then "innovated" on their own later.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> That's hard to know, since none of us were there.  I get the impression that in the Ip Man system the pole was often taught as a loose set of exercises.  Then different people put them together in different ways and this is why we see such different pole forms.  The other factor is that the pole was typically learned at the end of the curriculum.  So someone that didn't stick around long enough with Ip Man to learn the pole form likely saw others practicing it and then "innovated" on their own later.


I would even argue that his students, or YM himself may have changed it as a practical matter, no tinkering involved.  The "long" 6.5 point pole was designed for use by boatman in streams, shallow rivers etc.  How many of those will you find in an emerging HK or anywhere in the West.  A broom handle however..... 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Perhaps. I've never heard of 'Confucian' or 'Socratic' teaching methods so...
> I guess I'm puzzled as to why his students' stuff look different. I mean, maybe I am being too literal for a conceptual system?
> But the differences are EVERYWHERE from empty hand forms, jong, post work, weapons, etc.
> It boggles the mind!


Well part of the reason quite simply, will be business.  These students made WC their living.  Why spend money on one school of thought, if it looks the same as another (unless of course you really think the Sifu rocks)?

I think that would be the reason behind say, some of the differences we see in SLT.  The differences we may see however in one school that does a bit more kicking?  That uses Chin Na or takedowns a tad more?  These I think can come down to the teaching method.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I would even argue that his students, or YM himself may have changed it as a practical matter, no tinkering involved.  The "long" 6.5 point pole was designed for use by boatman in streams, shallow rivers etc.  How many of those will you find in an emerging HK or anywhere in the West.  A broom handle however.....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



If I understand your post correctly, I was referring to the length of the forms YM passed down (i.e. pole), not the actual length of the pole itself.

I guess I'm picturing a young YM, strolling down this so called dai duk lan alley or whatever; and maybe seeing some other masters perform some aspect of WC that YM didn't know...and YM walking up to them as asking..."hey, looks cool...can I learn that"? Then, he adds it to his curriculum and no one is the wiser


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> If I understand your post correctly, I was referring to the length of the forms YM passed down (i.e. pole), not the actual length of the pole itself.
> 
> I guess I'm picturing a young YM, strolling down this so called dai duk lan alley or whatever; and maybe seeing some other masters perform some aspect of WC that YM didn't know...and YM walking up to them as asking..."hey, looks cool...can I learn that"? Then, he adds it to his curriculum and no one is the wiser


I would doubt that, another thing HUGE in Confucian thought is the concept of Filial piety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  This was also extended to one's Master or the "school" of one's Master when it came to Martial Arts.  You could add to the school itself, via your personal experiences and expectations but "school hopping" if you are a true "Confucian Gentleman" did not happen.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Marnetmar (Jun 27, 2016)

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he added Weng Chun.

Furthermore I'm still waiting for any proper info on Weng Chun period. All anyone who doesn't practice it has at this point are a bunch of weird two-man forms and some videos of Andreas Hoffmann doing some weird mix of Hung Gar and Tai Chi. We still don't know anything about what the style _actually _looks like or how it's_ actually_ used.

Anyway to address your point OP, it is known that Yip Man trained together with Yiu Choi and the Yuen brothers and hung out with the Dai Duk Lan guys from time to time, but I don't think he had any extra material that he was purposely holding back. There's some story about Yip Man going to live with Yuen Kay San for a while after his house got burned down but I'm starting to question whether or not I believe that one.

Furthermore it is known that he changed and simplified the system over time. His Foshan students passed on a system similar to Yiu Choi/YKS WC, and Leung Sheung passed one similar to his Foshan students but with the forms mostly simplified into what we're familiar with today. I think Chu Sheung Tin onward is where Yip Man's WC took on a flavor of its own (and everyone started telling us LS guys that we're doing the forms wrong)


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> I'm still waiting for the evidence that he added Weng Chun.
> 
> Furthermore I'm still waiting for any proper info on Weng Chun period. All anyone who doesn't practice it has at this point are a bunch of weird two-man forms and some videos of Andreas Hoffmann doing some weird mix of Hung Gar and Tai Chi. We still don't know anything about what the style _actually _looks like or how it's_ actually_ used.


Oh I certainly am in agreement with ya on this one

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Jun 27, 2016)

_I'm still waiting for the evidence that he added Weng Chun._

--I don't think he did.  Could be a got a few pole pointers from Tang Yik, but that was probably all.  He is said to have seen the way the Weng Chun guys mounted their dummy on a frame instead of posting it into the ground and adopted that himself.  But that's just common sense in a crowded Hong Kong where you may be on an upper floor and not the ground floor.


_Furthermore I'm still waiting for any proper info on Weng Chun period._

---I've posted several times here with "proper info" on Tang Yik Weng Chun.



_ We still don't know anything about what the style actually looks like or how it's actually used._

---Video of Tang Yik himself is available on youtube.


_I don't think he had any extra material that he was purposely holding back._

---I agree.   But it could be he was "re-framing" things in his mind and chose to start showing his modifications or adaptations to some people and not others. 


_Furthermore it is known that he changed and simplified the system over time. His Foshan students passed on a system similar to Yiu Choi/YKS WC, and Leung Sheung passed one similar to his Foshan students but with the forms mostly simplified into what we're familiar with today. I think Chu Sheung Tin onward is where Yip Man's WC took on a flavor of its own (and everyone started telling us LS guys that we're doing the forms wrong)._

---I agree with that as well!


----------



## geezer (Jun 27, 2016)

Part of the Confucian tradition is cultural conservatism, especially the concept of _filial piety _or respect, obedience, and devotion to your family, your parents and ancestors. Unlike the militaristic model of Japanese and Korean martial arts, Chinese martial arts were taught according to the family model, and bringing honor and respect to your kung-fu family, your sifu and si-gung are of great importance.

Consequently, after the passing of one's sifu, when great masters inevitably adapt and evolve the arts they have been taught, rather than proudly proclaim their innovations as we tend to do today in the West, the traditional confucian gentleman would respectfully claim that any apparent "innovations" were actually part of the traditional system all along.

So a modern Westernized master tends to take personal credit for innovation, perhaps even proclaiming that he has created a new, improved system (JKD?) while a more Confucian minded master (or one using tradition and purported "authenticity" as a _marketing ploy_) will claim that any novelty in their instruction is in actuality the "authentic" or "traditional" version.

Accordingly, when Grandmaster Yip over his long teaching career tried out different approaches with his students, he would have claimed that it was all original Wing Chun as he was taught by Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So, or perhaps by the mysterious figure of Leung Bic. He never claimed to be inventing a new version of his own, and _certainly_ would never have admitted borrowing bits from another lineage! Similarly, his students never admit inventing or borrowing new approaches themselves.

Even my old Chinese Sifu justified any changes he personally made by pointing out that they either came directly from GM Yip or from earlier versions of what GM Yip had once taught in Fo'shan. It seems that not one of the major figures in the Yip Man lineage takes personal credit for the variance in their teaching. It's always claimed to be traditional.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jun 27, 2016)

Yuen Kay San CK:






Yiu Choi CK:






Yip Man CK (Foshan version)






Yip Man CK (Leung Sheung version)






Yip Man CK (Chu Sheung TIn)


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 27, 2016)

geezer said:


> Part of the Confucian tradition is cultural conservatism, especially the concept of _filial piety _or respect, obedience, and devotion to your family, your parents and ancestors. Unlike the militaristic model of Japanese and Korean martial arts, Chinese martial arts were taught according to the family model, and bringing honor and respect to your kung-fu family, your sifu and si-gung are of great importance.
> 
> Consequently, after the passing of one's sifu, when great masters inevitably adapt and evolve the arts they have been taught, rather than proudly proclaim their innovations as we tend to do today in the West, the traditional confucian gentleman would respectfully claim that any apparent "innovations" were actually part of the traditional system all along.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  My point was to say he wouldn't "master hop" to other Lineages.  What he changed he changed due to his own experience and then simply said "this is the WC I learned." (That is if you were referring to me, could be you were just more eloquently making the same point  )

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 27, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Yuen Kay San CK:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Awesome! Thx Marnetmar!


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Jun 28, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Through reading and searching this forum...it appears the consensus is YM interacted with other lineage masters in the dai duk lan (spelling?) and most likely picked up other aspects of WC from different families (i.e. YKS? Pan Nam? Weng Chun? etc?) Perhaps things like pole forms, knife work, gerk jong/post training etc?
> 
> But, did he intentionally pass down different versions of the same form? For an example, there are short versions of the pole form, and longer versions. Is this YM teaching selective students different things? Or is it YM passing down forms as he was tinkering with them throughout his career?
> 
> I've read on here and other forums that YM knew A LOT, but ultimately wanted to strip the system down to what it is today. So, would an example be: perhaps YM knew a longer pole set (say, perhaps like the Tang Yik pole?) but stripped out what he wanted, and only taught his 'creation'?


I don't think there can be a definite answer it was such a long time ago that different legends and stories about who taught who or who taught what have been spread so no one knows the real truth anymore. I can't comment because I know next to nothing on wing chun but what I know of martial arts in general is the history often gets very distorted based on rumours and legends.


----------

