# Siu Bot Gwa



## Kwan Sau (Sep 1, 2014)

Anyone on here familiar with this? I think it has something to do with a particular stepping pattern(?). Thanks...


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm pretty sure that's from Choi Li Fut and not Wing Chun.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 1, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Anyone on here familiar with this? I think it has something to do with a particular stepping pattern(?). Thanks...



Siu Bot Gwa is the 4th form of Fut Sao Wing Chun. History >> Fut Sao (Buddha Hand) Wing Chun


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I'm pretty sure that's from Choi Li Fut and not Wing Chun.



That's what my initial research indicated but... I'm wondering what the pattern/geometry is? Is it a circle? Or some long intricate form from CLF? Or is it a more of a simple concept/idea of stepping a certain way with your feet but is repeated in 8 cardinal directions(?).


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> Siu Bot Gwa is the 4th form of Fut Sao Wing Chun. History >> Fut Sao (Buddha Hand) Wing Chun



Yeah, I read that. "Doesn't exist in other lineages" may be innacurate, but I can't know for sure until I learn more about it. You may be correct if it only exists (and your only referring to) a solo stepping footwork "form"...however until I learn more I can't say for sure. I read a WCI article about it but still need more info. Thx.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Yeah, I read that. "Doesn't exist in other lineages" may be innacurate, but I can't know for sure until I learn more about it. You may be correct if it only exists (and your only referring to) a solo stepping footwork "form"...however until I learn more I can't say for sure. I read a WCI article about it but still need more info. Thx.



I had heard about this form years ago and did some research on it...this was even back in the days before google so honestly there wasn't a lot to find.

From what I understand, it is the fourth form that Leung Jan removed from his curriculum way back when. Not because it was not a good form but because he felt it was redundant, as the material within it was contained elsewhere in the dummy, etc. and Leung Jan was all about simplifying from everything that I've read about him.

You won't find it in any Yip Man lineage as his teachings are descended from Leung Jan, but there are probably still mainland WC lineages that practice it.....I've always wanted to see it.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 2, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> Siu Bot Gwa is the 4th form of Fut Sao Wing Chun. History >> Fut Sao (Buddha Hand) Wing Chun



Didn't see this before I responded...
Hey futsau....can you fill us in on this form and give us some info on it?

Heck, you can even come to my house and teach it to me if you'd like....just sayin'


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

yak sao said:


> From what I understand, it is the fourth form that Leung Jan removed from his curriculum way back when. Not because it was not a good form but because he felt it was redundant, as the material within it was contained elsewhere in the dummy, etc. and Leung Jan was all about simplifying from everything that I've read about him.  You won't find it in any Yip Man lineage as his teachings are descended from Leung Jan, but there are probably still mainland WC lineages that practice it.....I've always wanted to see it.



Hi Yak. Yeah, I hear what your saying but, for now at least, I'm going to disagree because I think it did survive and is present in Yip Man WC. Can't say anymore until I learn more about it. Thx for the feedback though!


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Anyone on here familiar with this? I think it has something to do with a particular stepping pattern(?). Thanks...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A spinoff in 8 directions from mook jong footwork imo


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> A spinoff in 8 directions from mook jong footwork imo



I tend to agree Joy...Yip Man passed down some interesting tidbits that did not necessarily make it into the hands of some of his well known students. I think this may be the case with why that guys webpage throws YP WC under the bus and glorifies his other lineage. No disrespect meant to this guy...I know everyone is proud of their respective lineages and wing chun families...but he either was never taught this type of footwork from Moy Yat or Lee Moy Shan or they themselves didn't know it.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> I tend to agree Joy...Yip Man passed down some interesting tidbits that did not necessarily make it into the hands of some of his well known students. I think this may be the case with why that guys webpage throws YP WC under the bus and glorifies his other lineage. No disrespect meant to this guy...I know everyone is proud of their respective lineages and wing chun families...but he either was never taught this type of footwork from Moy Yat or Lee Moy Shan or they themselves didn't know it.


---------------------------------

IMO , Ip Man did not hand out a fixed formula of the whole system  to all of his students. Since then many of his students 
have learned/borrowed from each other. Ditto for some non Ip Man groups.
Many did not learn  biu gee from him. No harm done. He was a true martial art genius. Given changes in societies since Ip Man's death
..will be difficult ofr others to take a similar journey


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 2, 2014)

So I'm curious, does it deal with 4-front-4-corner type of employment like one might learn in tai chi or bagua or is it 8 leg methods stitched together in sequence (pak gerk, bong gerk, etc)?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> So I'm curious, does it deal with 4-front-4-corner type of employment like one might learn in tai chi or bagua or is it 8 leg methods stitched together in sequence (pak gerk, bong gerk, etc)?



I'm curious too Eric_H...hope to get some discussion going on this topic. We shall see...


----------



## dlcox (Sep 2, 2014)

*Xiao Ba Gua Quan*

Some lines of Yong Chun have preserved a 4th form, Xiao Ba Gua Quan, Ba Gua Quan, Zhuang Quan, Jian Zhang Quan etc. Many mistakenly presume that it is very secret knowledge passed on to only a few, this is incorrect. You need to realize that Yong Chun hasn't always had a Wooden Man form, the apparatus has been used from early on but a "form" wasn't developed until much later. Oral traditions state that prominent master Liang Zan in the past realized that this 4th form was simply a compendium of the other three sets and the material was used as a springboard in the development of the weapon and post forms. Some family lines that have been passed down before the codification occurred do not have a Mu Ren Zhuang form and instead have another empty hand form that contains the primordial material that was used in the development of the Post set. This by no means states that these systems are purer just that they simply didn't evolve the same.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

dlcox said:


> *Xiao Ba Gua Quan*
> 
> Some lines of Yong Chun have preserved a 4th form, Xiao Ba Gua Quan, Ba Gua Quan, Zhuang Quan, Jian Zhang Quan etc. Many mistakenly presume that it is very secret knowledge passed on to only a few, this is incorrect. You need to realize that Yong Chun hasn't always had a Wooden Man form, the apparatus has been used from early on but a "form" wasn't developed until much later. Oral traditions state that prominent master Liang Zan in the past realized that this 4th form was simply a compendium of the other three sets and the material was used as a springboard in the development of the weapon and post forms. Some family lines that have been passed down before the codification occurred do not have a Mu Ren Zhuang form and instead have another empty hand form that contains the primordial material that was used in the development of the Post set. This by no means states that these systems are purer just that they simply didn't evolve the same.



Excellent post, and thank you. I tend to agree! For example, some students under Yip Man must have been taught this stepping method(?) because it is seen (although not too often) in muk yan jong stepping patterns and mui fa jong and gerk jong patterns etc. It's just not "broken out" in a separate "4th form". This knowledge is not constrained to this Buddha/Fut Sao Wing Chun exclusively. 
Having said all that...I'd still like to know what Siu Bot Gwa is. An empty hand form? A stepping pattern? If so, what is the form pattern? Has anyone ever filmed it or have any diagrams of its macro/micro nature? Thanks in advance! Good discussion topic Gents!


----------



## yak sao (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Hi Yak. Yeah, I hear what your saying but, for now at least, I'm going to disagree because I think it did survive and is present in Yip Man WC. Can't say anymore until I learn more about it. Thx for the feedback though!



So you think that the form itself is still in existence within YM lineage,not just the material preserved in other places such as wooden dummy or tri podal dummy?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

yak sao said:


> So you think that the form itself is still in existence within YM lineage,not just the material preserved in other places such as wooden dummy or tri podal dummy?



No, my apologies. What I meant is what you said. I think the "idea/concept of" Siu Bot Gwa is alive and well in dummy and tripodal etc within Yip Man lineage. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> No, my apologies. What I meant is what you said. I think the "idea/concept of" Siu Bot Gwa is alive and well in dummy and tripodal etc within Yip Man lineage. Sorry for the confusion.


-------------------------------\\

IMO-iit's an eight direction patttern drill in 8 directions starting and ending around a central point.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> That's what my initial research indicated but... I'm wondering what the pattern/geometry is? Is it a circle? Or some long intricate form from CLF? Or is it a more of a simple concept/idea of stepping a certain way with your feet but is repeated in 8 cardinal directions(?).



The Siu Bot Gwa is unique to the Fut Sao lineage. It is very different from anyother lineage of Wing Chun. Ip man wing chun does have some foot work that we do but IMO it's incomplete. You need to peice together the dummy and the knife to get some of it. the form is like a square inside a circle. Every time we step we move 90 or 180 degrees around our opponent. Ip man wing chun only has 45 degrees and we have much more foot work we use the low sei pin ma, side steping horse the kneeling horse and others. We use the half step or steeling a half step and a full step which is a cross over leg stance.within each stance we have man leg traps sweeps and leg breaks. actually this is the hardest part of the fut sao system.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 2, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> The Siu Bot Gwa is unique to the Fut Sao lineage. It is very different from anyother lineage of Wing Chun. Ip man wing chun does have some foot work that we do but IMO it's incomplete. You need to peice together the dummy and the knife to get some of it. the form is like a square inside a circle. Every time we step we move 90 or 180 degrees around our opponent. Ip man wing chun only has 45 degrees and we have much more foot work we use the low sei pin ma, side steping horse the kneeling horse and others. We use the half step or steeling a half step and a full step which is a cross over leg stance.within each stance we have man leg traps sweeps and leg breaks. actually this is the hardest part of the fut sao system.



Look man, I respect what your saying about your current lineage (Fut Sao) but you need to realize that you come across as speaking for the ENTIRE YIP MAN LINEAGE when you make statements like this. If you had studied years and years under each of Yip Man's students then perhaps maybe people will take you seriously but until then perhaps you should say something like "the previous Yip Man lineage I studied did not have Siu Bot Gwa....etc etc". 
I'll never understand why people jump on the web and spout this stuff. 
Who told you or how did you come to conclude that Yip Man WC only has 45 degree stepping???? Who told you Yip Man WC does not have side stepping horse, or the kneeling horse??? Who told you that Yip Man WC does not have the half step or full step or cross over leg stance??? 
I have no issues with you or Fut Sao lineage, I'm just trying to understand how you can say such things, and even put them on your website from years ago, without a full understanding of Yip Man WC? 
I agree that perhaps the separate Siu Bot Gwa form may be contained in your family as you suggest; but can you elaborate on what it is exactly? I think the stuff you mention IS in some way still alive and well in the Yip Man families out there...but I'm still wondering exactly what Siu Bot Gwa is. If it is a family secret that you are not willing to share then so be it. I understand. 
And because the web doesn't convey tone and inflection, please understand that this is not typed in a rude way; just trying to get to the bottom of this and to learn more...thanks man.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> The Siu Bot Gwa is unique to the Fut Sao lineage. It is very different from anyother lineage of Wing Chun. Ip man wing chun does have some foot work that we do but IMO it's incomplete. You need to peice together the dummy and the knife to get some of it. the form is like a square inside a circle. Every time we step we move 90 or 180 degrees around our opponent. Ip man wing chun only has 45 degrees and we have much more foot work we use the low sei pin ma, side steping horse the kneeling horse and others. We use the half step or steeling a half step and a full step which is a cross over leg stance.within each stance we have man leg traps sweeps and leg breaks. actually this is the hardest part of the fut sao system.[/QUOTE
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ip Man wing chun families- several key ones- have ooodles of foot work.
> You apparently don't know about that. Sorry.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 2, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Look man, I respect what your saying about your current lineage (Fut Sao) but you need to realize that you come across as speaking for the ENTIRE YIP MAN LINEAGE when you make statements like this. If you had studied years and years under each of Yip Man's students then perhaps maybe people will take you seriously but until then perhaps you should say something like "the previous Yip Man lineage I studied did not have Siu Bot Gwa....etc etc".
> I'll never understand why people jump on the web and spout this stuff.
> Who told you or how did you come to conclude that Yip Man WC only has 45 degree stepping???? Who told you Yip Man WC does not have side stepping horse, or the kneeling horse??? Who told you that Yip Man WC does not have the half step or full step or cross over leg stance???
> I have no issues with you or Fut Sao lineage, I'm just trying to understand how you can say such things, and even put them on your website from years ago, without a full understanding of Yip Man WC?
> ...



You asked a question " what is Siu Bot Gwa" and I told you to the best of my ability. I have trained in Wing Chun for over 30 years. I have trained with a lot of people and have traveled all over the world meeting many wing chun masters from many lines so I talk from my experience not just hot air. You just don't like the answer i gave you.. I told you in a direct and simple way just like Wing Chun. Also,I'm the only one here qualified that has studied both Io Man WC and Fut Sao WC so I can make an opinion based on a direct experience. I don't think anyone here can. I like all lines of WC. I personally don't think one is better then another but not all are the same. Fut Sao happends to be different in certain ways. One way is its footwork. I would also say Ip Man WC is different in certain ways also. On way is it is more of a modern and can be explained in western terms unlike Fut sao which still uses the old chinese ways of thinking like the bat qwa, the five powers and so on...Anyone that really is interested in the footwork should come and seek me out. i will gladly show it to you. Ihave no problem with that. It's not a secret its only footwork that is different from what most are not used to. most would say its not wing chun....

One thing I like to add and make clear. "when I said IMO Ip Man WC footwork is incomplete" should not be taken as incomplete lacking in footwork,but meaning lacking a 4th form and additional footwork that is used outside Ip man WC.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 2, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> futsaowingchun said:
> 
> 
> > The Siu Bot Gwa is unique to the Fut Sao lineage. It is very different from anyother lineage of Wing Chun. Ip man wing chun does have some foot work that we do but IMO it's incomplete. You need to peice together the dummy and the knife to get some of it. the form is like a square inside a circle. Every time we step we move 90 or 180 degrees around our opponent. Ip man wing chun only has 45 degrees and we have much more foot work we use the low sei pin ma, side steping horse the kneeling horse and others. We use the half step or steeling a half step and a full step which is a cross over leg stance.within each stance we have man leg traps sweeps and leg breaks. actually this is the hardest part of the fut sao system.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> The Siu Bot Gwa is unique to the Fut Sao lineage. It is very different from anyother lineage of Wing Chun. Ip man wing chun does have some foot work that we do but IMO it's incomplete. You need to peice together the dummy and the knife to get some of it. the form is like a square inside a circle. Every time we step we move 90 or 180 degrees around our opponent. Ip man wing chun only has 45 degrees and we have much more foot work we use the low sei pin ma, side steping horse the kneeling horse and others. We use the half step or steeling a half step and a full step which is a cross over leg stance.within each stance we have man leg traps sweeps and leg breaks. actually this is the hardest part of the fut sao system.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inaccurate generalization about Ip Man's wing chun...for sure.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 2, 2014)

prove me wrong if I'm wrong all you have is a lot of hot air..


----------



## Rou30 (Sep 2, 2014)

According to Grandmaster Henry Leung, Fut Sao Wing Chun Kuen came from a very old system of martial and healing art believed to pre-date Shaolin. Fut Sao is a subset of an original Taoist internal system, that was kept within its own sect, but was lost and forgotten until it was rediscovered by the Venerable Hsu Yun, GM Henry Leungs Sifu (a Buddhist monk. The original name of the art was called Gu Yee Kuen or Ancient Fist). The Gu Yee Kuen system is thought to be the core or root system, on which other arts also came about. GM Henry Leung named the subset Fut Sao or Buddha Hand in honor of his sifu. 


Hmm, out of curiosity, if the origins of this style are said to have pre-dated Shaolin & even to be a sub-set of an Internal Taoist system, how exactly is this Wing Chun? 
Most lineages trace their lineages back to the 1800's, with a few stating that theirs are from the 1600's. So what makes it Wing Chun in other words? Because it has SLT/CK/BG? The history section leaves many things to question, but that's good in a way.


----------



## KPM (Sep 3, 2014)

*According to Grandmaster Henry Leung, Fut Sao Wing Chun Kuen came from a very old system of martial and healing art believed to pre-date Shaolin. Fut Sao is a subset of an original Taoist internal system, that was kept within its own sect, but was lost and forgotten until it was rediscovered by the Venerable Hsu Yun, GM Henry Leungs Sifu (a Buddhist monk.

*Emei!!!* *


* The original name of the art was called Gu Yee Kuen or Ancient Fist). The Gu Yee Kuen system is thought to be the core or root system, on which other arts also came about. GM Henry Leung named the subset Fut Sao or Buddha Hand in honor of his sifu. *

Henry Leung was Duncan Leung's brother, wasn't he?   Seems likely to me that Henry Leung knew Wing Chun, learned something else from his Sifu, combined it with Wing Chun, and viola!  Fut Sao Wing Chun!  Notice that the narrative above calls the "extra" that he learned a "subset."


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> Henry Leung was Duncan Leung's brother, wasn't he?



Really? Wow, hadn't heard that before. Interesting. Where did you learn that or hear about it? Would like to know more...



KPM said:


> Notice that the narrative above calls the "extra" that he learned a "subset."



What is a "subset"? How is that term defined? Like an add-on as you describe? Or something outside the "normal" curriculum of the three forms, jong, pole, knives etc?


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 3, 2014)

dlcox said:


> *Xiao Ba Gua Quan*
> 
> Some lines of Yong Chun have preserved a 4th form, Xiao Ba Gua Quan, Ba Gua Quan, Zhuang Quan, Jian Zhang Quan etc. Many mistakenly presume that it is very secret knowledge passed on to only a few, this is incorrect. You need to realize that Yong Chun hasn't always had a Wooden Man form, the apparatus has been used from early on but a "form" wasn't developed until much later. Oral traditions state that prominent master Liang Zan in the past realized that this 4th form was simply a compendium of the other three sets and the material was used as a springboard in the development of the weapon and post forms. Some family lines that have been passed down before the codification occurred do not have a Mu Ren Zhuang form and instead have another empty hand form that contains the primordial material that was used in the development of the Post set. This by no means states that these systems are purer just that they simply didn't evolve the same.


-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thx for your post.
Names! Siu, bot/ba/ gwat are just labels used by different systems. Also--- forms and drills- their meanings also vary. And wing chun "history" can be problematic.
Further "history" is muddled with in sufficiently substantiated but repeated  claims of very "old" roots of one's art--before Shaolin, "before Ip Man"," back to Leung Jan", "emei twelve",etc.
For myself- I mostly stick to the logic,the concepts, the mechanics, dynamics, the external and internal  and breathing of any martial art that I am interested in.

It makes sense to distinguish between forms and drills. Drills generally have some specific functions-footwork, handwork, timing,  etc.
A form is more holistic combining self timing, footwork, handwork, breathing, mind training-stage by stage and using Occam's razor to create a comprehensive package.
The great systems have only one, two or there forms Ip man always worked on simplification -cutting out many movements because the principle already was embedded elsewhere.The Ip Man wingchun I learned, practice and teach- already has bot- 8 directional work. The dummy work, the kwan and the do simply enhance and inform the hands. Bot/baqua is even there in forms of 
jing- multi directional explosive baquajing.

Chen taiji has two main forms. Ip Man's wing chun has 3 empty hand forms-- but they are inter-related- overt time they become progressive stages of one form. Thus the biu function is in all 3 forms.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 3, 2014)

It does exist, but it is greatly varied by various lines. Remnants of it can be found in the various lineages that claim direct lineage to Huang Hua Bao and Da Hua Mian Jin.

Short forms preserved:

1. La Jian Chui - Stretching Arrow Strike
2. Shier Sanshi - 12 Loose Techniques
3. Lian Huan Kou Da - Linked Capture & Strike
4. Shisan Sanshi - 13 Loose Techniques
5. Shiba Sanshi - 18 Loose Techniques
6. Jian Quan - Arrow Fist
7. Shiliu Sanshi - 16 Loose Techniques

Long forms preserved:

1. Xiao Ba Gua Quan - Small 8 Diagrams Fist
2. Ba Gua Quan - 8 Diagrams Fist
3. Jian Zhang Quan - Arrow Palm Fist
4. Zhuang Kuang Quan - Post Frame Fist
5. Zhuang Quan - Post Fist
6. Si Men Quan - 4 Gates Fist
7. Hua Quan - Flower/Variegated Fist
8. Shiyi Shou Quan - 11 Hands Fist
9. San Bei Fo Quan - 3 Prayers to Buddha Fist
10. Qiang Bao Zhang Quan - Mast Bag Palm Fist

All of these forms and sets can be accurately traced back to Huang Hua Bao or Da Hua Mian Jin and as such are considered ancestral. All other forms and sets outside of the above listed and the 3 standard (Xiao Lian Tou Quan, Chen Qiao Quan & Biao Zhi Quan) are considered modern developments coming into existence after the 1940's by either creation or imported from outside arts. Weapons sets and the Post(s) were poorly organized and not codified in any sense of a "form" until approximately the 1930's, hence the overflow of extra material found in the sets and forms presented above. After the codification of the post and weapons many of these patterns disappeared from several lineages in their ancestral form. Some lineages, though did retain them. 

Most of the long forms are simply a collection of the loose material and the shorter "unfinished" sets, some are simply elaborations on the 3 sections of the first set Xiao Lian Tou Quan. Mostly what they have to offer is further exploration of certain concepts and/or footwork. Yong Chun was originally a very simplistic art based on approximately 48 techniques bound and linked by various concepts, principles and theories. As with many systems of TMA "Forms" were simply a collection of loose techniques and theoretical approach, to be composed/choreographed into a "Set" once the adept had learned all the movements and theory. This is known as Kuang Lian (Frame Training) and is an old TMA concept that stems from military training. This can clearly be seen in Northern Chinese systems as well as in Okinawan Kata, ever wonder why two or more lineages that trained under the same master have two Taolu/Kata that are recognizable yet vary in length and choreography? Some of this is undoubtedly alterations made by those that passed it on but also because of the old "Frame Training" method that used to be prevalent before the WWI. The British aristocracy and the opera had a lot to do with the standardization of Taolu for performance reasons.

Irregardless these sets will offer little to individuals that learned a "completed" version of Yong Chun, for those who "didn't" they may offer some insight into various concepts. I for one have learned some of these sets and find them interesting and worthwhile, others may not, to each their own.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 3, 2014)

dlcox said:


> It does exist, but it is greatly varied by various lines. Remnants of it can be found in the various lineages that claim direct lineage to Huang Hua Bao and Da Hua Mian Jin....
> 
> Some lineages, though did retain them....
> 
> Irregardless these sets will offer little to individuals that learned a "completed" version of Yong Chun, for those who "didn't" they may offer some insight into various concepts. I for one have learned some of these sets and find them interesting and worthwhile, others may not, to each their own....



Wow! Thanks a lot for all that man. That is quite interesting!!! 
Question: how short is a "short form"? And how long is a "long form"?
Thanks again! Great discussion!


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 3, 2014)

dlcox said:


> It does exist, but it is greatly varied by various lines. Remnants of it can be found in the various lineages that claim direct lineage to Huang Hua Bao and Da Hua Mian Jin.
> 
> Short forms preserved:
> 
> ...



Sources for any of this?


----------



## dlcox (Sep 3, 2014)

The short forms range from 9-18 movements. The long forms vary from approximately 40-200.



> Short forms preserved:
> 
> 1. La Jian Chui - Stretching Arrow Strike
> 2. Shier Sanshi - 12 Loose Techniques
> ...



These methods are preserved in various lines stemming from Liang Zan, with the exception of Shisan Sanshi which is found in lineages stemming from Yi Jin and the Cao family of Malaysia.




> Long forms preserved:
> 
> 1. Xiao Ba Gua Quan - Small 8 Diagrams Fist
> 2. Ba Gua Quan - 8 Diagrams Fist
> ...



Forms 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 are preserved by the Tang, Lou, Dang & Ruan families that descended from Fang Shao Qing. 

Forms 1*, 2*, 3**, 5, 6 are preserved by some lines descending from Liang Zan. 

* 1, 2, In some versions of the history Liang Zan is the one who passed down the Ba Gua form.

** 3, This form was originally said to be a White Crane form that was possibly passed on by the Opera performer Li Wen Mao. According to legend it was passed on to Liang Zan and then Wu Zhong Su.

All in all these forms and sets are attributed to individuals from Liang Zan's time and earlier, making them ancestral sets. The differences in names are most likely due to the individuals that learned and modified them and not from the individual that taught it to them. I have seen many of these sets and can verify that many of them are expressing the same concepts, variances are in emphasis of preferred techniques and choreography. Some are simply a composition of the three recognized standard forms. 

That's enough information to get anyone started into further research, investigate the family sources for yourselves if you want more detailed descriptions.


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 3, 2014)

dlcox said:


> The short forms range from 9-18 movements. The long forms vary from approximately 40-200.
> 
> These methods are preserved in various lines stemming from Liang Zan, with the exception of Shisan Sanshi which is found in lineages stemming from Yi Jin and the Cao family of Malaysia.



Now I see you, they're part of the Gulo curriculum that Leung Jan taught. IMO, having see the few of these, they're drilling sets (working on hardware) vs forms (working on software). Sometimes that's said Siu Lein Tao vs. Siu Nim Tao, such as Yik Kam's system which is WC combined with some outside influences.



> Forms 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 are preserved by the Tang, Lou, Dang & Ruan families that descended from Fang Shao Qing.



That's Weng Chun, despite recent marketing attempts otherwise, it's a system separate to Wing Chun.



> Forms 1*, 2*, 3**, 5, 6 are preserved by some lines descending from Liang Zan.



Can you be more specific? Since you're using Mandarin romanization vs the more common cantonese for WC, research is a bit difficult.



> All in all these forms and sets are attributed to individuals from Liang Zan's time and earlier, making them ancestral sets.



Proof is in the pudding.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 3, 2014)

> Eric_H;1654346]Now I see you, they're part of the Gulo curriculum that Leung Jan taught. IMO, having see the few of these, they're drilling sets (working on hardware) vs forms (working on software). Sometimes that's said Siu Lein Tao vs. Siu Nim Tao, such as Yik Kam's system which is WC combined with some outside influences.



These Sanshi methods are said to have come from Liang Li Tai (Leung Lee Dai) whose material was used by Liang Zan (Leung Jan) to create the Gulao (Koo Lo) method. Much of this material is still contained in it's loose form in various branches of Liang Zan (Leung Jan) and Ye wen (Yip Man) Yong Chun.



> That's Weng Chun, despite recent marketing attempts otherwise, it's a system separate to Wing Chun.



No it's not, there is no such beast, the terms "Beautiful" & "Praise" were used interchangeably throughout the history of the art even by members of the same lineage. It's simply preference of verbage. What many call "Weng Chun" consider it a different art, it is not. Fang Shao Qing (Fung Siu Ching) is a legitimate ancestor of the art and celebrated by many lineages of Yong Chun, most notebly the Ruan (Yuen) family who were direct inheritors of his art. Fang Shao Qing learned from Da Hua Mian Jin (Dai Wah Min Jan) who trained alongside of Huang Hua Bao (Wong Wah Bo) and Liang Li Tai (Leung Lee Dai) under Liang Bo Liu (Leung Bok Chao), the husband of Yan Yong Chun (Yim Wing Chun). The Dang (Dong), Tang and Lou (Lo) families may have embellished their method with arts such as Hongjia, but they are legitimately a part of the Yong Chun family, no different than Chen (Chan) or Cao (Cho) families or anyone else that descended from Liang Bo Liu (Leung Bok Chao). The lines stemming from Liang Zan are simply the most popular, especially Ye Wen (Yip Man) line, but should not be considered the standard for all Yong Chun branches.



> Proof is in the pudding.



And if you dig a bit further you'll see that there are many differnt flavors of pudding based on the same recipie. Pick the one you like, because one isn't better than another. It all comes down to personal preference.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> I tend to agree Joy...Yip Man passed down some interesting tidbits that did not necessarily make it into the hands of some of his well known students. I think this may be the case with why that guys webpage throws YP WC under the bus and glorifies his other lineage. No disrespect meant to this guy...I know everyone is proud of their respective lineages and wing chun families...but he either was never taught this type of footwork from Moy Yat or Lee Moy Shan or they themselves didn't know it.



Forget about what the website says. Like i said in my other post if you take the wooden dummy footwork and the weapons and put it together you in essense have something similar. The siu bot gwa has spinning foot work in it where you turn your back to your opponent. Would a Ip man wc man do this?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Didn't see this before I responded...
> Hey futsau....can you fill us in on this form and give us some info on it?
> 
> Heck, you can even come to my house and teach it to me if you'd like....just sayin'


where do you live?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

No.its not that. its very simple actually but hard to do when using linear hand work. the body is like a dragon and the hands like a crane.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------\\
> 
> IMO-iit's an eight direction patttern drill in 8 directions starting and ending around a central point.


ent

that is only a part of it. there is no central  point as it in flux.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 3, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> where do you live?




Kentucky


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

I can only give you my opinion of what I think. this is an oral transmittion given to me so the information is not coming from me.I'm only recording and writing it down. the Gu Yee Kuen is not a style but a vast body of kung fu which include medicine,meditation and martial arts. Henry leung had many skills.this much I know because he was my sifu.and many of those skills had nothing to do with Wing Chun. What he did was reformulate what he learnt from his teacher and taught what people wanted to learn at the time what was wing chun. most of his first students ,in the early years came from Duncan Leung. when Duncan left NYC most of his student went to Henry to continue their wing chun training. What henry did was wing chun in every sence. If you knew him you would know. All the ideas and concepts are the same. Wing Chun is only a small branch connected to the trunk. So its all the same. there is no wing chun. It's an illusion.


Hmm, out of curiosity, if the origins of this style are said to have pre-dated Shaolin & even to be a sub-set of an Internal Taoist system, how exactly is this Wing Chun? 
Most lineages trace their lineages back to the 1800's, with a few stating that theirs are from the 1600's. So what makes it Wing Chun in other words? Because it has SLT/CK/BG? The history section leaves many things to question, but that's good in a way.[/QUOTE]


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Sources for any of this?



the siu bot qwa has nothing to do with this list


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Kentucky



a bit far from me


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 3, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Really? Wow, hadn't heard that before. Interesting. Where did you learn that or hear about it? Would like to know more...
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "subset"? How is that term defined? Like an add-on as you describe? Or something outside the "normal" curriculum of the three forms, jong, pole, knives etc?


henry and duncan are not really brothers they new each other and where in business together a long time ago but where not related. duncan and henry wing chun are very different. the complete opposite to eachothers


----------



## dlcox (Sep 3, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> the siu bot qwa has nothing to do with this list



From my understanding the Xiao Ba Gua Quan (Siu Bot Qwa Kuen) as stated by your lineage dates back to Miao Xin (Miu Shun) the teacher of Yan Ni (Yim Yi) the father of Yan Yong Chun (Yim Wing Chun). Who allegedly taught it to your Shigong. If we are to believe this story then the Xiao Ba Gua Quan is a remnant of old Yong Chun before the formalization of the knife and pole sets. There is another branch unrelated to yours that also has a 4th form called Xiao Ba Gua/Ba Gua Quan and they trace their origins to Fang Shao Qing. A generally accepted lineage of early Yong Chun ancestors is:

Wu Mei - Miao Xin - Yan Ni - Yan Yong Chun - Liang Bo Liu - Liang Yi Tai, Huang Hua Bao, Da Hua Mian Jin, Yi Jin etc. who then passed the art onto individuals such as Fang Shao Qing, Liang Zan etc. 

If we count Miao Xin as 1st generation, Liang Zan & Fang Shao Qing would be 6th generation. All of the sets and forms that I listed trace back to at least the 6th generation. They were either created at this time or passed on to them, either way, since the 6th generation is considered the last of the developer/ancestral generation, the sets & forms are also considered ancestral. If your version of Xiao Ba Gua Quan is not catalogued within this time frame it can only be considered modern or not of Yong Chun origin. So the long and the short of it is.....Is it of Yong Chun origin? If so is it classified as ancestral or modern?

I don't mean to come off as insensensitive, but there are alot of holes in the Fut Sao history that come off as promoting itself as "Older" and "More Genuine" with the hard to believe story of Gao Jih having studied with Miao Xin. This puts Henry Leung as 3rd generation while an individual like Huang Hua Bao is at 5th generation and Liang Zan at 6th generation, Ye Wen at 8th generation and etc.... See what I'm getting at, Gao Jih and Liang Zan were born around the same time. I'm not saying the story isn't true but there are alot of questions that need answered. One of the big ones being that there is no reliable evidence that the 3 standard forms (Xiao Lian Tou, Chen Qiao and Biao Zhi) exsisted prior to Huang Hua Bao, whom legend states, composed them. If this is factual how does a lineage not associated with him come to possess them? Older lines not associated with him have forms like San Bei Fo, Shiyi Shou, Hua Quan, Jian Zhang etc. which are composites of concepts found in all 3 sets. As I said I don't mean to come off as insensitive or rude it's simply a tough pill to swallow. I'm truely interested in your system, just looking for clarification.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 4, 2014)

Forgot to add this one, *Ba Shi Dan Da *(8 Techniques Single Hit). This is a common Jibengong found in many branches, with slight variences. Some Ye Wen lines still use it, can also be found in Ruan Qi Shan, Ruan Ji Yun, Yu Cai and Wu Zhong Su branches. A good simple set of Sanshi to relay/introduce basic Yong Chun concepts and structure.

There are certainly other Sanshi sets and more forms in the Yong Chun pantheon, these are simply the ones I was able to trace back to at least the 6th generation some went back to the 5th. Other sets like Bai He Tan Shui Quan (White Crane Testing the Waters Fist), Chang Long Hang Yue Quan (Long Dragon Travels the Moon), Cao family sets and Bao Hua Lian sets are suspect and require further investigation as research has not been able to verify the bulk of these forms as exsisting prior to 1930. This doesn't mean that these sets aren't "Authentic' or useful or that the others are more "Pure" and "Original" just simply that things evolve according to need and influence. All of the sets are just a glimpse into the "Toolbox" and genetic make-up of Yong Chun. It's truely a very vast art with just as much variation as Hongjia Quan and all its lineages, some of which by the way look in no ways related, but truely do stem from the same well. 

If one can let go of their predjudices, preconceptions and ethnocentic views, they will see that Yong Chun is a very deep well with great variences in history, tradition, philosophy, theory, mechanics and approach. No one line is the standard or the represenative, we are all one family, like it or not. If we can take the blinders off we may actually be able to learn something from one another or at the very least an appreciation for what others do. This has to start with humility, subjugation of ego and political agenda, tolerance, acceptance and truthfulness. Approach each other with this attitude and differences of opinion won't be such a negative factor.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> The siu bot gwa has spinning foot work in it where you turn your back to your opponent. Would a Ip man wc man do this?



I have heard som YMWC families do spin. How/when they would 'spin' is another story. But regardless, thanks for this info. 
So, if I take this 'spin' and also from what I read in WCI magazine on Siu Bot Gwa I can get a better picture of what it is. If I recall, you had several pictures of you and your student in that magazine, showing a step involving one leg/foot crossed with the other correct? 
Thanks again.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> ...there is no central  point as it in flux.



Futsao, do you mean there is no set geometric pattern to the siu bot gwa(?)


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> Henry leung had many skills.this much I know because he was my sifu.and many of those skills had nothing to do with Wing Chun. What he did was reformulate what he learnt from his teacher and taught what people wanted to learn at the time what was wing chun. most of his first students ,in the early years came from Duncan Leung. when Duncan left NYC most of his student went to Henry to continue their wing chun training. What henry did was wing chun in every sence. All the ideas and concepts are the same.



Very interesting. Thx Futsao. I did not know this part. KPM in an earlier post mentioned something about Henry and Duncan possibly being related(?). Had you heard that before? Did Duncan and Henry ever exchange WC knowledge or were they just all business? 
I wonder why Duncans NYC students went to Henry if there WC was so very different?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> a bit far from me



Perhaps a halfway point can be arranged between you two and any other interested parties for a WC weekend getaway?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> henry and duncan are not really brothers they new each other and where in business together a long time ago but where not related. duncan and henry wing chun are very different. the complete opposite to eachothers



Oh ok. Thx. Disregard this question in my other post to you. Thx.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> I have heard som YMWC families do spin. How/when they would 'spin' is another story. But regardless, thanks for this info.
> So, if I take this 'spin' and also from what I read in WCI magazine on Siu Bot Gwa I can get a better picture of what it is. If I recall, you had several pictures of you and your student in that magazine, showing a step involving one leg/foot crossed with the other correct?
> Thanks again.



yes..there should be more pictures but only a few where accepted and the sequence of the pictures are wrong but you can at least get an idea.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Perhaps a halfway point can be arranged between you two and any other interested parties for a WC weekend getaway?



perhaps...contact me and we can discuss it.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Very interesting. Thx Futsao. I did not know this part. KPM in an earlier post mentioned something about Henry and Duncan possibly being related(?). Had you heard that before? Did Duncan and Henry ever exchange WC knowledge or were they just all business?
> I wonder why Duncans NYC students went to Henry if there WC was so very different?



yes sure I have heard Duncan and Henry being related for the last 30 years. Since Duncan and Henry have the same surname and came from the same part of China they used to tell everyone they where brothers. People used to say Duncan taught Henry his Wing Chun,but that makes no sense as they had vastly different versions of Wing Chun. Henry pole and knife forms looked nothing like the Ip Man version and I have never seen anything even close to it,so I would say it comes from a different source. I'm sure that Henry and Duncan exchanged some knowledge. When your friends and both are martial artists its only natural,but to what extent i don't know.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Very interesting. Thx Futsao. I did not know this part. KPM in an earlier post mentioned something about Henry and Duncan possibly being related(?). Had you heard that before? Did Duncan and Henry ever exchange WC knowledge or were they just all business?
> I wonder why Duncans NYC students went to Henry if there WC was so very different?



"I wonder why Duncans NYC students went to Henry if there WC was so very different?"

Well this is a long time ago.Back then not many wing chun where around not like today. But Henry was at that time a very skillful martial artists.When I met him I was very impressed with his skills. One thing About Henry he would chi sao with anyone who came to his  school,most wc sifu wont do that they will let their stainingudent do it and he will watch. Henry was very hands one always training with all his students.​


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Futsao, do you mean there is no set geometric pattern to the siu bot gwa(?)



No,what I mean is the central point can change.

 The footwork is simple,a square inside a circle. every time you step around your opponent(in a circular fashion) you hit one one side of the square.so it takes 4 steps to make a complete 360 degrees to make one pass. this is one type of stepping patterns there are others. what makes it wing chun is you keep the facing principles and the centerline intact. this does not change. you at times temp discard this.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> No,what I mean is the central point can change.
> 
> The footwork is simple,a square inside a circle. every time you step around your opponent(in a circular fashion) you hit one one side of the square.so it takes 4 steps to make a complete 360 degrees to make one pass. this is one type of stepping patterns there are others. what makes it wing chun is you keep the facing principles and the centerline intact. this does not change. you at times temp discard this.



Ok, thanks. That helps a bit. 
Is your sifu (Henry) still alive and teaching or...?


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 4, 2014)

dlcox said:


> These Sanshi methods are said to have come from Liang Li Tai (Leung Lee Dai) whose material was used by Liang Zan (Leung Jan) to create the Gulao (Koo Lo) method. Much of this material is still contained in it's loose form in various branches of Liang Zan (Leung Jan) and Ye wen (Yip Man) Yong Chun.



That's the first I've heard them credited to Leung Yi Tai, not saying it's not possible, just that I haven't heard it. Where'd this info come from?



> No it's not, there is no such beast, the terms "Beautiful" & "Praise" were used interchangeably throughout the history of the art even by members of the same lineage. It's simply preference of verbage. What many call "Weng Chun" consider it a different art, it is not. Fang Shao Qing (Fung Siu Ching) is a legitimate ancestor of the art and celebrated by many lineages of Yong Chun, most notebly the Ruan (Yuen) family who were direct inheritors of his art. Fang Shao Qing learned from Da Hua Mian Jin (Dai Wah Min Jan) who trained alongside of Huang Hua Bao (Wong Wah Bo) and Liang Li Tai (Leung Lee Dai) under Liang Bo Liu (Leung Bok Chao), the husband of Yan Yong Chun (Yim Wing Chun). The Dang (Dong), Tang and Lou (Lo) families may have embellished their method with arts such as Hongjia, but they are legitimately a part of the Yong Chun family, no different than Chen (Chan) or Cao (Cho) families or anyone else that descended from Liang Bo Liu (Leung Bok Chao). The lines stemming from Liang Zan are simply the most popular, especially Ye Wen (Yip Man) line, but should not be considered the standard for all Yong Chun branches.



I've trained both, they're different down to the very core. The training methods, body framework and principles and concepts don't match in a significant way. There was some intermingling in the Leung Bik/Yip Man timeframe, but I've not seen anything credible before that.



> And if you dig a bit further you'll see that there are many differnt flavors of pudding based on the same recipie. Pick the one you like, because one isn't better than another. It all comes down to personal preference.



No, it all comes down to the core principals, concepts and body engine that drives WC vs any other martial art.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

dlcox said:


> From my understanding the Xiao Ba Gua Quan (Siu Bot Qwa Kuen) as stated by your lineage dates back to Miao Xin (Miu Shun) the teacher of Yan Ni (Yim Yi) the father of Yan Yong Chun (Yim Wing Chun). Who allegedly taught it to your Shigong. If we are to believe this story then the Xiao Ba Gua Quan is a remnant of old Yong Chun before the formalization of the knife and pole sets. There is another branch unrelated to yours that also has a 4th form called Xiao Ba Gua/Ba Gua Quan and they trace their origins to Fang Shao Qing. A generally accepted lineage of early Yong Chun ancestors is:
> 
> Wu Mei - Miao Xin - Yan Ni - Yan Yong Chun - Liang Bo Liu - Liang Yi Tai, Huang Hua Bao, Da Hua Mian Jin, Yi Jin etc. who then passed the art onto individuals such as Fang Shao Qing, Liang Zan etc.
> 
> ...


acher
e aw
I know there are holes in the history of Fut Sao. Its mostly been passed down to us not by documents but by stories from teacher to student. We do have all the forms in fut sao intact. So the best way is to just study it and decide for your self. Sadly, Henry Leung has passes away and only myself  and a few continue to teach his art. How and why Xun Yun learned the Gu Yee Kuen has never been written down. I have heard the story but I wont speak of it. I dont think most people will believe it anyway so better to just let it fade away.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Sep 4, 2014)

From my research the siu bot gwa footworks are hidden in all authentic wck linages, but are never explained to the same extent as in Fut Sao wck. So many never fully grasp the full understanding of how they are applied.



dlcox said:


> There is another branch unrelated to yours that also has a 4th form called Xiao Ba Gua/Ba Gua Quan and they trace their origins to Fang Shao Qing.



Which branch of wing chun are you referring to? Is there a link to this linage of wing chun?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Ok, thanks. That helps a bit.
> Is your sifu (Henry) still alive and teaching or...?



No, he passed away in 2011


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> No, he passed away in 2011



Oh, sorry to hear that. 
And you say now, there are just a handful or so of you passing his art along? 
Mostly in the US or...?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 4, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Oh, sorry to hear that.
> And you say now, there are just a handful or so of you passing his art along?
> Mostly in the US or...?



In the U.S. I know of only 5 people. 3 of them are in NY  1 in D.E. one in  Chicago,and there is one guy in Germany who trained with Henry but I never met him and I don't think he completed his training. Sifu James Cama taught Fut Sao for years. I also was a student of Sifu Cama, but he recently passed away a few weeks ago.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 4, 2014)

> Eric_H said:
> 
> 
> > That's the first I've heard them credited to Leung Yi Tai, not saying it's not possible, just that I haven't heard it. Where'd this info come from?
> ...


----------



## dlcox (Sep 4, 2014)

futsaowingchun said:


> acher
> e aw
> I know there are holes in the history of Fut Sao. Its mostly been passed down to us not by documents but by stories from teacher to student. We do have all the forms in fut sao intact. So the best way is to just study it and decide for your self. Sadly, Henry Leung has passes away and only myself  and a few continue to teach his art. How and why Xun Yun learned the Gu Yee Kuen has never been written down. I have heard the story but I wont speak of it. I dont think most people will believe it anyway so better to just let it fade away.



I understand completely it could turn into quite the rabbit hole, thanks.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 4, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> From my research the siu bot gwa footworks are hidden in all authentic wck linages, but are never explained to the same extent as in Fut Sao wck. So many never fully grasp the full understanding of how they are applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Which branch of wing chun are you referring to? Is there a link to this linage of wing chun?



I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that it is the Chen Lu Guai (Lo Kwai) branch. He was an early student of Liang Zan and he originally learned one form with 4 sections, the 4th section called Xiao Ba Gua. I think this branch went to Taiwan. I don't know much more than that.


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 4, 2014)

dlcox said:


> > Liang Zan is the only one known to have passed down an entire system based on Sanshi, he credits this to Liang Yi Tai in all the oral legends. Many of the branches stemming from Liang Zan state the same in their histories. Most of the short sets and Sanshi are fundamentally the same as what is found at Gulao, leading one to conclude that they are of the same source.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dlcox (Sep 4, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Andreas may not be as qualified as he led people to believe, but video of other family's practitioners reveal a similar body engine. Whether or not he modified the strategy to favor his own personal MA background - I'll leave that up to the Chi Sim people to argue. Fact is they still use an animal style bending body, which is not what Wing Chun is about. You may not be aware, but there was a lot of pressure about 10-15 years ago to create a link between Weng Chun and Hung Kuen too, AFAIK, they ran into the same thing - nobody credible in Hung Kuen circles would accept it. It also depends which Yongchun you're referring to - more than one art bears that name. They are not all the same thing.



I'm aware of the controversy and agree with your statements concerning Mr. Hoffman. "Weng Chun's" ancestral root is IMO not Hongjia, it and other sytems were used to embellish Yong Chun. This is also clearly seen in the Vietnamese Yong Chun, where "Animal" concepts were incorporated. But, simply because different concepts were utlized to express certain principles and theories this shouldn't eliminate these branches from the family tree, things evolve. Pao Fa Lien, Chan Yiu Min, Yuen Chai Wan, Yik Kam all express Yong Chun different from Yip Man style. Pao Fa Lien and Yuen Chai Wan actually are closer in appearence and concept to "Weng Chun" than "Wing Chun" yet no one regards them as not being "Wing Chun". Plenty of branches express an "Animal" flavor.





> No, it is much more than semantics. Chasing Ti Da Shuai Na only puts you in a technique driven level, as there are a million ways to execute those four ideas in combat. Also, none of them are specific to WC, you can do all 4 with Choi Lei Fut, Bak Mei, Praying Mantis etc. WC is unique in the idea of it's software (concept and principle) and hardware (body structure) supporting one another (Centerline, Ying Lik, etc). While we have lineage and personal understanding based arguments over the right way to do some of these things, there are common constants such as maintaining and regaining an upright posture driven by Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma - this is not the modus operandi of any Weng Chun I have trained or seen. No self centerline = No Wing Chun.



Yong Chun theory is not unique, it was not created in a vaccuum, many southern arts utilize the theories and principles found in Yong Chun. Some northern arts do as well. Everyone has different interpretations of what they feel is the correct method and true understanding. As a matter of fact, there is more diversity and inconsistancy in the Ye Wen (Yip Man) branches than in any other family. There is no standard. Your comment of "No self centerline = No Wing Chun" isn't as clear cut as you make it to be, as unfortunate as this is it is true. Some branches prefer a motherline and use of gates as compared to using the centerline as a reference point, this was seen in Cheung Bo's art that he taught to Sum Nung. This doesn't mean that the centerline wasn't an important concept, it simply wasn't the sole focus. 

I agree that there are some points agreed upon by the various lineages that define what is "Yong Chun", unfortunately there are more that cannot be agreed upon and this is where the dysfunction and splintering begins. At the end of the day we have to simply put aside our predjudices and accept that there is no "Right" way, "Wrong" way or "Pure" branch that defines or sets a standard for what is and what isn't Yong Chun as a whole. It's up to each lineage and family to set their own standards and regulations. It's not really up to a "Popular" branch or the "Largest" organization to set the bar and define Yong Chun for everyone else based on what they believe, Yong Chun is way too deep a well for that.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 5, 2014)

Various forms of non-mainstream Yong Chun lineages. Notice the simularities and differences they have with each other and to Ye Wen's branch. Notice the small and large body movements utilized and the heavy emphasis on qigong with some of them. Some of these branches are drastically different to what is considered "Classical/Traditional" Yong Chun, some not as much, but all still Yong Chun. There is a common thread that binds all of them.






Pao Fa Lian Siu Lim Tau
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIrfgpYSI3Q
 Weng Chun Sam Bai Fu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBrIuxxk8ec
 Pan Nam Biu Jee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLagzA0UxjQ
 Weng Chun Sap Yat Kuen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfdyrXr_PmM
 Cho Ga Siu Lim Tau?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2QHaD5BMyg
 Vietnamese Vin Xuan Dragon Set?

This is only a small sampling of some of the other systems of Yong chun out there, there are many, many more unusual and obscure branches.
There are more sets from various branches of these same lineages some drastically different from one another even though they claim the same source/teacher. Just goes to show that Yong Chun is a vast system with many interpretations and influences.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 5, 2014)

Vietnamese Yong Chun






Vietnamese Xiao Lian Tou






Dang Family Yong Chun 6 1/2 Point pole






Interesting version of the Arrow Fist set






Chan Wah Shun/Chan Yiu Min Biu Jee Form





Chan Wah Shun/Chan Yiu Min Taming Tiger Fist


----------



## kung fu fighter (Sep 5, 2014)

Do you study this Branch of wing chun? or have any youtube links to it?


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 5, 2014)

dlcox said:


> Pao Fa Lien and Yuen Chai Wan actually are closer in appearence and concept to "Weng Chun" than "Wing Chun" yet no one regards them as not being "Wing Chun". Plenty of branches express an "Animal" flavor.



Because the root of the system is there, the technology that drives Siu Nim Tao (even if not consistently expressed) is at least often present. Wing Chun climbed out of the animal styles and evolved away from it, and while we retain certain attitudes and shapes (heck my line uses Dragon, Eagle and Crane shaped techniques/attitudes sometimes) the way and the why of how they are expressed and driven makes them WC vs something like Lung Ying or Hung Kuen. 




> Your comment of "No self centerline = No Wing Chun" isn't as clear cut as you make it to be, as unfortunate as this is it is true. Some branches prefer a motherline and use of gates as compared to using the centerline as a reference point, this was seen in Cheung Bo's art that he taught to Sum Nung. This doesn't mean that the centerline wasn't an important concept, it simply wasn't the sole focus.



Simply put, some branches are off in left field. As for Sum Nung's WC the folks I've met from that line do keep upright and use YGKYM to drive their WC, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as an example?



> I agree that there are some points agreed upon by the various lineages that define what is "Yong Chun", unfortunately there are more that cannot be agreed upon and this is where the dysfunction and splintering begins. At the end of the day we have to simply put aside our predjudices and accept that there is no "Right" way, "Wrong" way or "Pure" branch that defines or sets a standard for what is and what isn't Yong Chun as a whole. It's up to each lineage and family to set their own standards and regulations. It's not really up to a "Popular" branch or the "Largest" organization to set the bar and define Yong Chun for everyone else based on what they believe, Yong Chun is way too deep a well for that.



I disagree, there are ways to figure out who's right and wrong, and it's about what structures and strategies are consistently reflecting the basic principals of WC. Though we might often wish it otherwise (lord knows I have on occasion) leverage cannot and will not lie to you. You are right, however, it's not about largest, popular, oldest, etc - it's about being true to the WC system. WC technique, same as any technique, can lie to you, but the system never does.

It seems we are at an impasse - you seem to feel like everything should be preserved, I'm more eager to sort things out and throw away what we don't need. Difference in outlook I guess.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 5, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> *Because the root of the system is there, the technology that drives Siu Nim Tao (even if not consistently expressed) is at least often present. *Wing Chun climbed out of the animal styles and evolved away from it, and while we retain certain attitudes and shapes (heck my line uses Dragon, Eagle and Crane shaped techniques/attitudes sometimes) the way and the why of how they are expressed and driven makes them WC vs something like Lung Ying or Hung Kuen.



For the most part this was the point I was trying to express without outright saying it. You have recognized this so what is the argument?





> Simply put, some branches are off in left field. As for Sum Nung's WC the folks I've met from that line do keep upright and use YGKYM to drive their WC, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as an example?



Maybe so but just because YOU don't like how they approach the art doesn't make them wrong. Sum Nung modified Cheung Bo's approach to fall in line with what he learned from Yuen Kay San.





> I disagree, there are ways to figure out who's right and wrong, and it's about what structures and strategies are consistently reflecting the basic principals of WC. Though we might often wish it otherwise (lord knows I have on occasion) leverage cannot and will not lie to you. You are right, however, it's not about largest, popular, oldest, etc - it's about being true to the WC system. WC technique, same as any technique, can lie to you, but the system never does.
> 
> It seems we are at an impasse - you seem to feel like everything should be preserved, *I'm more eager to sort things out and throw away what we don't need*. Difference in outlook I guess.



Ah, disagree based upon who's ideology and approach as the standard? Way to many variables when in comes to pressure testing a technique. Should everything be preserved? Who am I to say, simply because I don't agree with someone else's method doesn't mean that they aren't relevant, that they don't exists. They have just as much a right to exists as anyone else. Who gave *YOU* the authority to speak for all of WC and decide what is needed and what is not? While this may be applicable on a personal level it certainly doesn't apply on a global one. Too many out there that think they know it all and what they possess is the truth and genuine and like religious zealots try to convert those who think different to them, and when they can't they try to erase them. I guess we clearly don't hold the same values, were you raised in wartime Germany?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 5, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> I'm more eager to sort things out and throw away what we don't need.



Interesting outlook. So, where does this "throwing away" start or end in your opinion?
Can you provide an example from your version of wing chun? 
Are you an Instructor or sifu and if so have you thrown out certain things in order to simplify the system?
And if not, why?


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 5, 2014)

dlcox said:


> For the most part this was the point I was trying to express without outright saying it. You have recognized this so what is the argument?



I think we are talking in circles here. I've said that if the root of WC is in there, and gave the example of centerline and YGKYM as the most basic of WC core concepts, and you objected that not all WC does that. I disagree, i think that getting away from those core concepts is the exception, not the rule of Wing Chun. It's when people do animal shape techniques that use animal style body and strategy that anyone should feel ok saying "that's not part of the WC system" even if it is a block of knowledge that's in a particular WC line. Do you concur? Because that's not what is implied by your previous posts.



> Maybe so but just because YOU don't like how they approach the art doesn't make them wrong. Sum Nung modified Cheung Bo's approach to fall in line with what he learned from Yuen Kay San.



No, it's expressing the basic principals inconsistently or not at all that makes someone wrong. 



> Ah, disagree based upon who's ideology and approach as the standard? Way to many variables when in comes to pressure testing a technique. Should everything be preserved? Who am I to say, simply because I don't agree with someone else's method doesn't mean that they aren't relevant, that they don't exists. They have just as much a right to exists as anyone else. Who gave *YOU* the authority to speak for all of WC and decide what is needed and what is not? While this may be applicable on a personal level it certainly doesn't apply on a global one. Too many out there that think they know it all and what they possess is the truth and genuine and like religious zealots try to convert those who think different to them, and when they can't they try to erase them. I guess we clearly don't hold the same values, were you raised in wartime Germany?



Since you've missed the point again by talking about techniques.... it's not about the techniques, it's about the concepts and principals that drive them. If a technique deviates from principled action, then we can safely say that it's not expressing the WC system, even if in shape it is a WC technique. As for the rest, you're getting a little bit personal simply for the fact I don't agree with you. You don't know me, you have no idea what I know or don't. I've clearly laid out my decision making framework for what I consider WC or not for people to agree or disagree with as they see fit and you have yet to do the same. By the same right, who are *YOU* to decide these things are WC?

Also, as a person of German descent, I don't appreciate being called a Nazi. That's more than a bit inappropriate.


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 5, 2014)

> Interesting outlook. So, where does this "throwing away" start or end in your opinion?
> Can you provide an example from your version of wing chun?
> Are you an Instructor or sifu and if so have you thrown out certain things in order to simplify the system?
> And if not, why?



I learned the majority of the Moy Yat system (through pole and dummy) before being introduced to my current line. At this point I've thrown away most of all of it from my personal kung fu. Same with a few other styles of kung fu I've trained.

A pretty easy example is using Chaap Cheui - I've learned that move from a few different arts. I can "WC-ify" it by using it under the concepts (software) of centerline theory or gate theory, but the body structure (hardware) to get it done doesn't fit the WC frame. That's something I can't pass along as "WC System" because under the ruleset I've already marked out, it doesn't fit. Could be arguably a "WC technique" though (works sometimes not others, has some elements but not consistently, etc)


----------



## dlcox (Sep 5, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> I think we are talking in circles here. I've said that if the root of WC is in there, and gave the example of centerline and YGKYM as the most basic of WC core concepts, and you objected that not all WC does that. I disagree, i think that getting away from those core concepts is the exception, not the rule of Wing Chun. It's when people do animal shape techniques that use animal style body and strategy that anyone should feel ok saying "that's not part of the WC system" even if it is a block of knowledge that's in a particular WC line. Do you concur? Because that's not what is implied by your previous posts.



You can disagree with me all you want concerning what the core principles YOU believe constitue what is Yong Chun. Strict adherence and dogmatic approach to a singular understanding and comprehension of the concepts utilized in Yong Chun is a narrow viewpoint. One that is propagated by agenda, poltical alignment and popular factions wanting nothing more than control over the Yong Chun systems as a whole. The whole origin story of Yong Chun is based upon conflict between two animals, the same as many other TCMA. It's ludicris to think that animal mimicry wouldn't present in some branches. You don't have to agree with them or their methods, but you have no right to dismiss them as not authentic based upon your personal beliefs or mine for that matter. These are the same implications I've made from the beginning.



> No, it's expressing the basic principals inconsistently or not at all that makes someone wrong.



Who's to decide what the basic principles are for everyone, not me, not you. To each their own, irregardless what either of us believe. It's their right to practice their system as they see fit, whether or not anyone else sees it that way. There is no umbrella organization that oversees and regulates Yong Chun, until that time comes every branch has a legitimate claim to the individual use and expression of how and what THEY interpret as Yong Chun. 



> Since you've missed the point again by talking about techniques.... it's not about the techniques, it's about the concepts and principals that drive them. If a technique deviates from principled action, then we can safely say that it's not expressing the WC system, even if in shape it is a WC technique. As for the rest, you're getting a little bit personal simply for the fact I don't agree with you. You don't know me, you have no idea what I know or don't. I've clearly laid out my decision making framework for what I consider WC or not for people to agree or disagree with as they see fit and you have yet to do the same. By the same right, who are *YOU* to decide these things are WC?




Seems to me you're the one who missed the point. My argument all along has been about the theory, concepts and principles. People will interpret them according to their preferred use and understanding, I won't get in the way of that and tell them that they are doing it wrong. You're the one who seem he can't seperate theory from form, as clearly illustrated in your post. There is more than one way of doing something, more than one interpretation of the "Proper" use of theory and principle. I've said all along no one has all the answers. Yes you have clearly laid out your framework for what you consider Yong Chun and that is something that is only applicable to you. In your passive aggressive way you imply that your method and understanding of the concepts and principles is the only correct way, I simply pointed out that it is not. We don't have to agree, I'm fine with that, I'm simply pointing out your predjudices, ethnocentrism and singular view. You're correct I don't know you or what you represent yet YOU feel the need to represent your way as the correct one simply based upon the appearence of what others present. That is why I implied you were a Nazi, if you don't want to be called one, don't act like one.

I'm done with this conversation, have a good day.


----------



## KPM (Sep 5, 2014)

I think I am somewhere in between the viewpoints expressed by Dave and Eric.  On the one hand, Wing Chun is very diverse I would bet some of the things we do in Pin Sun would not adhere to what Eric defines a proper Wing Chun concepts.  Yet Pin Sun comes from Leung Jan and has been preserved pretty much intact in Ku Lo village. Fung Siu Ching's line diverged from Leung Jan's line long ago.  So it makes sense that their descendants have evolved in different directions.  So I can see Dave's point in that who are we to say someone's Wing Chun is wrong or incorrect?

Yet.....there has obviously been lots of "mixing" in some of the mainland lineages.  At some point, technique starts to diverge from what most of us would consider Wing Chun, despite whether it is guided by Wing Chun concepts or not.  And some technique, while giving lip service to Wing Chun concepts, really doesn't follow them despite what their lineage says.  Just because a Chinese guy two generations ago decided to blend some other method (animal or otherwise) with the Wing Chun he learned, declare himself a "grandmaster" and proceed to teach his new method to the masses.....doesn't necessarily mean that what he came up with isn't a bunch a crap, despite what his followers may think.  So yea,  I can see where Eric is coming from as well.  ;-)

In the end is comes down to what the individual wants to do.  If someone likes preserving and being part of a tradition of Wing Chun with fancy flag dancing, lots of archaic weapons and animal forms, then more power to him!  If someone likes the simplicity and directness of Wing Chun concepts and technique and just wants to do what works for them, then more power to them as well!   I see nothing wrong with eliminating some of the superfluous stuff that may have been added in the past if it really adds nothing to effectiveness in today's world.   Personally, I don't see a lot of value in spending time on the Butterfly knives.  I have replaced them with the tactical folder, which is much more applicable than 2 short swords in today's world.  On the other hand, I am not going to start eliminating any of the solo sets in Pin Sun I have learned, because I don't trust my own knowledge and abilities to know exactly what to do away with!  What I see as pointless today, I may very well discover is important later!  Sparring most definitely does NOT teach you everything you might needed in a real encounter.

Anyway, I think I am rambling now so I will shut up!   But good discussion!


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 5, 2014)

dlcox said:


> You can disagree with me all you want concerning what the core principles YOU believe constitue what is Yong Chun. Strict adherence and dogmatic approach to a singular understanding and comprehension of the concepts utilized in Yong Chun is a narrow viewpoint.



Each expression of the system should be weighed and measured against some sort of rubric of authenticity. I proposed what is most common among *all* the lines of WC as a starting point. I don't think that's being dogmatic, rather it's looking for the common denominator. 



> One that is propagated by agenda, poltical alignment and popular factions wanting nothing more than control over the Yong Chun systems as a whole. The whole origin story of Yong Chun is based upon conflict between two animals, the same as many other TCMA. It's ludicris to think that animal mimicry wouldn't present in some branches. You don't have to agree with them or their methods, but you have no right to dismiss them as not authentic based upon your personal beliefs or mine for that matter. These are the same implications I've made from the beginning.



You're the only one who has brought up political issues. I have little interest in them anymore. If we are to believe that all WC came from the same source, that we were indeed one family at some point, then we have to try to piece together what was original, what was added and why it was added. If something was added for a reason that doesn't hold water (ie: only learned part of the system so supplemented with X or already knew X style so blended it in etc) then we can assume that's not core WC. It's perfectly fine to have it be part of "so-and-so's" WC but then we both honor the changes they made and know what existed outside of their influence. That doesn't necessarily make it WC core.



> Who's to decide what the basic principles are for everyone, not me, not you. To each their own, irregardless what either of us believe. It's their right to practice their system as they see fit, whether or not anyone else sees it that way. There is no umbrella organization that oversees and regulates Yong Chun, until that time comes every branch has a legitimate claim to the individual use and expression of how and what THEY interpret as Yong Chun.



Actually, Wing Chun as a system has to decide if that's what we're really going for here. The essence of WC cannot be changed, it simply is what it is - that's not up to me or you. I think we as a community should be able to demonstrate and debate our different branches of WC and come to actual conclusions of if what we're doing follows the concepts and principals. 



> Seems to me you're the one who missed the point. My argument all along has been about the theory, concepts and principles. People will interpret them according to their preferred use and understanding, I won't get in the way of that and tell them that they are doing it wrong. You're the one who seem he can't seperate theory from form, as clearly illustrated in your post. There is more than one way of doing something, more than one interpretation of the "Proper" use of theory and principle. I've said all along no one has all the answers. Yes you have clearly laid out your framework for what you consider Yong Chun and that is something that is only applicable to you. In your passive aggressive way you imply that your method and understanding of the concepts and principles is the only correct way, I simply pointed out that it is not. We don't have to agree, I'm fine with that, I'm simply pointing out your predjudices, ethnocentrism and singular view. You're correct I don't know you or what you represent yet YOU feel the need to represent your way as the correct one simply based upon the appearence of what others present. That is why I implied you were a Nazi, if you don't want to be called one, don't act like one.



There is more than one way to do something, but only one way to do it that authentically obeys the ruleset laid out by Wing Chun principals and concepts. Its something that we all strive for and I have seen people from various lineages achieve in different formats. If you have something to hang your hat on as a WC guy other than "well gee, everybody must be right" then I'm all ears. So far you haven't demonstrated any reason that my viewpoint should change.

Childish insults gain you nothing. The Nazis killed millions, that's nothing to joke about, nor do I appreciate the racist undertones.



> I'm done with this conversation, have a good day.



Already am, to you as well.


----------



## dlcox (Sep 5, 2014)

I know I said I was done but please bear with me a moment.



> =Eric_H;1654812]Each expression of the system should be weighed and measured against some sort of rubric of authenticity. I proposed what is most common among *all* the lines of WC as a starting point. I don't think that's being dogmatic, rather it's looking for the common denominator. If we are to believe that all WC came from the same source, that we were indeed one family at some point, then we have to try to piece together what was original, what was added and why it was added. If something was added for a reason that doesn't hold water (ie: only learned part of the system so supplemented with X or already knew X style so blended it in etc) then we can assume that's not core WC. It's perfectly fine to have it be part of "so-and-so's" WC but then we both honor the changes they made and know what existed outside of their influence. That doesn't necessarily make it WC core.



Believe it or not I agree with you here, it's simply trying to get everyone to agree on what constitutes a "Core" that is problematic. This is one of the factors that have led to the splintering of Yong Chun.




> Actually, Wing Chun as a system has to decide if that's what we're really going for here. The essence of WC cannot be changed, it simply is what it is - that's not up to me or you. I think we as a community should be able to demonstrate and debate our different branches of WC and come to actual conclusions of if what we're doing follows the concepts and principals.



Again I agree, but the problem lies in everyone's interpretation of "Original Essence".



> There is more than one way to do something, but only one way to do it that authentically obeys the ruleset laid out by Wing Chun principals and concepts. Its something that we all strive for and I have seen people from various lineages achieve in different formats.



And here is the rabbit hole, again there has to be a consensus as to not only how a situation is approached but also on what is the best principle, concept and theory to be applied and by which methods/techniques relay these best according to the individual's preference of use and understanding of the concepts, principles and theory. A boxer will not approach it the same as a grappler, etc. This becomes a real issue when trying to iron out "Standards" especially when concepts are subject to various methods of Jin. Mindset and approach to combat are greatly affected by personal belief, religious faith, cultural influence, societal norms etc. Whether we accept it or not these things do play a factor into how we do things even in a self defense situation, hence it will affect our arts.

 I'm all for everyone having their own way, it doesn't mean I have to accept it and with some I don't, but I will not dismiss them as "Illegitimate" simply because I do not agree. For all I know I could be wrong in my thinking and approach they could be right. I won't be so pompous to presume I know it all. 



> Childish insults gain you nothing. The Nazis killed millions, that's nothing to joke about, nor do I appreciate the racist undertones.



In all sincerity I apologize for the insinuation. Lets start over, hello my name is Dave I do Wing Chun......


----------



## dlcox (Sep 5, 2014)

KPM said:


> I think I am somewhere in between the viewpoints expressed by Dave and Eric.  On the one hand, Wing Chun is very diverse I would bet some of the things we do in Pin Sun would not adhere to what Eric defines a proper Wing Chun concepts.  Yet Pin Sun comes from Leung Jan and has been preserved pretty much intact in Ku Lo village. Fung Siu Ching's line diverged from Leung Jan's line long ago.  So it makes sense that their descendants have evolved in different directions.  So I can see Dave's point in that who are we to say someone's Wing Chun is wrong or incorrect?
> 
> Yet.....there has obviously been lots of "mixing" in some of the mainland lineages.  At some point, technique starts to diverge from what most of us would consider Wing Chun, despite whether it is guided by Wing Chun concepts or not.  And some technique, while giving lip service to Wing Chun concepts, really doesn't follow them despite what their lineage says.  Just because a Chinese guy two generations ago decided to blend some other method (animal or otherwise) with the Wing Chun he learned, declare himself a "grandmaster" and proceed to teach his new method to the masses.....doesn't necessarily mean that what he came up with isn't a bunch a crap, despite what his followers may think.  So yea,  I can see where Eric is coming from as well.  ;-)
> 
> ...



Thank you Keith for your leveled headed and unbiased response I am in total agreement with your assessment.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 6, 2014)

All, thanks for all the discussion and input regarding my original topic! 
Good to know there is/are many talented Wing Chun people out there!!! 
Wish we could all meet up some day. That would be awesome.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Sep 6, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> I think we are talking in circles here.


 The siu bot gwa is about walking in circles, no pun intended lol


----------



## KPM (Sep 6, 2014)

dlcox said:


> Lets start over, hello my name is Dave I do Wing Chun......



Hi Dave!  My name is Keith.  Its been 6 days since my last Wing Chun fix and I'm feeling a little shaky.  :cheers:


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 6, 2014)

dlcox said:


> I know I said I was done but please bear with me a moment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




martial arts should free you not enslave you,stop worrying about what is wing chun and what is not. The longer I train The more I see its about you not the style or system. When your leaning M.A, you should follow the sifu and do what he says,but when you become a teacher you should find your own way. I'm bigger then Wing Chun,and eventhough wing chun is the art I love I can see past it. I 
can see wing chun in allmost any martial art. So all martial arts are connected and share a similar root. If you know that root no need to have a myopic mindset.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 6, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> The siu bot gwa is about walking in circles, no pun intended lol


ause 

Do you know why we walk in circles? because we are chasing our tails...


----------

