# False teaching and secret knowledge



## turninghorse (Jan 29, 2010)

I was reading this article linked in another thread:

http://www.twc-kungfu.com/articles/ikf_june_1997/1.html

I found it interesting. As I am training Duncan Leung lineage, which seems quite "traditional" in concepts, I can only assume that Duncan Leung was being taught the traditional system in private  when the students in the regular class were being taught the "Chan Wah Shuen" version. This is the only way I can make the timeline presented make sense.

Regardless of the veracity of the article, I find myself again confronted with another example of the one thing I find most distasteful in martial arts, and which is encountered all too frequently, specifically the selective teaching and witholding of "secret knowledge."

I believe this is slowly changing, but I still encounter it from time to time. I think it only hurts martial arts, as it leads to internal inconsistencies being propagated as truth which detracts from the art (though not necessarily the effectiveness)

The success of the student depends on dedication, training, and hard work, not the acquisition of knowledge of techniques.

On the other hand, in the case of Wing Chun, this dissembling ultimately gave us JKD, so maybe it is a force for evolution.


----------



## hunt1 (Jan 30, 2010)

Your assumption is wrong. Duncan learned the same basic wing chun as everyone else. William Cheung story is his own and only pertains to what he teaches. The story is very questionable but stories don't matter only results. Only William learned  Tradional Wing chun from Yip Man according to the story no one else.

 The most interesting part of his story is that while he was living with Yip Man and learning the special version of wing chun Tsui Seung Ting was also living with Yip Man in about a 300 sf area. In fact TST lived with Yip Man longer than anyone else. So for Williams story to be true Yip would have taught him while TST was sleeping in front of them. A heavy sleeper that TST never to have been awakend even once during all that time.


----------



## turninghorse (Jan 30, 2010)

Wonderful. History is fascinating, and often the truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## profesormental (Jan 31, 2010)

Greetings.

What I find interesting is that it is not enough for some people to get by by their own merit, and have to make up stories to legitimize their standing.

Lineage and such should be used only as points of reference for the development and the foundations of the "style" of the person. Also, to give credit where it is due.

Yet it is not a measure of skill. And skill is gained through personal effort, not given by a teacher, though if the teaching is good enough, it can certainly help a lot.

As I've stated before, I've seen many practitioners with "proper" and/or distinguished lineages that have nothing to offer except basics; I have witnessed practitioners with no lineage or a "mutt" like me, that have a lot to offer.

Interesting and entertaining stories. History is somewhere in the mix and in between all these stories.

What I do know is whoever put together the empty hand forms had a LOT, and I do mean a LOT of martial knowledge. And that is a fact.

And the names... Sil Lum Tao... the "Little Idea" form. Think about it...

What is everything made up of? The smallest things put together!

Fundamental particles. So that is why I translate Sil Lum Tao as the "Fundamental Form".

That is just ones of the secrets given to me by my "Secret Master" who is the one and only descendent of the True Wing Chun.

Want to know who that is? Ok... I'll tell you... you might know him.

Hard Training. He still teaches with his Kung Fu brothers Continuous Study and Real Experience.

I've learned a lot from them. And I guess many of you too.

Juan Mercado-Robles


----------



## mook jong man (Jan 31, 2010)

profesormental said:


> Want to know who that is? Ok... I'll tell you... you might know him.
> 
> *Hard Training*. He still teaches with his Kung Fu brothers *Continuous Study* and *Real Experience*.
> 
> ...


 
I know them , I studied under their two cousins *Trial* and *Error*.


----------



## BlueVino (Jan 31, 2010)

turninghorse said:


> I was reading this article linked in another thread:
> 
> http://www.twc-kungfu.com/articles/ikf_june_1997/1.html
> 
> ...



I wouldn't put a lot of historical stock in anything printed in Inside Kung Fu. There are a lot of stories, and a lot of people telling them.

To your second point, if a student isn't ready to learn something, I can't teach it to them. I can teach a concept a dozen times to a student and they won't be successful until they're ready to learn it (physically, cognitively, etc.) -- am I withholding a secret if someone isn't ready to learn it?

It goes for me, too... there are things that I _know_ I don't know, for example the weapons forms. I trust sifu's judgment to teach me those things when I'm ready. Are those forms being kept secret from me? I don't think so, I'm just not to that point yet.


----------



## turninghorse (Jan 31, 2010)

> Regardless of the veracity of the article



That was my way of saying I didn't believe it.



> am I withholding a secret if someone isn't ready to learn it



This is not exactly that with which I am concerned. It is more the holding back of specific techniques or ideas to certain students, or worse teaching "wrong" for some and the "true way" only to others.

I am sure this does not occur in your school, but it does happen from time to time.

Since Hard Training, Continuous Study, Real Experience, Trial, and Error are the true teachers, it makes no sense to me not to share knowledge, as knowledge without mastery gained through hard work is no more substantial than a blue print compared with an actual building.


----------



## yak sao (Jan 31, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> I know them , I studied under their two cousins *Trial* and *Error*.


 
I have also found *Pain *is a very good teacher.


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2010)

turninghorse said:


> This is not exactly that with which I am concerned. It is more the holding back of specific techniques or ideas to certain students, or worse teaching "wrong" for some and the "true way" only to others.
> 
> *I am sure this does not occur in your school,* but it does happen from time to time.


 
Well it _sure_ happened with my old Chinese sifu, and I think its more common in WC branches than most of us would care to admit. At least when I first met my former sifu in 1980, he openly admitted that certain movements and interpretations of his system were _his own_ and that was why he deliberately chose a different way of spelling his WC. I thoroughly respected this openess.

But later I found out that he was cagey and almost paranoid in the way he would withold information... Sometimes from us --his senior disciples (especially if we were short of cash or time to devote to promoting him) --and more often from lower ranked students and the general public. He published books and posters with deliberate errors, "just to fool the other WC people", he falsified photos and documents to suggest a closer relationship between himself and GM Yip Man than actually existed, flaunted a PhD degree purchased from a diploma mill, and so forth. 

The irony is that these _unecessary_ shenanigans lost him many devoted students and gave him the appearrance of being a total fraud in the eyes of many outsiders. Yet, the fact was that he had incredible skills, a unique and valuable system of WC, and a legitimate, if not especially close relationship with GM Yip. But by trying to be so clever in his excessive efforts at self-promotion, he lost credibility for himself and for his students.

Since I left that instructor in the early 90's I've encountered similarly ...er... unreliable claims and statements made by many other WC sifus and organizations, including many of the best known names. At least in retrospect, I realize that my former sifu did have terrific skills. Some of the other big names in WC don't. _But what good are a sifu's skills anyway... if he won't honestly share them!_


----------



## profesormental (Jan 31, 2010)

Greetings.

I've enjoyed the messages in this discussion, because withholding information and training methods, and comparing the results and working to improve them is a sure way in which the system will weaken over time.

Open discussion and examination of training and working to improve results, not maintain "how it was taught", should be priority. This is eternal growth. Eternal Spring.

For some reason, people don't get that hoarding secrets and not disseminating them is a sure way to be forgotten. Wing Chun thrives now because it was taught to a wide audience.

Now, with easy access to communication, it is the best of times and a great opportunity to increase our skills and knowledge. I don't know about many here, but I know that I've benefited greatly from the pooled knowledge from the discussions in these forums.

Keeping things secret would get us nowhere. In the 1960's, because there were so few, many shared knowledge. this led to the enrichment and improvement of many practitioners and their methods.

Doing this is the only way to surpass the ancient Masters, who most probably did the same.

Juan Mercado-Robles


----------



## geezer (Feb 1, 2010)

profesormental said:


> Greetings.
> 
> I've enjoyed the messages in this discussion, because withholding information and training methods, and _(not)_ comparing the results and working to improve them is a sure way in which the system will weaken over time.
> 
> Open discussion and examination of training and working to improve results, not maintain "how it was taught", should be priority. This is eternal growth. Eternal Spring.


 
This is a great point. Another thing that is harmful to the development of a WC is the dogmatic attitude the "this is right and that is _wrong_" when assessing how others approach technique, form, or training method. Certainly certain approaches yield better results than others, and may offer safer, more efficient solutions. But why can't we objectively discuss the differences in our systems from that perspective. In other words, when you see a technique or strategy that you disagree with, you would discuss it from a sort of risk vs. benefit perspective, rather than a dogmatic and authoritarian _"you're wrong and we're right"_ attitude, or worse, from a _"we know the secret and you guys are clueless"_ attitude. 

I guess this could be a good topic for a new thread. I hope you guys will chime in.


----------



## Poor Uke (Feb 1, 2010)

"There are no secrets in Wing Chun, just better use of basics" - Sifu Ward

A philosophy that I apply to my training reguardless of style (or sub style).


----------



## profesormental (Feb 1, 2010)

Poor Uke said:
			
		

> "There are no secrets in Wing Chun, just better use of basics" - Sifu Ward
> 
> A philosophy that I apply to my training reguardless of style (or sub style).



I couldn't agree more.

I would just add not only better use of basics, but improved and more optimized execution of basic movements. That is one of the most important aspects regardless of art, system, style, etc.

To me, that is what it boils down to.


----------



## profesormental (Feb 1, 2010)

Greetings.

Actually, geezer, I tend to use comparisons between stability in movements, and when I find a more stable, efficient, effective way to execute a movement, I adopt the training method to get there.

THe thing is that sometimes the differences are so small, they are imperceptible, except if I point them out. For example, the way I practice SLT, you wouldn't notice many differences except in the execution details... yet they make a WORLD of difference if tested under resistance and load.

More later, so I could give some examples.


----------



## dungeonworks (Feb 2, 2010)

Poor Uke said:


> "There are no secrets in Wing Chun, just better use of basics" - Sifu Ward
> 
> A philosophy that I apply to my training reguardless of style (or sub style).




That is a GREAT point when speaking of ANY style of Martial Arts.  In my Martial Travels, I have seen many students (seasoned and beginners alike) be so eager to get to a high technical level that they will speed through the basics to get to the percieved "good stuff".  The "good stuff" IS the basics, or at the very least relies upon a thorough understanding of them.

My ego aside....and for the record, at one time or another I have caught myself in that boat too. :mst:  The older I get (37 yrs old now), the more appealing the basics become.


----------



## dungeonworks (Feb 2, 2010)

profesormental said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> I would just add not only better use of basics, but improved and more optimized execution of basic movements. That is one of the most important aspects regardless of art, system, style, etc.
> 
> To me, that is what it boils down to.



Hahahaha...I posted almost the same thing before reading this! :uhyeah:


----------



## Tensei85 (Feb 3, 2010)

I think this Kuen Kuit is a good example;

&#25163;&#33050;&#30456;&#28040;&#28961;&#32477;&#25307; Sau Gerk Sheung Si Mo Jut Jiu - Hand against Hand and Foot against Foot, There is no "unstoppable technique".


----------



## El_Nastro (May 6, 2010)

turninghorse said:


> I was reading this article linked in another thread:
> 
> http://www.twc-kungfu.com/articles/ikf_june_1997/1.html



As soon as I saw William Cheung's picture in that article, that was enough to dismiss the article as worthless. You can't believe a word Cheung says. 

I wouldn't have a problem with Cheung if he was honest about what he teaches & where it comes from, but he's not. 

William Cheung is in the same category as Frank Dux, Count Dante, or Ashida Kim. 

First, what are Cheung's claims? Just in case some people don't know exactly what the controversy with him is, let's start by summarizing what Cheung's deal is....

Cheung's forms look radically different than all of Ip Man's other students, and his "Wing Chun" in practice is very, very different in terms of application. His Siu Lim Tao looks somewhat similar, but the resemblance stops there. What he calls "Chum Kiu", "Biu Jee", & his dummy form look nothing like any of Ip Man's other students. Why is that? Here's where things start to get fishy....

Cheung says his WC is so very different because he, and he alone, was taught a secret version of the system by Ip Man. 

According to Cheung, at some point Wing Chung was modified from the real, traditional, more-effective system of Wing Chun into a watered-down, less effective, simpler, weakened version of the system, and it is this "Modified" system that Ip Man taught to EVERYONE. 

The "real", "traditional" Wing Chun was just too precious, and too deadly to teach publicly, so Ip Man taught a fake version to his commerical students. 

Eventually though, Ip Man met a young, 10-year old William Cheung, and at long last found someone Truly Worthy to whom he could pass down the Traditional Wing Chun. Cheung says Ip Man invited young William to live with him, and it is there that the young Chosen One was SECRETLY trained by Ip Man in the One True Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu. Young William lived under Ip Man's roof training in secret for several years. Eventually, after the young man had mastered Traditional Wing Chun, Ip Man told him that now HE was the Sole Inheritor and Master of Traditional Wing Chun. Ip Man made young Master Cheung take a Secret Vow to not speak of his secret training, nor to teach anyone the Traditional Wing Chun until after he (Ip Man) died. When Ip Man had died though, William was free to speak of his training, and teach whoever he wanted. Then, at about the age of 18, the new Master of Traditional Wing Chun left Hong Kong for Austrailia. 

Meanwhile, while William was being secretly trained by Ip Man, Ip was teaching EVERYONE else the less-effective "modified" system, for NONE of them were worthy of learning the Traditional system, even guys who started before William. Even Wong Shun Leung, who started before William and added to Ip Man's school's reputation by competing in illegal bare-knuckle fights was unworthy. Even Ip Man's own sons were unworthy. No one was worthy except for William Cheung. ALL of Ip Man's other students were trained in the Modified system, and none of them even knew it. They all thought Ip Man was training them as best he could. He was not, for none of them (repeat: NONE of them) were good enough. 

So that's how Cheung explains the difference between what he does, and what everyone else does. And yes, this really is Cheung's story. He ACTUALLY claims this happened, in REAL life. 

What's wrong with these claims? Well, if you really think about them, they just don't make sense on any level. 

*Consider what would have to be true, if Cheung was telling the truth:*

*1.* Ip Man was a sleezy jerk who deliberately ripped off ALL his other students, including his OWN SONS. He taught all of them wrong on purpose. That makes Ip Man a jerk, doesn't it? How would you feel if you paid good money to someone for what you thought was effective fighting technique, but it turned out the guy was teaching you less-than-effective stuff on purpose?

*2.* Ip was crazy.

Why in the world would Ip Man only teach the "secret" kung fu to one guy with the stipulation that the secret stuff can then be taught to anyone and everyone after he died? That makes no sense whatsoever. 

If the system was so deadly that Ip Man only trusted ONE person (Cheung) with that system, then why is it ok for Cheung to sell it to anyone after Ip Man dies? 

Either Ip Man didn't want the system to get out, or he did. 

If he did _not_ want the system to get out, he wouldn't have told Cheung he could teach it commercially. 

If he didn't care if the system was sold publicly, then he would have taught it himself. 

It makes NO sense that Ip Man would say; "Here is a secret, deadly martial art that only YOU, William Cheung, are worthy of. I give this to you, and you alone! Teach whoever you want, but only after I die!" 

Makes NO sense. Ip Man must have been crazy.

*3.* Ip was senile _and_ crazy.

About a week or two before Ip Man died, he committed the forms to film. You can actually see Ip Man doing Siu Lim Tao, Chum Kiu, the dummy form, and the pole form on youtube.

If we believe Cheung's story, then Ip Man climbed out of HIS DEATHBED, in the throes of cancer, and put a watered-down, modified, commercial, crap-version of Wing Chun on film, so it would never be destroyed. 

One would think if Ip Man was going to do such a thing, he would've committed the "real" version of WC on film wouldn't he? After all, didn't he say it would be ok for Cheung to teach it after he (Ip Man) died?

If Ip Man wanted the "traditional" system taught after his death, and he knew he was dying when he made the film, then why wouldn't he record the real stuff, and send it off to Cheung for posterity? Why did he record the "modified" system?!?! 

Again, Ip Man must have been insane.

None of these things make sense. In order for Cheung to be telling the truth, Ip Man was a jerk who ripped off and lied to his students. Ip was also probably crazy. 


*But what if Cheung made the whole story up? 
Then all of these things are perfectly explainable:*

*1.* Cheung's forms look different because he never learned any WC beyond Siu Lim Tao. What he wasn't formally trained in, he made up.

This is consistent with the fact that Cheung's Siu Lim Tao looks basically the same as everyone else's, but his other forms do not. If Ip Man really taught Cheung a whole different version of WC, shouldn't Cheung's Siu Lim Tao look as different as his version of Chum Kiu and Biu Jee? It probably should, but it doesn't. Cheung's SLT looks basically the same, but his more advanced forms are radically different than everyone else's.

Cheung was trained in SLT, but probably received little or no formal training in Chum Kiu, Biu Jee, or the dummy. 

Cheung's versions of the other forms look like he cobbled them together based on what he could remember from occasionally glimpsing the activity more advanced students. 

*2.* Ip Man didn't rip off anyone. He trained everyone as best he could, and did right by his students, giving them all the best instruction he could. This is consistent with every account of Ip Man as given by those who knew him. The consensus is that Ip Man was an honest, honorable, humble, genuinely nice person who would never pull the sort of stunt that Cheung claims. 

*3.* Ip Man wasn't crazy at all. Cheung made up the thing about how "You can only teach the secret system after I am dead!", so Ip Man couldn't refute Cheung's claims. Cheung's whole story hinges on Ip Man, so if Ip Man's dead, he can't exactly set the record straight, can he?

*4.* Ip Man climbed out of his deathbed and committed REAL Wing Chun to film, because it was important to him that there be a record of his system as he taught it. It was his life's work after all, and it makes perfect sense that he would want to record it for posterity. Makes perfect sense if Cheung is lying.


So these are all the reasons that anyone can logically see that show Cheung is lying. But there's more than just logical reasoning. There's testimony.

Except for Cheung's students, NO ONE backs up Cheung on any of his claims. NO. ONE. I've been into Wing Chung for about 15 years now. I'm in an Ip Ching school right now, but I've hung out with some Leung Ting guys too. After 15 years on this scene, I've talked to a lot of people. Plenty of these people have been into WC longer than me, and NONE of them back up Cheung. ALL of the people I have known through the years who are plugged into the Wing Chun scene....ALL of them know, from conversations they've had, that Cheung is a liar. He started when he was about 14-15 years old, not 10. He never lived with Ip Man. He learned a little bit when he was a teenager, and then moved to Australia. 

Also, where's the evidence in support of Cheung's claims? Yes, there is a picture of him standing next to Ip Man, but all that means is that he was his student. There's no question Cheung took lessons for a few years. Having your picture taken with the sifu doesn't mean you've mastered anything - there's a picture of Ip Man like that with lots of his students. It only means the person was a student. There's a picture like that of Ip Man with Bruce Lee, & Lee never mastered WC. I have a picture of me like that with my Hong Kong trained sifu - it doesn't mean a thing.

Where's the evidence that Cheung was a live-in student? He says he lived with Ip Man for years, so there should be evidence. How about evidence that he actually started training when he was 10 years old? There isn't any. At all. You'd think that if Cheung lived with Ip Man for years, there ought to be a picture him in Ip's house. Or a picture of a 10 or 11 year old Cheung doing WC, or a picture of Cheung's area in Ip's house or the two of them eating dinner, or training, or SOMETHING to indicate he actually was a live-in student. Or maybe some reference from a 3rd party....like a letter from one WC guy to another where they mention "that kid living with Ip Man." If Cheung really started when he was 10, and if he really lived with Ip, someone would have mentioned it at sometime. There should be some form of evidence. But there isn't. Nada. There's NOTHING to support Cheung's story other than his word. 

And, a bunch of Ip Man's former students got together and formally refuted Cheung's claims. Keep in mind these aren't necessarily a bunch of guys that got along well, but they all put aside their differences and came together to refute Cheung's claims. Those guys were: Wong Shun Leung, Leung Ting, Tong Chao Chi, Lok Yiu, Ip Ching, Ho Kam Ming, Siu Yuk Man, Chan Tak Chiu, Tsui Sheung Tin, Koo Sang, Lee Wai Chi, Victor Kan, and Ip Chun. (see http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=250537&postcount=1 )

So what do you all think is more likely? That ALL of those guys are lying, or that only Cheung is lying? That ALL of those guys were just jealous, or that Cheung made up this little story, so as to make himself seem more attractive to potential paying students?

Then there's the Boztepe fight: If Cheung's telling the truth, and he has MASTERED the real, authentic, unmodified Wing Chun that's way more effective than the watered-down version, how come he got beat so handily by Emin Boztepe? I know, I know...."my slippers were slippery! He jumped me from behind!". Excuses like that are weak, especially when it was Cheung who issued an open challenge to fight "anyone, anywhere, at anytime"!

I've been beat before, and I don't make any excuses. I bet you don't, either. I've heard all the excuses, but it makes a lot more sense, when taken along with all the other information I just outlined, that Cheung lost because he really isn't THAT good, has very little formal training from his elders, and his system is stuff he made up. That's HONESTLY the best explanation as to why he got beat.

*On the issue of Respect:* It's not uncommon, when pointing out how full of $h1t William Cheung is, for someone to say something like "Hey, you should be more respectful!", so I have a couple things to say about "respect", and William Cheung.

William Cheung himself has behaved horribly disrespectfully towards his sifu, his former classmates, and his students:


*Disrespectful & insulting to the character of his sifu:*

Again, it is an insult to the character of Ip Man to claim that Ip would deliberately cheat ALL his students except for one noobie teenager. How would you feel about an instructor who did that? Pretend you're one of the guys who started WC under Ip Man before William Cheung. You pay Ip good money, you work hard, and you trust Ip's training to protect you. You're loyal to Ip, and train with him for almost 20 years until he dies. Then you find out that for all those years, Ip had been teaching you a less-effective, watered-down, crap-version of WC. Ip's been lying to you and ripping you off for almost 20 years! It turns out, he's been lying to everyone except one guy. The only person Ip taught was a newbie teenager who started after you did, and was only around for a few years! According to William Cheung, that's exactly what Ip Man did to guys like Wong Shun Leung and Tsui Shong Tin, and even his own sons! 


*Disrespectful & Insulting to his classmates: *

Again, pretend you're one of Cheung's classmates. How would you feel about Cheung? He says he's better than you. Did Ip Man teach YOU Traditional WC? No, he didn't. Why? Because you aren't worthy. None of you were. Cheung is better than ALL of you. Only Cheung was worthy because only he didn't suck. You sucked, so Ip Man didn't gift you with anything other than a watered-down, commercial product version of WC. 


*Disrespectful to his own students: *

This is the real bad part about Cheung's behavior. No one one walks into one of Cheung's schools knowing all the stuff I just presented. Most of his new students are probably new to martial arts, so of course they're going to be impressed and become emotionally invested in the school. Cheung will probably become their Kung Fu Hero. Eventually though, they'll learn about the controversies. They'll learn that their Kung Fu Hero has been lying to them. That's gotta be rough. 

What does a person do when they find out their Kung Fu Hero is full of crap and has been lying to them for months (or years)? 1 of 2 things: 

1. They can admit they've been played for a sucker and drop out of Cheung's school. This means they've just dumped a ton of time, money, & hard work right down the toilet. 

2. OR they can go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that Cheung's not really lying, or convince themselves that somehow his lies don't matter. Basically, they can start lying to _themselves._ Lying to yourself for years can't be good for a person's mental health. It's horrible for Cheung to put his trusting students in that position. 

Neither one of those is fair.

So Cheung's lies insult the character of his sifu, they insult his classmates, and it's horrible to lie to trusting students. Totally disrespectful in every way!

I would submit that if a person behaves like this, they don't deserve our respect. Respect must be earned through honest and honorable behavior, and William Cheung is, sadly, a most dishonorable and dishonest person. 

You know who does deserve respect? The memory of Ip Man & his many honest students. The naive students of Cheung also deserve our respect. We can give them the respect they deserve by not letting Cheung's disrespectful, insulting, and shameful lies go unchallenged. 

We should also have respect for the truth for its own sake. 

And lastly, respect for others is good, but one should have respect for oneself too. Part of self respect is not letting oneself get lied to or played for a sucker by people like William Cheung.

In conclusion: "Traditional Wing Chun" is a lie, and William's story is complete and utter b.s. 

What REALLY happened is more likely this: William Cheung took Wing Chun lesson for a few years in the '50's, beginning ~age 15 (_not_ age 10).  He definitely learned all of SLT, and _maybe_ parts of Chum Kiu and the Wooden Dummy. He moved to Austrailia. He wanted to set up shop as a kung fu teacher, and figured he could make more money if people thought he was a Great Master with some kind of Ancient Secret Deadly Kung Fu System. He made up "Traditional Wing Chun", and came up with a line of ******** about "secret training" & a "vow of secrecy" in order to cover his *** in case a REAL Wing Chun master should ever happen to point out that William's system has nothing to do with anything Ip Man taught. 

What's so stupid about Cheung's approach is that his bu11$h!t is totally unnecessary. Bruce Lee's background was similar to Cheung's: Both learned a little bit of WC, & both moved to different countries before they finished the curriculum. Bruce Lee was honest, though. Bruce Lee basically said "Jeet Kune Do is my own invention. There's some stuff from Wing Chun in it, but I never mastered Wing Chun. JKD is my own thing that I came up with." 

Look how successful JKD is! Does anyone care that JKD isn't a Secret Ancient Traditional Mystery Kung Fu? No.

If Cheung had simply been honest about what his background was, I wouldn't have a problem with him & might even be interested in his system. He chose to be dishonest though, so screw 'im.


----------



## geezer (May 6, 2010)

El_Nastro said:


> As soon as I saw William Cheung's picture in that article, that was enough to dismiss the article as worthless. You can't believe a word Cheung says...


 
Man, Nastro, this really got you worked up. Heck I didn't think anybody even cared anymore... especially since that time a zillion years ago when Emin Boztepe cleaned his clock. Really now. Take a few deep breaths and try to think of something pleasant.


----------



## El_Nastro (May 6, 2010)

geezer said:


> Man, Nastro, this really got you worked up. Heck I didn't think anybody even cared anymore... especially since that time a zillion years ago when Emin Boztepe cleaned his clock. Really now. Take a few deep breaths and try to think of something pleasant.




Lol. No, I'm not especially worked up, but I honestly do think it's important for people to know exactly what this guys claims are, and what's wrong with those claims. 

As far as "no one caring anymore" - sure, for _most_ people all this stuff is old news, but if you ask around it really is surprising how many people simply haven't stumbled across this information. There's plenty of people with a passing interest in WC who just don't know the story. What happens if someone like that happens to walk into a Cheung school? I figure it's best if people hear this stuff _before_ that happens, & there aren't too many definitive "exposes" on William Cheung. So I figured I'd consolidate the whole story/controversy into one piece.


----------



## geezer (May 6, 2010)

Well, I keep quiet and don't "throw stones" since I'm a former disciple of Leung Ting and I guess that kind of puts me in a "glass house" so to speak. On the other hand, regardless of what people may say, LT's "Wing Tsun" is a very good system indeed. It's the other stuff that finally drove me away.


----------



## blindsage (May 6, 2010)

Wow Nastro, did Cheung give you a wedgie or something to get you so dead set on outing him?


----------



## El_Nastro (May 6, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Wow Nastro, did Cheung give you a wedgie or something to get you so dead set on outing him?



Nah, but a guy's gotta have a hobby, right?


----------



## El_Nastro (May 6, 2010)

geezer said:


> Well, I keep quiet and don't "throw stones" since I'm a former disciple of Leung Ting and I guess that kind of puts me in a "glass house" so to speak. On the other hand, regardless of what people may say, LT's "Wing Tsun" is a very good system indeed. It's the other stuff that finally drove me away.



Yeah, the guys I learn from used to be LT students way way back, but for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with LT's WC they went elsewhere. 

His WC's fine though.


----------



## dungeonworks (May 6, 2010)

El_Nastro said:


> Lol. No, I'm not especially worked up, but I honestly do think it's important for people to know exactly what this guys claims are, and what's wrong with those claims.
> 
> As far as "no one caring anymore" - sure, for _most_ people all this stuff is old news, but if you ask around it really is surprising how many people simply haven't stumbled across this information. There's plenty of people with a passing interest in WC who just don't know the story. What happens if someone like that happens to walk into a Cheung school? I figure it's best if people hear this stuff _before_ that happens, & there aren't too many definitive "exposes" on William Cheung. So I figured I'd consolidate the whole story/controversy into one piece.



Hmmm....Willy Cheung's Super-Duper-Uber-Secret-Exotic-Wing Chun or  EBMAS.  I think I'll take EBMAS *any day of the week*!  I  just love all those lineage claims and Jesus-like "Sole Inheritor of the  Art" and "I'm so special I learned the REAL...." stories some of these  (ah-hem) "Masters" put out. :barf:

I also noticed mention of Wong Shoon Leung fighting in bare-knuckle  competitions.  Reminded me of all the times on the forum here that I  have read that Wing Chun was not meant for competition and can't be used  for it effectively.  My point?  I think some Sifu's are using that as a  copout as to why they don't "spar" or never competed and falsely  teaching that Wing Chun has no competition history when they infact do  in the form of HK roof top fights, various challenge matches in the 60's  and 70's, and a very small minority in modern MMA.  I still hunger for  actual videos of these or any other fights of Wing Chun in action, in  real time, at full speed.


----------



## El_Nastro (May 6, 2010)

dungeonworks said:


> Hmmm....Willy Cheung's Super-Duper-Uber-Secret-Exotic-Wing Chun or  EBMAS.  I think I'll take EBMAS *any day of the week*!



I'm _not_ Boztepe's biggest fan, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say...Emin did fight Cheung, and Cheung didn't exactly win that one. You'd think that after brazenly issuing an open challenge to fight and beat anyone, anywhere, anytime, that the Sole Inheritor Of Traditional Wing Chun would've made short work of a young Boztepe, but that's not what happened is it?




dungeonworks said:


> I  just love all those lineage claims and Jesus-like "Sole Inheritor of the  Art" and "I'm so special I learned the REAL...." stories some of these  (ah-hem) "Masters" put out. :barf:



In the Wing Chun world, Cheung is the only one who says those things (as far as I know). 

Now, in the larger world of martial arts, there's lots of other people that roll like Cheung....Frank Dux, Ashida Kim, Masaaki Hatsumi.

Hmmm....I just noticed that all the other "Chosen One"-type people seem to be Ninjas. I'm not sure what that means.  




dungeonworks said:


> I also noticed mention of Wong Shoon Leung fighting in bare-knuckle  competitions.  Reminded me of all the times on the forum here that I  have read that Wing Chun was not meant for competition and can't be used  for it effectively.  My point?  I think some Sifu's are using that as a  copout as to why they don't "spar" or never competed and falsely  teaching that Wing Chun has no competition history when they infact do  in the form of HK roof top fights, various challenge matches in the 60's  and 70's, and a very small minority in modern MMA.



Yeah, I see your point here & agree with it to an extent. At the same time though, there _is_ a difference between a sport-duel & a fight. WC simply wasn't put together with a ring-type situation in mind, & neither were most of the other kung fu systems against which it was pitted in those rooftop fights.  

Stuff like BJJ & Muay Thai have been adopted specifically for the sport-duel ring fight context, so they'll do much better in that context (all things being equal).

As far as "not sparring"...WC sparring is done out of chi sau. WC isn't boxing, so to criticize WC for not "sparring" like how boxers spar doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean, BJJ guys don't "spar" either - they wrestle around until someone taps out, but is that "sparring"? 

Now, if in a given school, chi sau is never practiced at a high level of intensity where both participants are trying to hit the other guy, then I think it's fair to criticize them for not training realistically. 




dungeonworks said:


> I still hunger for  actual videos of these or any other fights of Wing Chun in action, in  real time, at full speed.



I doubt you'd be all that impressed. I've seen WC guys fighting...& I mean actually fighting & winning against assorted other martial arts practioners as well as bully thugs off the street, & it just doesn't _look _cool. My guess is if those Wong Shun Leung fights were recorded, today people would laugh at them. "Those guys don't know how to fight! They look like school-kids!", etc.


----------



## profesormental (May 7, 2010)

The wedgie things was really funny!!

In the end it all boils down to how you and your group trains specifically and what is the focus of the training.

That means that the results depend on the Teacher, the students and the specific curriculum and drills done there, not on the lineage.

Since specific teachers can learn more and develop and evolve their martial skills and their teaching skills, you will get more (or less) effective, efficient and reliable results.

I tend to move in a verifiably more effective, efficient and reliable direction, and continually take risks and evaluate the results.

If I get students that learn faster workable skills and execute with more power, stability and strength than before, we keep that way of training. If not, we keep searching.

The thing is that we are now documenting what we do as to avoid repeating mistakes or inefficient methods.

Thus I can say I do things differently now. Yet I can tell you specifically why and the path how it got there and from where I learned what.

Hope that helps.


----------



## El_Nastro (May 7, 2010)

profesormental said:


> In the end it all boils down to how you and your group trains specifically and what is the focus of the training.



Pretty much. Some people honestly don't care about being "badass". They do kung fu for entirely different reasons, so criticizing them for not sparring often enough or realistically enough doesn't make any sense. 

On the other hand, if you don't train realistically, you have no business thinking you're some kind of death-machine.


----------



## hunt1 (May 7, 2010)

Wow! Pure Bill. Couple of things Nastro.

 He did live with Yip Man for a time. Tsui Sheung Tin was living there as well. That is what makes the claims more questionable than anything else. For the story to be true Ip would be waking Bill up and saying don't wake up Tin and Tin would have to be one hell of a heavy sleeper never to notice since they all were in the same room. TST was the senior that taught WC the most actually. If you look at WSL you will see he uses the same wide stance as William Cheung . There are other similarities as well. The dispute was not that WC didn't learn from Yip Man only that he was taught some secret stuff that others weren't. 

 Even this is not to far fetched. It was common knowledge that Yips private students may have learned more or were shown different things than those that could not afford the tuition. In fact just look at the differences among Ip[s students . In the end the only thing that matters is if you like what you learned and if you can really use what you learned.


----------



## Nomad (May 7, 2010)

El_Nastro said:


> As soon as I saw William Cheung's picture in that article, that was enough to dismiss the article as worthless. You can't believe a word Cheung says.
> .
> .
> .
> If Cheung had simply been honest about what his background was, I wouldn't have a problem with him & might even be interested in his system. He chose to be dishonest though, so screw 'im.



Geez, quit beating around the bush and let us know what you _*really*_ think of him


----------



## El_Nastro (May 8, 2010)

hunt1 said:


> Wow! Pure Bill. Couple of things Nastro.
> 
> He did live with Yip Man for a time. Tsui Sheung Tin was living there as well. That is what makes the claims more questionable than anything else. For the story to be true Ip would be waking Bill up and saying don't wake up Tin and Tin would have to be one hell of a heavy sleeper never to notice since they all were in the same room. TST was the senior that taught WC the most actually. If you look at WSL you will see he uses the same wide stance as William Cheung . There are other similarities as well. The dispute was not that WC didn't learn from Yip Man only that he was taught some secret stuff that others weren't.
> 
> Even this is not to far fetched. It was common knowledge that Yips private students may have learned more or were shown different things than those that could not afford the tuition. In fact just look at the differences among Ip[s students . In the end the only thing that matters is if you like what you learned and if you can really use what you learned.



It looks like we're in agreement on the fundamental point, which is that William Cheung is a liar. That being so, I don't want to argue, but I do have a genuine question, & a couple points. 

1. Where's the evidence that Cheung lived with Ip Man? I've never seen compelling photographic evidence, or 3rd party corroboration. In addition, I've heard at least one student of Ip Man flat out say that the dude never lived there. In addition to that, there's the VTAA letter where they not only make no mention of Cheung ever having lived there, but they describe his training as "intermittent", which contradicts the claim he was a live-in student. 

So....No evidence, no 3rd pary corroboration, and straight up repudiation from Ip's other students.


2. I think it's extremely far-fetched to suggest that Ip Man knew a superior kung fu system and didn't EVER teach it to ANY of his other students.

It's every bit as far-fetched as any other absurd "Chosen One" story. It's every bit as far-fetched as Frank Dux's "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" or his "kumite" stories. It's every bit as far-fetched as Ashida Kim's mysterious teacher, "Shendai". It's plainly and clearly a b.s. story just like all the other con-men's stories. 

Yes, there are differences amongst Ip's students, but Cheung's "WC" is really, really different. Look at the footage of Ip Man doing the forms. Compare those forms to any of his students. Despite variation, they're still recongnizably the same forms. Now look at Cheung. Clearly not the same thing. At all. 

In the end, I think that whether or not "you like what you learned and if you can really use what you learned" is _not_ ALL that matters. For me, ethical standards trump those other things. It wouldn't matter if William Cheung's training was more fun than Disneyland & made me more deadly than Rambo - ethical standards demand that I not patronize that man or reinforce his behavior in any way while at the same time not letting his lies go unchallenged.


----------



## geezer (May 8, 2010)

El_Nastro said:


> It looks like we're in agreement on the fundamental point, which is that William Cheung is a liar. That being so, I don't want to argue, but I do have a genuine question, & a couple points. - ethical standards demand that I not patronize that man or reinforce his behavior in any way while at the same time not letting his lies go unchallenged.



El Nastro-- I'd be the last person to disagree with the points you make. But one thing that makes this forum different from so many others is that we try not to be confrontational, and we don't go off attempting to expose other instructors as frauds. Otherwise we'd just end up being another trolls' den. Trust me, I feel your outrage... but just let it go, friend.


----------



## profesormental (May 9, 2010)

Greetings.

I think it would be useful to go back to the original questions that started the topic...

Is keeping secret knowledge a good thing for martial arts?

I think absolutely not.

The more knowledge and experiences are shared, the more we can learn and adapt to improve our training methods and skills in executing martial applications.

That is why I believe and practice the recording and codification of what I do and teach.

That way we can see what is done, why and the directions to make it even better.

Does the system that you use matter? I believe so. Yet it depends on what you want. And as was said before, not everyone wnats to be a super bad ***...

Yet with effective training, even if it is for less than a year, you can have skills that will improve your chances to survive a self defense type situation by a significant amount... against untrained assailants, not necessarily trained fighters (which you are statistically unlikely to meet).

It is important to make sure you get what you pay for and what is advertised. With the internets now, we have enough access to make an educated decision...

If you use unreliable stories to help legitimize yourself, instead of your skills, then it is up to the consumers to educate themselves... if they believe the stories, it is their responsibility.

We just have to concentrate in getting better ourselves so that if they ever want something better, we stay better.

El Nastro, I've been down this road, yet this is my experience. If you wanna know why, just send a private message. Interesting story... with a good ending.

Hope that helps.

P.S. I enjoy your contributions to the forum. Well thought out. Thanks.


----------



## dungeonworks (May 9, 2010)

profesormental said:


> ....If you use unreliable stories to help legitimize yourself, instead of your skills, then it is up to the consumers to educate themselves... if they believe the stories, it is their responsibility....




I feel this snippet from your post verbalizes EXACTLY how I feel about MARTIAL ARTS, not just Wing Chun.  Thank you for that!  Too many times Martial Artists use the "Sifu/Sensei/Sabunim says..." without ANY self exploration at all into any aspect of claims made about specific arts.  I wish you were local Proff. Mental.  I really do.  You would have plus one to your student enrollment!


----------



## dungeonworks (May 9, 2010)

geezer said:


> El Nastro-- I'd be the last person to disagree with the points you make. But one thing that makes this forum different from so many others is that we try not to be confrontational, and we don't go off attempting to expose other instructors as frauds. Otherwise we'd just end up being another trolls' den. Trust me, I feel your outrage... but just let it go, friend.




Geezer, I hear you.  I just wish my posts were not taken as offensive sometimes when I post legitimate questions or opinions that piss people off around here on occasion when my intent is seeking fruitful discussion.


----------



## geezer (May 9, 2010)

dungeonworks said:


> Geezer, I hear you.  I just wish my posts were not taken as offensive sometimes when I post legitimate questions or opinions that piss people off around here on occasion when my intent is seeking fruitful discussion.



Well there are two sides to every coin... unless there aren't. Anyway, some people are just way too sensitive. If your intentions are good and they still get pissed, further conversation should settle them down. If not,  ...the hell with 'em! LOL


----------



## El_Nastro (May 12, 2010)

profesormental said:


> Greetings.
> Is keeping secret knowledge a good thing for martial arts?
> 
> I think absolutely not.



I agree, & I think it's worth noting that whenever someone claims to have "secret knowledge", it's a dead giveaway that person is a con-man. 

The very concept of "secret martial arts knowledge" doesn't even make sense to begin with.  

I mean, if it's _secret_ knowledge, what are they doing advertising that they have it? What are they doing selling it?! How did they even learn it in the first place?

Nah...I don't even think there's such a thing as "secret knowledge". It's a b.s. marketing ploy. Always has been.  




profesormental said:


> It is important to make sure you get what you pay for and what is advertised. With the internets now, we have enough access to make an educated decision...
> 
> ...it is up to the consumers to educate themselves...



I agree with both of those things, and that's precisely the reason I wanted to compose and post the _complete_ story on William Cheung. I know I wasn't saying anything that hasn't been said before, but all this information is scattered and difficult to just stumble across. I thought it would be nice to put this stuff in one place so that people who _are_ attempting to educate themselves before they make a decision to learn Cheung Kung Fu have an opportunity to hear the story. 

I would also like to point out that people wouldn't be able to educate themselves if no one's allowed to talk about this stuff. 

The message is clear: don't talk about this stuff. I put nearly an identical post about Cheung up on Kung Fu Magazine forums, and they deleted it. I'm surprised the moderators haven't deleted this one, but I have been told to "let it go". 

_How on Earth are people supposed to use the internets to make an informed decision if the subject is verboten?!_

Before anyone says "Hey, they do fraud-busting at Bullshido" (again)...well....we all know what the Bullshido forums are like. It's 99.999% juvenile name-calling and "your mom"-jokes and insults. Skeptical inquiry and criticism and hard questions shouldn't be exclusive to _that_ context. 




profesormental said:


> I enjoy your contributions to the forum. Well thought out. Thanks.



Thank you sir!


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2010)

El_Nastro said:


> The message is clear: don't talk about this stuff. I put nearly an identical post about Cheung up on Kung Fu Magazine forums, and they deleted it. I'm surprised the moderators haven't deleted this one, but I have been told to "let it go".
> 
> _How on Earth are people supposed to use the internets to make an informed decision if the subject is verboten?!_
> 
> Before anyone says "Hey, they do fraud-busting at Bullshido" (again)...well....we all know what the Bullshido forums are like. It's 99.999% juvenile name-calling and "your mom"-jokes and insults. Skeptical inquiry and criticism and hard questions shouldn't be exclusive to _that_



Here at MartialTalk, we encourage skeptical inquiry and respectful, polite criticism.  This discussion has remained polite and factual; so long as it stays that way, and avoids name calling, personal attacks, or hounding demands for proof, go for it.

For more information, see The Rules at 4.16:


> *4.16.1 Fraud Busting*
> 
> Due to its nature, this forum encourages the asking and answering of  questions. Many times one member will have questions and concerns about  the history, skills, lineage, or paperwork of another member. In other  cases, things may be stated on a webpage, flyer or article relating to a  member that raises some questions. Sometimes, comments will have been  made elsewhere and those issues carried over to MartialTalk.
> 
> ...



If you ever have any questions about policy, you have several options.  You can contact staff via PMs, or you can send a message to _*MT Admin Team*_, you can post in one of the Support Forums, and the Site Owner, Bob Hubbard, has even listed his own phone number if you look a little for it.  

I hope this helps; we really want you to feel free to discuss things like this -- but stay within the boundaries.


----------



## Maurice (Jan 2, 2021)

If indeed they are lies, Let’s look at what types of lies William Cheung told and compare them to the to the lies that other Wing Chun masters tell. If William lied about how he learned what he learned and from who in order to become famous all over the world, big freaking deal LoL how many lies do politicians make??
William said he beat up 10 sailors on a ship let me say that again ”Sailors” not martial artists, for someone that is described by Bruce Lee himself as one of the best fighters in Hong Kong it would be easy to defeat 10 untrained men (the average guy can’t even throw a proper punch specially back then). Mind you on that ship William would have been the biggest and fastest guy there, he broke a record for speed punching in US university. In HK the gave him the name ”Big boy”.

Now for the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims of other masters and I’m just going to use two examples out of the the thousands of masters that ******** on their biographies.

Wong Shun Leung, this guy says he had over 300 bare knuckle fights and won. Nowadays we don’t even believe that Ip Man won 300 bare knuckle fights so why would you believe Wong did, btw remember William towered over Wong cause he was so short, it’s what we call little man syndrome going around saying you beat up 300 guys. Wong bad said some nasty **** about Ip Chun to another martial artist so he got challenged to fight on the spot but Wong chickened out, doesn’t sound like someone who fought 300 guys.

Emin Boztepe also claims to have won that magic number over 300 bare knuckled fights. In Europe were he wasn’t always the biggest guy and seriously the way he wrestled William to the ground was pathetic, if he won 300 fights he would have easily KO’s William or at least left a bruise on his face after he fell on him, there was no visible marks on Williams face after the photo shoot straight after the seminar. I wonder why that point is always left out. What Emin did to William no way would have worked on a bigger guy than him.

So what is worse bullshitting about beating up over 300 actual fighters with no rules bare knuckle or lying about your lineage to get spread wing chun to 22 countries??

William Cheung never went around saying he beat up over 300 actual fighters like the other masters, Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nung would have beat the **** out of Ip Man and Wong nobody will deny that.
William trained Anthony Arnett the wing chun fighter with the most amount of trophies than any other wing chun master.

This hate towards a master who has men like Bruce Lee saying he was a top fighter and spread wing chun to 22 countries when nobody knew what it was it the most PATHETIC thing I’ve every come across on a blog.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Jan 2, 2021)

A good teacher teaches you what you need, not necessarily what you want.

Assuming Yip Man was a good teacher, perhaps he gave each student the training tools and techniques he felt they could either do with more work on or capitalise on their strengths. each of them then wind up with similar basics, different  methods, and therefore each thinking they have the 'real deal'. which i guess they all do in thats its what they were taught.

Aside from that wing chun needs a fair amount of self discovery through training. no matter what someone teaches you its all just words until you experience the results of your labour. Varying amounts of guidance from a good teacher and as a result/combined with different interpretations, again leaves different people under the same teacher with different versions of things.

i think that sometimes what we think is hiding or keeping secrets is in fact maybe some wisdom on the teachers part. we might not be ready to know every detail and not every detail can be useful to us. as keen, hungry and passionate students this can be hard to swallow but whats more important is a deep understanding of the principles, a thorough, daily practice of the basics and trust in your teacher that they wont misguide you. which simply sucks if you are a begginger, dont know what your looking at and there are frauds around. its tough.


----------



## geezer (Jan 4, 2021)

If you win one fight with bare knuckles, that counts at least as 10 bare knuckle fights. That's because you have ten knuckles, right? If you take your shoes off too kick, you can count your toe knuckles too. If both participants are counted then forty knuckles would be involved. 

So if you beat up 30 pre-schoolers you could easily claim 300 bare knuckle victories and still not be much of a fighter.

On the other hand, Emin in his prime was a frick'n beast ...whatever you think the count was. Even today I'd still run away from him if I pissed him off!


----------



## Svarog (Jan 6, 2021)

Having "secrets" today is actually funny. If MMA taught us anything , it is that "secrets" are worthless in real confrontation. Secrets are nothing else but another way to take more money from students. Problem is, if style isn't taught properly, there is sill a room for hiding something, on the other hand , if it is taught properly it will be impossible to hide something. 
About Cheung, I have been involved in his style for 6 or maybe more years. He is a cult leader, although all kung fu styles have some elements of cult like behavior, but his TWC is full blown cult. About his style, I am not sure it can be called Wing Chun , or kung fu , or martial style, because what he teaches has no real basic foundation. No concept of body structure, no concept of power generation. Many of the hand positions in his style and especially way of conditioning them  seriously damage health. His teachings are superficial and honestly, insults for intelligence of average adult person. Over the years I had a lot of problems because I left that cult and was not afraid to tell what was going on while I was there. Everything from stalking me personally and my family and friends who are  totally unrelated to martial arts what so ever, to death threats.  If there is a person that personify all bad things in CMA , that is Cheung


----------



## geezer (Jan 11, 2021)

Svarog said:


> If there is a person that personify all bad things in CMA , that is Cheung



Please refrain from "fraud-busting". Remember, It is prohibited on this forum. I'm not a fan of William Cheung either, but let's not engage in personal attacks. My old sifu, Leung Ting was Cheung's arch-rival back in the 80's. Then BJJ and MMA came on the scene and made their petty feud seem ...well pretty _petty_ .  IMO, Leung Ting had some really good "WingTsun" and he also had his flaws. Some big ones. So what? We are hear to discuss our martial arts, not attack individuals!

So where are you know in your martial arts path? Are you still pursuing some branch of WC or moving in another direction?


----------



## Svarog (Jan 15, 2021)

geezer said:


> Please refrain from "fraud-busting". Remember, It is prohibited on this forum. I'm not a fan of William Cheung either, but let's not engage in personal attacks. My old sifu, Leung Ting was Cheung's arch-rival back in the 80's. Then BJJ and MMA came on the scene and made their petty feud seem ...well pretty _petty_ .  IMO, Leung Ting had some really good "WingTsun" and he also had his flaws. Some big ones. So what? We are hear to discuss our martial arts, not attack individuals!
> 
> So where are you know in your martial arts path? Are you still pursuing some branch of WC or moving in another direction?


I just shared my personal experience with Cheung, have no intention to fraud-bust him or anyone else. I have found old WC style without much outside influences, but these days I am more into white crane and Thai boxing


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2021)

Is it okay to divulge secrets on our forum? I hope so, hope I don't get in trouble for this....

Psst....if you drop your hands you're going to get punched in the face.

(Tell no-one!)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 17, 2021)

Buka said:


> Psst....if you drop your hands you're going to get punched in the face.
> 
> (Tell no-one!)


If you

- run faster than your opponent, nobody can punch you.
- lay down on the ground, nobody can throw you.
- kill yourself, nobody can kill you.

(Tell no-one!)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 17, 2021)

A: Why do you keep MA secret and not willing to share?
B: I only want to pass my secret to my own children.
A: But none of your children are interested in MA.

A: Why did you publish a MA book with solo form only but without MA application in it?
B: I want to keep MA application as secret.
A: 100 years from today, people won't think that you try to hide secret. People will only think that you don't understand MA application.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: Why do you keep MA secret and not willing to share?
> B: I only want to pass my secret to my own children.
> A: But none of your children are interested in MA.
> 
> ...


Mr. Wang, do you feel there are really any 'secrets' left?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 18, 2021)

Svarog said:


> Having "secrets" today is actually funny. If MMA taught us anything , it is that "secrets" are worthless in real confrontation.



Basic physics is a secret many will never understand. 

The real kung fu masters did, the fake ones didn't, and continue to not.

How does a person decide?  Combat.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Basic physics is a secret many will never understand.
> 
> The real kung fu masters did, the fake ones didn't, and continue to not.
> 
> How does a person decide?  Combat.


I agree basic physics can escape some people. But I believe that has more to do with how it (or any material) is presented. The simplest example I can think of is leverage. Trying to start out by solve the equation first and you are going to loose people. Sometimes they have no idea what the variables even are. The same is true in any leverage aspect of MA's I have ever seen.
I am an engineer who grew up farming so I used levers before I was old enough to get the simplicity of them all mucked up with complex formulary used in physics equations.
100% an area where the golden cookies need to be put on the bottom shelf.

Therefore I cannot identify this as a 'secret'. Pretty common knowledge now a days. Understanding how to use the information is the key. So now we are back to how well the instructor is at teaching/presenting the material and how 'natural' certain aspects of the material are to a given person. Metaphysical.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 18, 2021)

A lot of things in martial arts take lots of repetition with frequent and often subtle corrections, to optimize.  It takes a period of time doing this, before the skill really sets in and grows.  Sometimes the path is not intuitive or does not meet with preconceived expectations. 

If someone isn’t prepared to make a commitment to the process, then there isn't much point in showing them snippets, because it will not be meaningful. 

In today’s instant gratification culture, people often are not prepared to make that commitment, or simply expect that they have a right to demand to be shown whatever they want to see, whether it is simply for their entertainment, or to make a quick “judgement” about a method.

Some people aren’t willing to feed that mentality, and are not willing to share with those who are just tourists, not interested in making a commitment.

This can be misinterpreted as keeping secrets.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 18, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Mr. Wang, do you feel there are really any 'secrets' left?


Someone once said, "I will ask 3 questions. If anybody can answer all 3 questions, I'll give him $10,000." Today the answer for all those 3 questions can be found online. 

This is one of those 3 questions, "What is tie?"


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 18, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is one of those 3 questions, "What is tie?"



Are you referring to "bicep tie"?


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone once said, "I will ask 3 questions. If anybody can answer all 3 questions, I'll give him $10,000." Today the answer for all those 3 questions can be found online.
> 
> This is one of those 3 questions, "What is tie?"


I would need much more reference since there are several meanings. My best guess since you are asking me from a MA forum is a bicep tie. Where is my money?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 18, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> Are you referring to "bicep tie"?


I don't know what "bicep tie" is. "捆 (Kun) - tie" is a Chinese wrestling technique.

The funny thing is if you are a striker, you can't careless about it. Even if you are a wrestler,  to learn 1 less wrestling skill is not a big deal.

Another one of those 3 questions is "3 sections body control". Can anybody guess what it may be?

A: I know the secret formula of Coca-Cola.
B: I don't drink anything with artificial flavor and artificial color in it.

Something may be a secret to you. But it can be worthless to others.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 18, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know what "bicep tie" is. "捆 (Kun) - tie" is a Chinese wrestling technique.



Here's a funny little secret captured in that little glyph easier to see when it is unpacked.  捆 was coded in 1976 by Chu Bong Fu's Cangjie system as "carrying logs in a field", because the hanzi represents carrying (and eventual implied binding) of wooden logs, specifically.

捆  becomes 手田木.

How do you pick up and carry a huge log by yourself?  Fireman's carry.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 18, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Here's a funny little secret captured in that little glyph easier to see when it is unpacked.  捆 was coded in 1976 by Chu Bong Fu's Cangjie system as "carrying logs in a field", because the hanzi represents carrying (and eventual implied binding) of wooden logs, specifically.
> 
> 捆  becomes 手田木.
> 
> How do you pick up and carry a huge log by yourself?  Fireman's carry.


"捆 (Kun) - tie" is to use one arm to control your opponent's waist, use the other hand to pull one of his legs.

Here is another example of "tie".

- You are behind your opponent.
- You use right hand to control your opponent's right leg.
- You use left hand to push on his waist (waist control), force him to step left leg forward.
- You then pull his left leg (leg pull).


----------



## nikthegreek_3 (Jan 28, 2021)

I totally agree about false teaching based on things that would never work. And i definitely agree that teaching  "Active defenses" is the key to reveal the false teaching. As very clearly explained in this video:


----------



## Saburai (Aug 8, 2021)

Maurice said:


> If indeed they are lies, Let’s look at what types of lies William Cheung told and compare them to the to the lies that other Wing Chun masters tell. If William lied about how he learned what he learned and from who in order to become famous all over the world, big freaking deal LoL how many lies do politicians make??
> William said he beat up 10 sailors on a ship let me say that again ”Sailors” not martial artists, for someone that is described by Bruce Lee himself as one of the best fighters in Hong Kong it would be easy to defeat 10 untrained men (the average guy can’t even throw a proper punch specially back then). Mind you on that ship William would have been the biggest and fastest guy there, he broke a record for speed punching in US university. In HK the gave him the name ”Big boy”.
> 
> Now for the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims of other masters and I’m just going to use two examples out of the the thousands of masters that ******** on their biographies.
> ...


Hello everyone! I registered just so that I might contribute to this thread. I have been passionate about the study of h2h fighting and martial arts since 11 years old, I'll be 60 next month. My first exposure to WCKF was around 1979-80 studying briefly with Master Alan Lamb in NYC before he went to California. I've trained with Sifu John Crescione again briefly a few years later. In the  past nearly 40 years, I've trained in FMA under Guro Ray Dionaldo, Guro Mike Tetsu(WCKF&FMA), Guro Jeff Chung and others. Tai Chi under Master Bob Klein I've Boxed and done my share of full contact fighting and training in several other systems as well. I say this to provide a point of reference, I'm a life long beginner, a hacker at best. I've recently started training with Sifu Jesse Jones, a senior student of Master Anthony Arnett. Over the years I've heard all the stories about William Cheung and many other masters as well. My only comment is that if "the proof is in the pudding", and Sifu Jones was trained by Master Arnett, William Cheung taught some extremely effective techniques. Sifu Jones has some of the most effective actual fighting technique that I've ever been exposed to. Although his system of WCKF has noticeable differences from the other systems I've been exposed to, he can explain the reasons why and IMHO the combat effectiveness of their system is very,  very good.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 8, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> do you feel there are really any 'secrets' left?


IMO, a secret can be something that may take you some time to figure it out. But when someone tells you, it's just as simple as to use a finger to poke a hole through the paper.

For example, what's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 8, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, a secret can be something that may take you some time to figure it out. But when someone tells you, it's just as simple as to use a finger to poke a hole through the paper.
> 
> For example, what's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?
> 
> View attachment 27099P


Per the video, just unbend your arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 8, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Per the video, just unbend your arm.


Your opponent's fingers may dig deeply into your upper arm skin. Whether you unbend your arm or not won't make much difference.

Your opponent is controlling your balance. How can you reverse that situation?

Many Judo guys competed in Chinese wrestling tournament in Taiwan. Most Judo guys were not familiar with this strategy. I assume it's not commonly used in most Judo tournament.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 8, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example, what's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?


I've got some ideas for this unfortunate situation.  Once you get going around in a larger circle than the grabber, it is tough to gain control.  But being pulled like this is, in and of itself, not dangerous.  Kind of looks fun, actually.  The grabber may not have the skills to capitalize on the situation and after he's tired of pulling you around, you may be able to counter.

Next idea.  If you can, yourself, spin in a tighter arc and get inside the grabber's spin, you will find yourself spinning into his extended arm which presents several possibilities.

Of course, the best course of action would be to prevent the circular pull.  Note the victim is bent at the waist.  Had she not broken her structure and stayed over her hips, the attacker would have a tougher time taking control of her motion.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 9, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent's fingers may dig deeply into your upper arm skin. Whether you unbend your arm or not won't make much difference.
> 
> Your opponent is controlling your balance. How can you reverse that situation?
> 
> Many Judo guys competed in Chinese wrestling tournament in.. Taiwan. Most Judo guys were not familiar with this strategy. I assume it's not commonly used in most Judo tournament.


Watching the video again I would still have to disagree. The guy in the black shirt would regain most of his balance and foot position by simply releasing the grip by opening his arm, even if the hand stayed on his arm (by grip or fingers digging in). It would also very likely unbalance the attacker, allowing the guy in black to counter. I think it would have been really easy to but the attacker on his butt.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent's fingers may dig deeply into your upper arm skin. Whether you unbend your arm or not won't make much difference.
> 
> Your opponent is controlling your balance. How can you reverse that situation?
> 
> Many Judo guys competed in Chinese wrestling tournament in Taiwan. Most Judo guys were not familiar with this strategy. I assume it's not commonly used in most Judo tournament.


I kind of looks like the guy is giving up his side and spinning off into La La land.  So, to answer the question, I think if someone did that to me, I'd ignore his grip on my arm, turn into it so that I'm squared up on him.  After that, I could drive in for a single leg, or get my own grip on his arm with both of mine and just let his momentum help me turn it into an arm drag.  

What would you do?


----------



## Buka (Aug 9, 2021)

Saburai said:


> Hello everyone! I registered just so that I might contribute to this thread. I have been passionate about the study of h2h fighting and martial arts since 11 years old, I'll be 60 next month. My first exposure to WCKF was around 1979-80 studying briefly with Master Alan Lamb in NYC before he went to California. I've trained with Sifu John Crescione again briefly a few years later. In the  past nearly 40 years, I've trained in FMA under Guro Ray Dionaldo, Guro Mike Tetsu(WCKF&FMA), Guro Jeff Chung and others. Tai Chi under Master Bob Klein I've Boxed and done my share of full contact fighting and training in several other systems as well. I say this to provide a point of reference, I'm a life long beginner, a hacker at best. I've recently started training with Sifu Jesse Jones, a senior student of Master Anthony Arnett. Over the years I've heard all the stories about William Cheung and many other masters as well. My only comment is that if "the proof is in the pudding", and Sifu Jones was trained by Master Arnett, William Cheung taught some extremely effective techniques. Sifu Jones has some of the most effective actual fighting technique that I've ever been exposed to. Although his system of WCKF has noticeable differences from the other systems I've been exposed to, he can explain the reasons why and IMHO the combat effectiveness of their system is very,  very good.


Hi Saburai. Welcome to MartialTalk, brother.


----------



## Buka (Aug 9, 2021)

If I found myself being spun like that I would pray for three seconds of good country music to come from the sky. I don't do-si-do for just anybody. She has to be wearing cowboy boots and be on good terms with my wife.

Mark Twain said, "A man who picks up a cat by the tail learns a lesson he can learn in no other way."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 9, 2021)

Steve said:


> What would you do?


Let's look at the situation. Both resisting and yielding are not good options.

If you resist, your opponent will borrow your resistance force, change his pulling into pushing and take you down by single leg.






If you yield, your opponent will borrow your yielding force, continue his pulling and let you to eat dirt.






Your opponent tries to multiplane your balance with his grip (either on your upper arm, or on your shirt). If you use your

- right hand to control his grabbing arm,
- left hand to push on his elbow joint, and
- cut in front of his circular movement, you can take over his control.

This is the most logical counter to deal with circular running. It may take you sometime to figure it out by yourself. But if your teacher just tell you, it's so simple.

https://i.postimg.cc/BZFH5mtn/counter-to-tear.gif


----------



## geezer (Aug 9, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's look at the situation. Both resisting and yielding are not good options.
> 
> If you resist, your opponent will borrow your resistance force, change his pulling into pushing and take you down by single leg.
> 
> ...


In WT Biu Tse applications, we have a  similar drill in which the guy being pulled counters by going with the force and stepping dynamically with the pull while simultaneously executing a circling-plucking movement with the wrist to_ reverse the arm grab_ while augmenting the force to spin and throw the first guy.  He in turn would do the same, accelerating with the spin to do the movement again on you... and so on.

I don't know how well it would work in a fight, but practicing in an open area you would build up some real speed. Like whirling dervishes or circus clowns. Well ....anyway, it was really fun. Buka's square dance music would have been the icing on the cake!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 9, 2021)

geezer said:


> He in turn would do the same, ...


Of course when I grab your upper arm, you can rotate your arm clockwise and grab back on my upper arm too. In MA. there are many techniques that can be used to counter itself (one time someone punched at me, I punched back, our fists met). But that will be force against force, you pull me, I pull you back.

The better way is to borrow your opponent's force, you pull me, I push you. But I won't push you the same direction as your pulling. I push a different direction that make you to feel uncomfortable.

Here is a similar example. A arm drags B to the southeast direction, B pushes A to the southwest direction.  B's forward stepping interrupts A's footwork and prevents A from moving behind B's back.


----------



## Callen (Aug 9, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example, what's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?


How did the attacker in red shorts even get there? From a Wing Chun perspective, just hit the guy. The attacker in the clip leaves himself open, he even leans his head in as he goes for the spin. 

IMO the guy in black could have positioned himself to immediately punch with his left hand. The very second the attacker in red shorts went to pak the lead hand, the guy in black could have fired off his left, putting him a half-beat ahead of the attacker's right-hand. This is a good example as to why it is important to train proper elbow position so the hands can hit from where ever they are at any moment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2021)

Callen said:


> How did the attacker in red shorts even get there? From a Wing Chun perspective, just hit the guy.


- Both you and your opponent are on guard with right legs forward.
- You use your back left hand to parry down your opponent's leading right arm.
- You use your leading right hand to punch at your opponent's face.
- Your opponent uses left back hand to block your right punch.
- You use your right hand to grab the inside of your opponent's right upper arm, drag him, and start to run behind him.

When your back foot line up with your opponent's both feet, your opponent's back hand cannot reach to you.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 10, 2021)

Callen said:


> How did the attacker in red shorts even get there? From a Wing Chun perspective, just hit the guy.



Exactly! Well said Sir.

Not even sure what KFW is getting at...what does going around in circles have to do with the OP topic of false teachings / secret knowledge?


----------



## Callen (Aug 10, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Both you and your opponent are on guard with right legs forward.
> - You use your back left hand to parry down your opponent's leading right arm.
> - You use your leading right hand to punch at your opponent's face.
> - Your opponent uses left back hand to block your right punch.
> ...



Thanks for the breakdown. When I asked, “how did the attacker in red shorts even get there…”, it was more of a rhetorical question. I was thinking preemptively here, like to avoid getting into that situation all together.

So, to be clear, I’m looking at this scenario purely from a Wing Chun practitioner’s perspective. Immediately this should basically tell you that my solution for this problem is going to be quite different than what our guy in black is doing in the clip, respectfully.

In my opinion, an experienced Wing Chun practitioner would not stand static and firmly planted in guard with his right shoulder forward towards an attacker like you see in the clip. Doing that puts his opposite elbow and hand in a poor position to hit, resulting in the creation of a “rear hand” (or dead hand) situation. The guy in black is more or less rendering his left hand useless by way of his stance, which in contrast to my training, would be considered a red flag. Ultimately, the guy in black’s rear hand would also have a tendency to become a round punch if he was even able to put it to use. And as I'm sure you already know, in Wing Chun, we want to avoid indirect round punches, static stances and single hand/dead hand situations… for dozens of reasons that I won’t get into here 

A preferred Wing Chun based solution to the video clip could be to simply face the attacker with center forward, squaring the shoulders more towards the attacker for better elbow placement, and to free-up both hands. Add active footwork and you're set. Proper angling and position can allow for good elbow placement with both hands, giving access to immediate striking with the right and left hands equally. In this example, a skilled Wing Chun practitioner could easily strike with his left hand at the very same time the attacker in red shorts goes to Pak his lead right hand. In all honesty, this is considered to be a very basic level Pak Sau response. When the way is clear, we hit.

This is precisely why we say there is no “rear hand” in WSLVT. We train for this. We train to develop proper elbow placement for both hands to hit equally at all times. Everything we do is in the service of hitting. We have simple drills that we start from the beginning to develop good elbow to waist punching habits, proper positioning and responsive footwork so that each hand is always available.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2021)

Callen said:


> squaring the shoulders .


If your opponent uses the "square stance" that both of his hands can reach you, the "separate hands" will be a better entering strategy. You separate both of your opponent's arms away from his head and occupy his center.

In other words, when you can deal with both of your opponent's arms at the same time, a clinch can be easier achieved.

- In side stance, when I deal with your right arm, your left hand can punch me.
- In square stance, When I deal with both of your arms at the same time, you don't have extra hand to punch me.

There is a good reason that strikers use jab-cross to deal with a wrestlers. As long as the wrestler cannot reach to the striker's back arm, the striker's back hand can always be a threaten to the wrestler.


----------



## Callen (Aug 10, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent uses the "square stance" that both of his hands can reach you, the "separate hands" will be a better entering strategy. You separate both of your opponent's arms away from his head and occupy his center.
> 
> In other words, when you can deal with both of your opponent's arms at the same time, a clinch can be easier achieved.
> 
> ...



You posted a video clip and then asked, “what's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?” Was this a real question, or are you just baiting everyone into your narrative of hypothetical theories?

No offense, but you have completely confused me. From your response, I’m not able to make a connection to your original question about the video. Surly your goal is not to just argue against Wing Chun methods, because that would be totally counterproductive on a Wing Chun forum


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2021)

Callen said:


> You posted a video clip and then asked, “what's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?” Was this a real question, or are you just baiting everyone into your narrative of hypothetical theories?
> 
> No offense, but you have completely confused me. From your response, I’m not able to make a connection to your original question about the video. Surly your goal is not to just argue against Wing Chun methods, because that would be totally counterproductive on a Wing Chun forum


A: What's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?
B: In my opinion, an experienced Wing Chun practitioner would not stand static and firmly planted in guard with his right shoulder forward towards an attacker like you see in the clip.
A: I assume we are discussion when arm drag has happen and how to deal with it. We are not talking about how to prevent arm drag from happening. If there is no arm drag, there will be no arm drag counter discussion.


----------



## Callen (Aug 10, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: What's the best counter to deal with someone who grabs on your arm and drags you in circle?
> B: In my opinion, an experienced Wing Chun practitioner would not stand static and firmly planted in guard with his right shoulder forward towards an attacker like you see in the clip.
> A: I assume we are discussion when arm drag has happen and how to deal with it. We are not talking about how to prevent arm drag from happening. If there is no arm drag, there will be no arm drag counter discussion.


Fair enough, I really appreciate your explanation.

The way I see it, the circle arm drag started the very second the attacker in red shorts went for the pak on the lead hand of the guy in black. Wing Chun can interpret a counter as a preemptive action. Attacking the attack is part of the system, blurring the difference between offense and counter. Sometimes, waiting to counter an attack that you can see coming is too late.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 11, 2021)

Callen said:


> Fair enough, I really appreciate your explanation.
> 
> The way I see it, the circle arm drag started the very second the attacker in red shorts went for the pak on the lead hand of the guy in black. Wing Chun can interpret a counter as a preemptive action. Attacking the attack is part of the system, blurring the difference between offense and counter. Sometimes, waiting to counter an attack that you can see coming is too late.


Agree that the best solution is to prevent something from happening.

A: What MA skill will you use in a bar fight?
B: Don't go to a bar.


----------

