# Leung Ting?



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 10, 2006)

It looks like I may have the opprotunity to study under some people who are a part of Leung Tings organization.  Can anyone tell me about the quality of that org and/or how it differs from other WC?

Jeff


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 10, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> It looks like I may have the opprotunity to study under some people who are a part of Leung Tings organization. Can anyone tell me about the quality of that org and/or how it differs from other WC?
> 
> Jeff


 
Leung Ting organization is considered to be the largest among others. It is known by the IWTA in Asia and the US, and EWTO in Europe and some exceptional asian countries. I personally train in it and it is a very well organized organization.

The organization produced many astonishing fighters such as Sifu Thomas Mannes of Germany (He is the man in the bottom picture), Sifu Jeff Webb in the US, and of course the EBMAS founder Sifu Emin Boztepe. 

Leung Ting himself is amazing, he is now like a proffessor in combat, and he conducts many seminars to armies and special forces.

The difference between him and other's organiztions is that his way in teaching and the sequence in forms and drills is well organized and modified. I mean that his system has been modified to deal with all the situations of combat. Taking an example William's Cheung organization, which still teaches the traditional way of Wing Chun.

If you go to Sifu Gary Lam's organization, you will know the difference regarding the sequence in teaching the Wooden dummy in early stages, While it is taught at later stages in Leung Ting's.

Sifu Leung Ting organization is grwoing every day, wanna join him? it is a good idea.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 10, 2006)

Structurally I'd consider the Leung Ting lineage inferior to the Cheung lineage.  I've heard repeated reports of some sort of culture of unpleasant personal behavior among the Leung Ting lineage, but that's just hearsay.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 10, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Structurally I'd consider the Leung Ting lineage inferior to the Cheung lineage. I've heard repeated reports of some sort of culture of unpleasant personal behavior among the Leung Ting lineage, but that's just hearsay.


 
I heard first person reports of cult-like behaviour among Leung Ting&#180;s organization, as well as cult of personality around Ting himself. 

I never practiced it myself, so I will reserve my judgement regarding its technical aspects.

The brazilian branch of the organization is well known for not sparring, practicing instead what they call the "blitzdefense" - essentially one step sparring, which sucks. Personally I would stay away from any place where they won&#180;t allow you to spar hard and regularly, so that&#180;s an important point for you to consider - if they try to sell you their blitzdefense in lieu of true sparring, run like hell.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 10, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> I heard first person reports of cult-like behaviour among Leung Ting´s organization, as well as cult of personality around Ting himself.
> 
> I never practiced it myself, so I will reserve my judgement regarding its technical aspects.
> 
> The brazilian branch of the organization is well known for not sparring, practicing instead what they call the "blitzdefense" - essentially one step sparring, which sucks. Personally I would stay away from any place where they won´t allow you to spar hard and regularly, so that´s an important point for you to consider - if they try to sell you their blitzdefense in lieu of true sparring, run like hell.



In my case, I'm not worried about lack of sparring.  My wife and many of our friends teach TKD or Shotokan, so I'll end up sparring regardless.  I will even have the benifit of sparring outside of the style.  As long as the WC is good and I don't see any cult-like behavior, I'll probably go ahead and train with them.  Gotta wonder about that Wing Tsun(tm) thing though.

Jeff


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 10, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> In my case, I'm not worried about lack of sparring. My wife and many of our friends teach TKD or Shotokan, so I'll end up sparring regardless. I will even have the benifit of sparring outside of the style. As long as the WC is good and I don't see any cult-like behavior, I'll probably go ahead and train with them. Gotta wonder about that Wing Tsun(tm) thing though.
> 
> Jeff


 
That&#180;s good. Please do tell us your experiences there, and do tell us how the Wing Chun they teach fares when sparring people outside the style. Personally I would not go to a martial arts school if I had to seek sparring elsewhere, but if you are so curious about the system, by all means try it.

I&#180;ll send you a PM.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 10, 2006)

Will do.  I'm really hoping this works out, only been wanting to study WC for oh, over 10 years now.

Jeff


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 11, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Structurally I'd consider the Leung Ting lineage inferior to the Cheung lineage. I've heard repeated reports of some sort of culture of unpleasant personal behavior among the Leung Ting lineage, but that's just hearsay.


 
So you consider the Cheung lineage Superior in its concepts?!

Let me put it this way. William cheung as we know is an old student of the Grandmaster, he started to learn Wing Chun from Yipman himself and then introduced Lee Jun Fan to the system, in which he left to Australia and began his own teachings, leaving Jun Fan to the Gongsau Wong who was considered to be the Beimo king at that time. William had taught his system by the name of Wing Chun. He considered his system to be the best while others were no match to his system.

Leung Ting was the last student of Yipman, he learned Wing Chun from both Yipman and master Leung Sheung. Leung Ting was taking the name Wing Tsun in order to have his own brand. Then he had to establish with a former german wrestler known by master Keith R.kernspecht the Wing Tsun organization. Master Kernspecht learned Wing Tsun for years and believed that it is a very affective system of self-defence. He then started to teach Europeans in the late 70's and 80's. This caused the old Cheung lineage to believe that they were older and better, and as I heard that they were always challenging the Ting's Kernspecht lineage. Among these challenges was a Chi Sao challenge in which someone from the Cheung lineage challeanged leung Ting while he was giving a seminar, and this guy was able to some extent win the upper hand. Does that mean that Cheung's system is superior?, No. After one year, a young lad from Leung Ting lineage,between ages 18-20, using only some Turkish wrestling technique, Challenged William Cheung and defeated him in a well known incident. 

What I want to say is, we must not care wheather this lineage is better than that, we must consider more about what we learn for ourselves and what we can get in a case of any street encounter we could have, how we could respond?, what should we do?, and of course, trying to avoid fights as much as we can.


----------



## Kensai (Apr 11, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> So you consider the Cheung lineage Superior in its concepts?!
> 
> Let me put it this way. William cheung as we know is an old student of the Grandmaster, he started to learn Wing Chun from Yipman himself and then introduced Lee Jun Fan to the system, in which he left to Australia and began his own teachings, leaving Jun Fan to the Gongsau Wong who was considered to be the Beimo king at that time. William had taught his system by the name of Wing Chun. He considered his system to be the best while others were no match to his system.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with this. There are documented differences/approachs to Wing Tsun, Ving Tsun, Wing Chun, which on the face of it, may not be as great as initially made to appear. A lot of this stems from marketing, and needing to offer something different to other variants of Wing Chun et al. To go with this is having various masters/senior sifus etc who all, to a greater or lesser extent have egos. Some maybe larger than others, but it's in part down to egos and marketing. 

The comment about the ting lineage being structurally inferior to the Cheung version, is a valid and good point. I've not trained in either, so would be unable to comment on that, although, I would add, that with any art, style whatever, there will be people that are better than others. It could be that you could study in the Ting lineage, and be far superior to the Cheung practitioner, or maybe not. So, IMHO perhaps that's also something to consider.

As I've said before, I don't care if my "lineage" trained with Ip Chun, Yip Man, Ip Chuns pet alsation Dave, so long as I get something from what I study, that I both 1. Enjoy 2. Has a good element of realism and 3. I can transfer a few moves to the street to help myself, should the time come that I need it. Try it, check it out. If you like it, great, if not, look elsewhere, but forming your opinion based on experience would perhaps be better for you. Just my tuppence. 

Cheers guys.

K


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 11, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> I agree with this. There are documented differences/approachs to Wing Tsun, Ving Tsun, Wing Chun, which on the face of it, may not be as great as initially made to appear. A lot of this stems from marketing, and needing to offer something different to other variants of Wing Chun et al. To go with this is having various masters/senior sifus etc who all, to a greater or lesser extent have egos. Some maybe larger than others, but it's in part down to egos and marketing.
> 
> The comment about the ting lineage being structurally inferior to the Cheung version, is a valid and good point. I've not trained in either, so would be unable to comment on that, although, I would add, that with any art, style whatever, there will be people that are better than others. It could be that you could study in the Ting lineage, and be far superior to the Cheung practitioner, or maybe not. So, IMHO perhaps that's also something to consider.
> 
> ...


 

that's true my friend. It is the individual progress that matters.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

> So you consider the Cheung lineage Superior in its concepts?!


 
Yes, I do.  Politics aside I've seen the structural and physical expression of both lineages and Cheung's is (in my opinion, obviously) preferable for practical application.  I attended a seminar with Sigung John Crescione, too, and his was superior to what I'd seen of the other two (he's trained with I don't know how many different lineages -- I seem to recall he's studied with all the major branches, but don't hold me to that).

I don't speak for any of these people, however -- I'm not exactly on good terms with Sigung Crescione or his students, as far as I know.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 11, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. Politics aside I've seen the structural and physical expression of both lineages and Cheung's is (in my opinion, obviously) preferable for practical application. I attended a seminar with Sigung John Crescione, too, and his was superior to what I'd seen of the other two (he's trained with I don't know how many different lineages -- I seem to recall he's studied with all the major branches, but don't hold me to that).
> 
> I don't speak for any of these people, however -- I'm not exactly on good terms with Sigung Crescione or his students, as far as I know.


 
Who cares Pal, the important thing is just being able to defend ourselves in street encounters. ( Although it is very rare to be involved in encounters, one should practise and learn the concepts).


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

"Pal?"

I'm not trying to pick a fight or offend you.  The question was asked about Leung Ting in general and I answered it based on what I've seen.


----------



## Kensai (Apr 11, 2006)

Ok guys, let's keep it cool. No bar fights.... :asian:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

It was not my intent to cause any upset.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Apr 11, 2006)

Here is my 2 cents worth, LT's WT tends to be very technique orientated in its approach to learning. This approach is the wrong end of things, like putting the cart before the horse. Alotof the curriculum is dragged out to simply force the student to pay for longer (and I have that from former students of the LT system) at the end of the day it is up to you, however you will find that LT's system is not all it is cracked up to be. If you do a dillegent search over many MA forums you will find that there are former students who have not had a positive outcome. I have touched hands with  a former studnet under the LT system, he had been learning WT longer than I had and was unable to withstand my attack/defense. My personal observation from all of the empirical evidence out is that you shoud avoid LT's WT. That is my opinion, take it for what it is worth


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 11, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> Here is my 2 cents worth, LT's WT tends to be very technique orientated in its approach to learning. This approach is the wrong end of things, like putting the cart before the horse. Alotof the curriculum is dragged out to simply force the student to pay for longer (and I have that from former students of the LT system) at the end of the day it is up to you, however you will find that LT's system is not all it is cracked up to be. If you do a dillegent search over many MA forums you will find that there are former students who have not had a positive outcome. I have touched hands with a former studnet under the LT system, he had been learning WT longer than I had and was unable to withstand my attack/defense. My personal observation from all of the empirical evidence out is that you shoud avoid LT's WT. That is my opinion, take it for what it is worth


 
Maybe you tried hands with unqualified people. If the outcome is little as you say, why Leung Ting and Kernspecht disciples are the best. Take sifu Mannes as an example. If you watched how this Sifu bridges gaps and attacks, you will regognize that he doesn't need Chi Sao to coninue the attack, just finishing it before it starts. (( He is extremely fast)). Take Sifu Emin as an example, I know that you don't have that respect to him, but we all know that he is to be one of the best around here; He proved that Cheung's Wing Chun was not the only one to talk about, he challenged the Gracies but they refused, and he fought in very hard street encounters that included guns. Some people in here said that the Leung Ting lineage lack sparring, well how come?!. If they really lacked it, how those Sifus learned how to fight and control their situations?!!!.

I may agree with you bcbernam777 that there is nothing perfect, and maybe your Sifu *Fung Ping Boi* is better than many, due to the fact that he learned directly from Yipman, but still as I know, the Leung Ting lineage is not as bad as many people are saying here, especially when it comes comparing it to the Cheung lineage.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

Schools and lineages often disagree (and of course there is great historical animosity between Leung Ting and William Cheung, as I understand it).

I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to perform certain techniques (and a right way and a wrong way to approach the training methodology), even though some lineages teach the variations as acceptable. As always, _reality_ is the deciding factor. In the school where I trained for a couple of years, for example, we were taught to distribute our weight evenly on both feet for optimum balance and mobility. Anyone who tells you, therefore, that Wing Chun is ineffective because the weight is placed primarily on the rear leg is in error  though that error may be the product of poor teaching in a lineage or school imparting improper structure.

When we discuss the efficacy of Wing Chun (and when we compare lineages), we must acknowledge that many schools and lineages teach different things. Where there is conflict, we must be biased towards those techniques and principles that offer the best REALISTIC results. All else is not proof of Wing Chuns ineffectiveness  it is proof of poor teaching (or poor learning). The final arbiter is reality, not claims or stories or family trees. Wherever a better alternative exists in the pantheon of Wing Chun masters, it is that alternative that represents true Wing Chun.


----------



## Kensai (Apr 11, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Schools and lineages often disagree (and of course there is great historical animosity between Leung Ting and William Cheung, as I understand it).
> 
> I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to perform certain techniques (and a right way and a wrong way to approach the training methodology), even though some lineages teach the variations as acceptable. As always, _reality_ is the deciding factor. In the school where I trained for a couple of years, for example, we were taught to distribute our weight evenly on both feet for optimum balance and mobility. Anyone who tells you, therefore, that Wing Chun is ineffective because the weight is placed primarily on the rear leg is in error  though that error may be the product of poor teaching in a lineage or school imparting improper structure.
> 
> When we discuss the efficacy of Wing Chun (and when we compare lineages), we must acknowledge that many schools and lineages teach different things. Where there is conflict, we must be biased towards those techniques and principles that offer the best REALISTIC results. All else is not proof of Wing Chuns ineffectiveness  it is proof of poor teaching (or poor learning). T*he final arbiter is reality, not claims or stories or family trees. Wherever a better alternative exists in the pantheon of Wing Chun masters, it is that alternative that represents true Wing Chun.*



Well said. And I know you weren't trying to start a bar fight.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 11, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Schools and lineages often disagree (and of course there is great historical animosity between Leung Ting and William Cheung, as I understand it).
> 
> I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to perform certain techniques (and a right way and a wrong way to approach the training methodology), even though some lineages teach the variations as acceptable. As always, _reality_ is the deciding factor. In the school where I trained for a couple of years, for example, we were taught to distribute our weight evenly on both feet for optimum balance and mobility. Anyone who tells you, therefore, that Wing Chun is ineffective because the weight is placed primarily on the rear leg is in error  though that error may be the product of poor teaching in a lineage or school imparting improper structure.
> 
> ...


 
So what is the thing that makes the poor learning in your idea?, I mean what made Leung Ting lineage concepts not that good in your idea, and what made someone like William Cheung's Wing Chun be better.

Of course if we mention someone like Sifu Wong Shun-Leung, or Sifu Gary Lam. I consider them the best, but why such conflicts when it comes to Leung Ting?.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

I've not seen their work, so I couldn't compare them.  My opinion is based only on what I've seen.  Why do people do things differently?  Why do they make mistakes?  Who knows?


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 11, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Some people in here said that the Leung Ting lineage lack sparring, well how come?!. If they really lacked it, how those Sifus learned how to fight and control their situations?!!!.


 
I am only telling what I was told by brazilian practitioners of the WT system. I suppose that in all organizations the top notch guys will spar to improve, but I also suppose many big martial arts organizations will not allow their students to spar because they don´t want to scare little Johnny (or, in the case of Brazil, little João) away. 

Also, in Brazil, WT folks are constantly made fun of because of their anti-grappling curriculum. This is the land of BJJ and of Judo (every boy does at least one year of judo here, don´t ask me why): in brazilian martial arts forums, AND in person, speaking the words "anti-grapple" immediately labels you as a fool. 

This is also helped by the fact that sometimes the WT guys themselves will post pictures of their anti-grappling online. I just can´t find any right now, though.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 11, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> I am only telling what I was told by brazilian practitioners of the WT system. I suppose that in all organizations the top notch guys will spar to improve, but I also suppose many big martial arts organizations will not allow their students to spar because they don´t want to scare little Johnny (or, in the case of Brazil, little João) away.
> 
> Also, in Brazil, WT folks are constantly made fun of because of their anti-grappling curriculum. This is the land of BJJ and of Judo (every boy does at least one year of judo here, don´t ask me why): in brazilian martial arts forums, AND in person, speaking the words "anti-grapple" immediately labels you as a fool.
> 
> This is also helped by the fact that sometimes the WT guys themselves will post pictures of their anti-grappling online. I just can´t find any right now, though.


 
Well, The Gracies had influenced the Brazilian martial arts. If you would like to know somwthing about Wing Chun in general, it is a pure self-defence system, which can be used in street encounters and real hard situations. The BJJ that you are talking about is very effective in its competition form e.g: UFC. I personally spent most of my time talknig about this issue. A BJJ vs Wing Chun who will win?. Well BJJ proved that it is the best in submission fighting without hurting opponents.

I mean that if I am a Wing Chun guy fighting in the UFC against a BJJ. There is a possibility of 80% that I am gonna lose, because I am regulated by certain rules e.g(no hits to graons, neck, ribs,etc..), These rules will allow the Grappler to take me down while he could stand a punch or two due to the fact that I am punching him to a non sensitive area in which he could get hit.

An exception of that was Beimo, Legends like master Wong Shun-Leung had fought in regulated street fights that contained the same rules regarding the sensitive areas, but was still victorious and won most of his fights in the first seconds only.

Now in the street, a trained Wing Chun fighter will always have the upper hand due to many facts.
1) the floor of the street is harmful to the grappler for grappling
2) The wing Chun trainer can hit anywhere
3) Don't expect that a trained Wing chun trainer will wait to be grappled to start anti-grappling techniqeus. A trained Wing chun guy is very fast and he can punch very fast in a certain place in the body.

Sifu Emin Boztepe challenged the Gracies a couple of years ago in a street fight (not in the ring), and no one challenged him until our day. he said that among all the fights he had, he was never grappled down by any grappler.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 11, 2006)

In reading thru this thread, it seems to me that what has become most highlighted are the inherent problems with Empire Building in the martial arts.  While I don't know how big William Cheung's organization is, I do understand that Leung Ting's is quite large, with many members.

Empire Building consists of growing an organization to a size where one can no longer effectively keep control over standards and quality among members.  While those at or near the top in the empire may in fact be extremely good (Leung Ting and his top students, for example), the further one moves down the pecking order, the worse the instructors and students tend to become.  Of course there are always exceptions to this, but in general I think it is pretty consistent. 

This is because when a group grows to this size, the material has to be presented in a way that is easiest for the masses to digest, because what has become important to the empire is growing membership, which translates into money.  Bring as many people in as possible, and don't give them anything that they might struggle to understand, because that might scare them off.  Inevitably, the material itself, as well as the presentation of the material degrades and the next generation has lower skill than the last.  The top people are no longer able to supervise all the training, so standards slip and the system becomes sloppy.

Members of Leung Ting's organization are not students of Leung Ting.  They are students of "Joe Sifu" who studied under "Jeff Sifu" who studied under "Frank Sifu" who studied under "Mark Sifu" who studied under Leung Ting.  Unless one trains directly and regularly under Leung Ting, one is not truly his student.  Membership in his Empire and belonging to his lineage does not make one his student, nor guarantee in any way a certain level of quality or skill, either high or low.

Personally, I would like to see an end to Empire Building.  Talented sifus (as I assume Leung Ting is, tho I have never met him so I cannot say for sure) should focus on teaching their own students, and making sure their understanding of the art and their skill is the best it can be.  In this way, these students can in turn pass on their skill and knowledge to the next generation.  But when they are ready to do that, they should no longer be part of someone's empire.  They should be ready and capable of standing on their own.  Of course they should still respect their teachers, and even continue their own training if possible, but they should really be independent. 

When someone becomes a teacher within someone else's empire, that often means they have completed a certain program.  But completion of a program is no guarantee that they have developed the skill and knowledge to be a talented martial artist, or teacher.  This is a more subtle development, and often cannot truly be done within the confines of an Empire.

Just thought I'd add my two cents.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 11, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Well, The Gracies had influenced the Brazilian martial arts. If you would like to know somwthing about Wing Chun in general, it is a pure self-defence system, which can be used in street encounters and real hard situations. The BJJ that you are talking about is very effective in its competition form e.g: UFC. I personally spent most of my time talknig about this issue. A BJJ vs Wing Chun who will win?. Well BJJ proved that it is the best in submission fighting without hurting opponents.
> 
> I mean that if I am a Wing Chun guy fighting in the UFC against a BJJ. There is a possibility of 80% that I am gonna lose, because I am regulated by certain rules e.g(no hits to graons, neck, ribs,etc..), These rules will allow the Grappler to take me down while he could stand a punch or two due to the fact that I am punching him to a non sensitive area in which he could get hit.
> 
> ...


 
First of all, I am not talking exclusively about BJJ or the Gracies; I was talking about grappling in general. There is no such thing as anti grappling, for the same reasons that there is no such thing as anti striking.

In Brazil, kids are regularly taught judo, same as american kids are taught wrestling. So most people here know grappling trash when they see it: and anti grappling, particularly the kind taught by the WT (considering the pics I saw), is trash. So anti-grapplers are rightfully made fun of here.

Second of all, you presume too much about the Wing Chun system and, most of all, you presume too much about "the wing chun guy".

Your rules argument is really no argument at all. If you can´t strike his throat, he can´t strike your throat; and why are the Beimo fights an exception to your "WC does not go well with rules!" argument? If Wong Shun Leung managed to fight and win with rules, so should you. 

So please don´t give me that silliness. If one man managed to make WC work without resorting to eye gouging, all men should be able to do it.

Or have you not heard of dirty moves learned by grapplers which are not used in competitions? Grapplers limit themselves too; strikers who do not practice Wing Chun limit themselves in competitions, and still win (Muay Thai fighters frequently win important competitions without using their elbows, which is a huge limitation to the fighter). Wing Chun is not special in that sense, because WC does not consist solely or mainly of eye gouging or throat strikes. So there is no good reason for it not to be represented in competitions.

Now, let´s pick apart your hypothetical "WC vs Grappler in Tha Street!" arguments.

1) Ever heard of throws? Grapplers know throws. If you suffer a throw in a street, with concrete pavement, you can die right there, or at least suffer some broken ribs - there is a nice way to throw someone, and there is a mean way. Grapplers, therefore, LOVE concrete pavements. Also, concrete pavements are not "harmful" to grapplers. Unconfortable, yes, but who cares about confort when life and limb are at stake? Also, if it is unconfortable for me, it is also unconfortable for you. 

2) So can the grappler. Grapplers, as opposed to many strikers, do not hide their heads in the sand. They will learn a good striking style to compliment their game. I was a judoka: how do you think I ended up learning Wing Chun and, later, Muay Thai? Because I knew judo was not enough. BJJ guys are also directed to striking gyms to compliment their games.

Also, maybe you did not know, but BJJ guys know some very dirty wrist locks, easily applicable on the ground. They do not use it because they are being nice to you. I know that, because I have been tapped out by a few. Grapplers have their own brand of dirty tricks, and you would do well to remember that.

3) What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway? Yes, a trained WC guy is fast. So is a trained kickboxer, boxer, MT guy, or taekwondo practitioner. Wing Chun does not offer miracles, same as all arts. 

As for Emin, I believe you are not telling the whole story. As far as I remember, he was challenged to fight in a police district, and refused.

And finally, I am not talking from the point of view of a grappler. I left judo close to ten years ago. But I took some BJJ classes, I did some Vale Tudo training, and I know both the value and the limitations of grappling arts first hand. I, therefore, do not underestimate them, which is what you are doing - essentially, you believe strikes to vital points will save you from a grappler.

Well, they won´t. Good footwork and grappling will save you from a grappler: nothing else will, at least nothing else in the unarmed combat department.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 11, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Well, they won´t. Good footwork and grappling will save you from a grappler: nothing else will, at least nothing else in the unarmed combat department.


 
While I think you make some excellent points here, I'm not sure I can agree completely with this last one.  I don't know anything about Leung Ting's anti-grappling curriculum, so I am not speaking in reference to that, nor in reference to anything specifically.  However, I do believe that a skilled striker could defeat a skilled grappler, without resorting to grappling.  To believe that the only way to defeat a grappler is to become better at grappling than that grappler, I think just doesn't make sense.  To understand grappling, for a striker, is certainly a good idea, but just because someone may be a striker doesn't mean they are automatically doomed if they ever go up against a grappler.  I really believe it all comes down to the better practitioner, whatever his style may be.  Any art has its inherent strengths and weaknesses.  The person who is best able to utilize his arts strengths while protecting against the weaknesses, and at the same time avoid the opponent's strengths and exploit his weaknesses will win.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## barriecusvein (Apr 11, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Well, they won´t. Good footwork and grappling will save you from a grappler: nothing else will, at least nothing else in the unarmed combat department.


i dont agree with this. if grappling was the only way to beat grappling then why do people still train in striking styles? surely people in things like UFC would have stopped training striking styles because they are redundant.

but this has not happened. almost everyone in these competitions trains in multiple styles, typically something like BJJ and kickboxing. the grapplers 'compliment their game', as you said, with some form of striking. why compliment something that can only be defeated by itself?


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 11, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> While I think you make some excellent points here, I'm not sure I can agree completely with this last one. I don't know anything about Leung Ting's anti-grappling curriculum, so I am not speaking in reference to that, nor in reference to anything specifically. However, I do believe that a skilled striker could defeat a skilled grappler, without resorting to grappling. To believe that the only way to defeat a grappler is to become better at grappling than that grappler, I think just doesn't make sense. To understand grappling, for a striker, is certainly a good idea, but just because someone may be a striker doesn't mean they are automatically doomed if they ever go up against a grappler. I really believe it all comes down to the better practitioner, whatever his style may be. Any art has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. The person who is best able to utilize his arts strengths while protecting against the weaknesses, and at the same time avoid the opponent's strengths and exploit his weaknesses will win. Just my thoughts.


 
A fair point - I am afraid I have not expressed myself correctly, my apologies. What I will say applies equally to your observation, Barriecusvein.

See, I do not believe grappling is unbeatable, nor do I believe only a grappler will defeat a grappler. I am afraid I gave that impression with my last post, but that was not my intention at all.

What I do believe is that a striker will be extremely vulnerable to a grappler if he doesn´t know anything about grappling; for the very same reasons, a grappler who can´t strike at all is vulnerable to a striker. The difference, in strategical terms, of course, is that the exclusive grappler needs only to get lucky once, bringing the striker to the ground, while the striker needs a KO - and a KO is much harder to perform than a throw or a tackle, experience in events such as UFC and Pride demonstrate that.

That, IMO, is the greatest advantage of grapplers, one which I, as a strike, try my best to be aware of at all times.

That does not mean striking is irrelevant, however. I train Muay Thai, I would not practice something I did not believe in!

A striker does not need to become better at grappling than a grappler. He can still remain primarily a striker and beat the grappler senseless. What he needs are the skills necessary to allow him to fight back the grappler´s tactics, so he can utilize his striking potential to the fullest.

In practice, he needs to learn the skills necessary to 1) avoid getting taken to the ground 2) avoid getting tapped out/choked out/broken into little pieces while on the ground, and 3) get up fast if he does get taken to the ground.

My point is, those skills are grappling skills.They are not anti-grappling, that does not exist. In my experience, people mentioning anti-grappling are either trying to fool you or have been fooled themselves.

So a striker needs to know grappling. He doesn´t need to become Rickson Gracie, but, then again - look at Wanderlei Silva. A striker who can and will grapple if necessary, but whose primary strategy is to strike! That is my goal (OK, OK, one has to set his hopes up high).

I hope I have made myself clear this time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 11, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> A fair point - I am afraid I have not expressed myself correctly, my apologies. What I will say applies equally to your observation, Barriecusvein.
> 
> See, I do not believe grappling is unbeatable, nor do I believe only a grappler will defeat a grappler. I am afraid I gave that impression with my last post, but that was not my intention at all.
> 
> ...


 
yup, agreed!


----------



## barriecusvein (Apr 11, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> I hope I have made myself clear this time.



aah i see what your getting at now, and agree with it.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 12, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> A fair point - I am afraid I have not expressed myself correctly, my apologies. What I will say applies equally to your observation, Barriecusvein.
> 
> See, I do not believe grappling is unbeatable, nor do I believe only a grappler will defeat a grappler. I am afraid I gave that impression with my last post, but that was not my intention at all.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, you have to know the strategy of Grapplers, but common sence states that puching, kicking is much more faster than those hugs, takedowns, and chokes. I mean that those Grapplers spent alot of their time just sticking themselves to the grapple, although there are strikes they posses as you said. This silly way of sticking to the Grappling style is what is not sence. Wing Chun always refered to a system of fighting that you can use anything if nesseccery. That's why there was such a five distance strategy created for all distances. 

Please tell me if the world has changed in a way that grappling an opponent is faster than stricking?.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 12, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Ok, you have to know the strategy of Grapplers, but common sence states that puching, kicking is much more faster than those hugs, takedowns, and chokes. I mean that those Grapplers spent alot of their time just sticking themselves to the grapple, although there are strikes they posses as you said. This silly way of sticking to the Grappling style is what is not sence. Wing Chun always refered to a system of fighting that you can use anything if nesseccery. That's why there was such a five distance strategy created for all distances.
> 
> Please tell me if the world has changed in a way that grappling an opponent is faster than stricking?.


 
Punching and kicking are indeed faster than a takedown or a throw. They are also, however, less likely to immediately result in a significant disadvantage to the adversary - as I said, it is much easier to bring someone to the ground with a single tackle than to KO someone with a single punch or kick, and events such as Pride and UFC have demonstrated that.

As for grapplers sticking only to grappling, that would be true only for the very first UFCs, wouldn´t it? At that time grappling was indeed a "novelty" (as if judo, wrestling and jiujitsu did not exist before, but what the hell), so grapplers managed to surprise many kung fu fighters, karateka, and kickboxers with their game.

Nowadays, it would be suicide to do that sort of thing at Pride. Today, AFAIK, there are no exclusive grapplers or exclusive strikers at those events - as I said, some fighters, like Silva, are primarily strikers, while others, like Minotauro, are primarily grapplers, but no one of them is foolish enough to believe they can stick to just one range of fighting.

As for Wing Chun incorporating this five distance strategy - that would be the Wing Tsun/Leung Ting method, wouldn´t it? The idea may be good, but, sadly, the WT organization has decided to bury its head deep in the sand regarding grappling, so they, instead of searching for a good grappling program, created a frankenstein monster of weird grappling strategies and what they think would work, and decided to sell the whole thing as anti-grappling.

AFAIK, Wing Chun is a striking system. Its theories and strategies, not to mention techniques, are geared towards striking; it is unreasonable to demand more of it than what it actually offers. But it seem sthe WT organization has worked oh so hard to "apply WT principles to groundfighting", as if such a thing made sense. Boxing can´t be applied on the ground, neither can Muay Thai, etc.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 12, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Punching and kicking are indeed faster than a takedown or a throw. They are also, however, less likely to immediately result in a significant disadvantage to the adversary - as I said, it is much easier to bring someone to the ground with a single tackle than to KO someone with a single punch or kick, and events such as Pride and UFC have demonstrated that.
> 
> As for grapplers sticking only to grappling, that would be true only for the very first UFCs, wouldn´t it? At that time grappling was indeed a "novelty" (as if judo, wrestling and jiujitsu did not exist before, but what the hell), so grapplers managed to surprise many kung fu fighters, karateka, and kickboxers with their game.
> 
> ...


 
I just past by the Grappling section in this forum. If you read their articles, you will realize that they admit to some extent that BJJ depends about 90% in take downs, only little strikes. Bear in mind that a good fighter is rarely to be found in ground fights. Of course it is very important to know how to fight in all situations, but still srikes to sensitive areas is fatal, especially if you are trained.

Any how, lets just forget about this. Just tell me what do you think is the best Wing Chun lineage to train within in these days. If I travelled to the states in L.A, I would go for Sifu Gary Lam. They say he is excellent and was one of the tops as a disciple of the legend Wong Shun-Leung. What do you think about him?.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 12, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> I just past by the Grappling section in this forum. If you read their articles, you will realize that they admit to some extent that BJJ depends about 90% in take downs, only little strikes. Bear in mind that a good fighter is rarely to be found in ground fights. Of course it is very important to know how to fight in all situations, but still srikes to sensitive areas is fatal, especially if you are trained.
> 
> Any how, lets just forget about this. Just tell me what do you think is the best Wing Chun lineage to train within in these days. If I travelled to the states in L.A, I would go for Sifu Gary Lam. They say he is excellent and was one of the tops as a disciple of the legend Wong Shun-Leung. What do you think about him?.


 
A good fighter can be taken to the ground if he doesn´t know grappling, and even if he does, it can happen. Crocop is a good fighter. And strikes to sensitive areas are low percentage techniques - you don´t want to trust your well being to a low percentage technique, specially when you can actually learn another range of fighting appropriate to the danger you face.

As for Wing Chun lineages, I have only experienced Lee Shing and Thomas Lo first hand, although I have trained with one guy who did a couple of years of Moy Yat.

If I had to choose, I would pick Hung Fa Yi - I have no experience with it, but I have been corresponding with one of their brazilian sifus, and he has repeatedly stated that they not only spar hard and often, specially with people from other styles, but they also teach jabs, crosses, and hooks - AND, they do not advocate any of that anti-grappling silliness.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 12, 2006)

Grappling and groundfighting skills are important _components_ of self-defense training.  They are not the _totality_ of self-defense training.  A lot of the endless MMA/UFC/NHB-type arguments revolving around grappling are the result of elevating a component of training to the pinnacle of training, which simply isn't the case.  Most of the time I think this is the result of real and earnest enthusiasm for what the student is learning (say, BJJ, but it could be something else).  Enthusiasm is great but it often overrides common sense.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 12, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Grappling and groundfighting skills are important _components_ of self-defense training. They are not the _totality_ of self-defense training. A lot of the endless MMA/UFC/NHB-type arguments revolving around grappling are the result of elevating a component of training to the pinnacle of training, which simply isn't the case. Most of the time I think this is the result of real and earnest enthusiasm for what the student is learning (say, BJJ, but it could be something else). Enthusiasm is great but it often overrides common sense.


 
You said it, just important *components*, not the full self-defence. There is no such full self-defence, that what the Gongsau Wong always said about fighting. Never expect that you will win a fight with no bruises, blood, scars, ....etc.

Just check the signature, its there.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 12, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Grappling and groundfighting skills are important _components_ of self-defense training. They are not the _totality_ of self-defense training.


 
No one here ever denied that. Yes, some people are incredibly stupid when it comes to defending grappling, same as other insist striking is all you need.

My point is, there is no such thing as anti-grappling, for the same reasons that there is no anti-striking. You either learn how to strike or grapple, or you don&#180;t.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 12, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> No one here ever denied that. Yes, some people are incredibly stupid when it comes to defending grappling, same as other insist striking is all you need.
> 
> My point is, there is no such thing as anti-grappling, for the same reasons that there is no anti-striking. You either learn how to strike or grapple, or you don´t.


 
I personally liked Wing Chun because you can do everything. In boxing, you are limited in using hands and punches above the waist. In Grappling, you must think of a strategy to grapple then apply locks and whatever.
We once had a ground figthing in a WT class, it was like a spar. It was done due to the fact that we must use the opponent force against him also in the ground situation. The nice thing in Wing chun is you have not to think as far as your reflexes guides you in punching and feeling, and using your opponent power + your own power to creates an impressive force. What I liked about old disciples of Yipman is when other styles said to them that we can perform thousands of moves to every attack, the disciples said: let the hand talks and they performed very simple moves and defeated others. I wonder why we lack such examples these days?.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 12, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> I personally liked Wing Chun because you can do everything. In boxing, you are limited in using hands and punches above the waist. In Grappling, you must think of a strategy to grapple then apply locks and whatever.
> We once had a ground figthing in a WT class, it was like a spar. It was done due to the fact that we must use the opponent force against him also in the ground situation. The nice thing in Wing chun is you have not to think as far as your reflexes guides you in punching and feeling, and using your opponent power + your own power to creates an impressive force. What I liked about old disciples of Yipman is when other styles said to them that we can perform thousands of moves to every attack, the disciples said: let the hand talks and they performed very simple moves and defeated others. I wonder why we lack such examples these days?.


 
We don´t lack those examples today. We have such examples in events such as Pride. Simple moves and efficiency, all within a minimum framework of rules - same as the old beimo challenges, except the Pride guys are professionals and don´t suck (remember that video you posted? I´ll believe those old guys in Hong King were good when I see evidence of it, not before).

If you are interested in a more hands on approach, you should seek out some Vale Tudo classes, most MMA gyms offer those.

I did that a couple of times, it was an eye opening experience - it was terrifying to see that neither my judo nor my MT or WC worked as predicted within the minimum set of rules present in Vale Tudo matches; but it was cool to see how I could actually adapt, put everything together, and come up with something that not only worked, but was also a reflex of all my martial arts experiences.

I heartily recommend that experience to any and all martial artists.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 13, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> We don´t lack those examples today. We have such examples in events such as Pride. Simple moves and efficiency, all within a minimum framework of rules - same as the old beimo challenges, except the Pride guys are professionals and don´t suck (remember that video you posted? I´ll believe those old guys in Hong King were good when I see evidence of it, not before).
> 
> If you are interested in a more hands on approach, you should seek out some Vale Tudo classes, most MMA gyms offer those.
> 
> ...


 

Wing Chun works if it were applied properly. I don't know how many time you spent training in the system. Bear in mind that proffessional Wing Chun masters never fights in rings or K1 matches, because they beleive that fighting is bad, and it is only for self-defence purpose. You will tell me about beimo, well, master Wong later said that fighting is not good, and he never advices students to go for matches except sparring, which you and me agree in its importance.

Some Wing Chun masters love other peple to kick them above the waist, because they are used to counter these attacks with finishing moves, and as I expect, how ever fast was any kick in Vale Tudo or Pride, it could never be faster than Bruce Lee kicks, so there is no problem even for advanced *students* to disrupt it. I personally believe that fighting a guy like Mike Tyson is harder than fighting those Kick boxers or Grapplers in my level of fighting.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 13, 2006)

Oh, lord.

You still believe kung fu masters are supposed to be enlightened people who don´t fight for fame and fortune, even though there are the beimo challenges, the Boztepe/William Cheung fiasco, and other examples such as these to contradict you?

Do you really believe Bruce Lee was a better fighter than the Pride fighters of today?

Excuse me, I have a bridge to sell. Interested?


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 14, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Oh, lord.
> 
> You still believe kung fu masters are supposed to be enlightened people who don´t fight for fame and fortune, even though there are the beimo challenges, the Boztepe/William Cheung fiasco, and other examples such as these to contradict you?
> 
> ...


 
Well, I mean that there are still people that does not fight although there is a championship fights. The Boztepe/Cheung challenge occured due to reasons that happpened at that time. I mean that testing your skills can be done by sparring. Not the ring or K1, because I beleive that those contests still is different from real combat. In the Beimo case, people were living in different environments with different mentalities. Wing Chun had to be famed throughout this way. Yipman always hated such Beimo, that's why he was hesitated to teach the Gongsau Wing Chun in the first place. While he if you read his Biography, you will see no boasting skill in any way he described about himself. The herioc events mentioned was only mentioned by witnesses who were his friends in Fatshan.

I hate fighting, and I always try it as the last solution for any situation. Many arrogant people were like you said boast alot about their strength and muscles, but when it comes to real fights, you will see them like chickens, not only they don't know how to fight, but they don't know how to stop being beaten.

Regarding the high level of fighting you were mentioning in those contests. I don't care how ugly my combat way looks, as long as I am overcoming my opponent. Why I should kick in a proffesional way if I can just kick someone in his groans and finish him. STRAIGHT FORWARD.

Never told me. How many time have you spent in training Wing Chun my friend?.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 17, 2006)

I did two years of Lee Shing lineage Wing Chun.


----------



## Flash25 (Apr 27, 2006)

JeffJ,

I want to address your original post. I have been involved with Grandmaster Leung Ting's organization since 1994. I've trained in both the EWTO (Germany) and The US, So take my opinion for what it's worth.

The Leung Ting organization is big. Some of Flying Crane's comments about empire building are right on. I have seen some evidence of that. When I was training in Germany there were a lot of students who just kinda fell through the cracks and advanced past what their abilities should have allowed them to do. This is a by-product of any large organization. You especially see this in the military. The larger the force the less trained that it is.

That being said, the art itself is top notch. It is, in my opinion, the closest of all the branches to what Wing Chun is supposed to be. I have not seen better concepts and applications of sensitivity and technique anywhere else. I have known people who have come from other branches of the WC family to study WT, but I know of none of the reverse. 

The people who really get it are near untouchable. I don't say this as some wide-eyed fan boy. I have a deep respect for what other arts, WC or not, can do. There are many ways to fight effectively and WT is near the top. The most difficult part is finding a good instructor. If you were in a place like Germany, this wouldn't be hard. Unfortunately this is not the case in the good old U.S. of A. There are a lot of good instructors here, but we just don't have the density that Europe does.

To sum it all up, you get a mixed bag with this organization. This is mostly due to its size. The system itself is excellent with a lot of top notch instructors and students. You also get some pieces of crap who spread blight throughout and end up leaving people with a bad taste for the org. and its practitioners.

Edit:

If you have any specific questions, let me know. Who is it that you were going to study with? I'd like to know if it is someone I may have crossed paths with.


Cordially,

Ben


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 27, 2006)

Flash25 said:
			
		

> JeffJ,
> 
> I want to address your original post. I have been involved with Grandmaster Leung Ting's organization since 1994. I've trained in both the EWTO (Germany) and The US, So take my opinion for what it's worth.
> 
> ...


 
What do you think of Sifu Thomas Mannes of Wing Tsun. I think that he is one of the best and I personally was in a seminar he gave. His punches and coordination is beyond imagination, some people say that his skill and experience is far above Boztepe's experience. What do you think Flash25?.


----------



## barriecusvein (Apr 27, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Excuse me, I have a bridge to sell. Interested?


i know its a little late, but bahahahahahaha :rofl:


----------



## Kensai (Apr 27, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Oh, lord.
> 
> You still believe kung fu masters are supposed to be enlightened people who don&#180;t fight for fame and fortune, even though there are the beimo challenges, the Boztepe/William Cheung fiasco, and other examples such as these to contradict you?
> 
> ...



What a ridiculous post, how can you know whether he would have been or not? This kind of reply simply backs up the comment I made about you on another thread.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> What a ridiculous post, how can you know whether he would have been or not? This kind of reply simply backs up the comment I made about you on another thread.


 
Hm, let´s see.

Bruce was much lighter and smaller than those guys.

Bruce´s grappling experience could not be compared to those guys. AFAIK he only had a bit of judo practice with Gene Lebell - and he got his *** handed to him by old Lebell (not that that is embarassing, Gene is a god of judo, but still).

Pride fighters are professionals who live to fight, coached by professionals, with access to videos and real life experience with pretty much any style of unarmed combat they care to research. Bruce was mostly a teacher who trained on his own.

Pride fighters can kick ***, as documented by hundreds of hours of video. There is no video of Bruce in an actual sparring match, championship match, or in a real fight (feel free to correct me on this).

Yes, it could be that Bruce was actually the messiah of martial arts, who could mop the floor with Wanderlei and Shogun while picking his teeth with Minotauro.

But frankly, I am willing to bet my car against a dime he was not quite in that level.


----------



## Kensai (Apr 27, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Hm, let´s see.
> 
> Bruce was much lighter and smaller than those guys.
> 
> ...



It's easy to bad mouth the dead, and as we'll never know, looks like your car is safe.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Oh lord. I can´t believe you still worship old Bruce. Let the poor man rest in peace!

I am certainly not badmouthing Bruce. I am sure he was tha man back in the day, and he could probably kick both our asses combined. But you just can´t begin to compare a small man with outdated training with Wanderlei.

(incidentally, and considering he was a sensible man, I am quite sure he would slap you in the head and say "of course they would kill me, look at the size of those guys!" if you asked him if he could beat them).


----------



## Kensai (Apr 27, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Oh lord. I can´t believe you still worship old Bruce. Let the poor man rest in peace!
> 
> I am certainly not badmouthing Bruce. I am sure he was tha man back in the day, and he could probably kick both our asses combined. But you just can´t begin to compare a small man with outdated training with Wanderlei.
> 
> (incidentally, and considering he was a sensible man, I am quite sure he would slap you in the head and say "of course they would kill me, look at the size of those guys!" if you asked him if he could beat them).



I don't worship anyone let alone Bruce Lee. Just thought it a strange analogy.


----------



## Flash25 (Apr 27, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> What do you think of Sifu Thomas Mannes of Wing Tsun. I think that he is one of the best and I personally was in a seminar he gave. His punches and coordination is beyond imagination, some people say that his skill and experience is far above Boztepe's experience. What do you think Flash25?.


When I first started training in Germany I, and the others that I trained with, revered Sifu Mannes, Sifu Ringeisen and the other old timers. Those guys were the original students of Si-fu Kernspecht and are amazing fighters. As far as Sifu Boztepe goes, at that time there was no one among Si-fu Kernspecht's students who could beat him. It has been several years now that he has been out of the organization and away from any personal training with those more skilled than he. It is possible that Sifu Mannes has surpassed him in that time.

If you want to see some WT masters at work, follow this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6yCVL31XEY&search=wing%20chun%20tsun%20kung%20fu

Cordially,

Ben


----------



## yipman_sifu (Apr 27, 2006)

Flash25 said:
			
		

> When I first started training in Germany I, and the others that I trained with, revered Sifu Mannes, Sifu Ringeisen and the other old timers. Those guys were the original students of Si-fu Kernspecht and are amazing fighters. As far as Sifu Boztepe goes, at that time there was no one among Si-fu Kernspecht's students who could beat him. It has been several years now that he has been out of the organization and away from any personal training with those more skilled than he. It is possible that Sifu Mannes has surpassed him in that time.
> 
> If you want to see some WT masters at work, follow this link.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you very much.


----------



## lai_si (Jun 30, 2006)

Page1 http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/leungtingscandal/06-29-2006111304AM.jpg

Page2 http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/leungtingscandal/06-29-2006111346AM.jpg

Page3 http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/leungtingscandal/06-29-2006111426AM.jpg

Page4 http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/leungtingscandal/06-29-2006111513AM.jpg


----------

