# Differences between older and newer Yip Man Wing Chun



## Marnetmar (Apr 30, 2015)

I decided to make an independent thread for this since I asked it in another thread that had declining traffic at the time making it unlikely for me to get an answer.

I've heard several people say that Yip Man's earlier Hong Kong students like Leung Sheung share more similarities with mainland styles than his later students. Being of the Leung Sheung camp and not having any other WC schools nearby at which exchange notes, I figured I'd ask: what exactly separates Yip Man's earlier Hong Kong teachings from his later teachings? Or better yet, what exactly is it that gave Hong Kong Wing Chun its own distinctive flavor over the years?


----------



## Danny T (Apr 30, 2015)

Yip Man's age.


----------



## geezer (Apr 30, 2015)

This is a tough one. My old sifu learned from Leung Sheung, then trained  directly with Yip Man, so I assume what he taught us had elements of both. Also, from looking at clips of various Yip Man students, I don't see a clear progression from early to late. What each  student learned seems to have varied greatly depending on the student. Maybe that was at least as important as the period in which they trained?


----------



## zuti car (Apr 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> This is a tough one. My old sifu learned from Leung Sheung, then trained  directly with Yip Man, so I assume what he taught us had elements of both. Also, from looking at clips of various Yip Man students, I don't see a clear progression from early to late. What each  student learned seems to have varied greatly depending on the student. Maybe that was at least as important as the period in which they trained?


According to Sum Nung's wife, your old sifu learned from Sum Nung for 3 years . And Leung Sheung never taught Leung Ting , at last that is what Leung Sheung said .


----------



## geezer (Apr 30, 2015)

zuti car said:


> ....And Leung Sheung never taught Leung Ting , at last that is what Leung Sheung said .



Based on my contacts, I know those old assertions to be incorrect, but they do reveal the degree of partisanship that developed in the Hong Kong WC community. Sadly, my old sifu and _his_ first sifu, Leung Sheung, grew to dislike each other so intensely that not only did they part ways, but _each denied contact with the other_. When I first met my old sifu in 1980, he would not even speak the name of his first sifu. And that's not even the worst of it. I've learned of things that went on in the Hong Kong WC community that stagger the mind.

I will only say that these kinds of hostilities have only hurt the development of WC and are one reason why I train independently now. But these things have nothing to do with the OP, and certainly won't be resolved here. You are welcome to your opinions and I will not try to convince you otherwise.

Now, with regard to the OP, do you have an opinion on that, _Zuti?_


----------



## KPM (May 1, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> I  what exactly separates Yip Man's earlier Hong Kong teachings from his later teachings? Or better yet, what exactly is it that gave Hong Kong Wing Chun its own distinctive flavor over the years?


 
That is tough question and you will likely get different answers from different people.  Just from my observations over the years....to me what makes the earlier Wing Chun of Ip Man and the Wing Chun of Leung Sheung similar to some of the mainland styles (particularly Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun) are these points:
1.  Pivoting near the K1 point rather than on the heels
2. Using a weight distribution that is closer to 70/30 or 90/10 than one that is closer to 60/40 or 50/50
3.  Having a more "internal" or "softer" approach that involves more angling and yielding and less driving up the center
4.  The specific way certain hand forms or defenses are used, which is near impossible to describe in a forum format

Now realize that my comparison is to the Wing Chun of Ip Man's later Hong Kong students...like Wong Shun Leung, Ho Kam Ming, etc.  I don't think we really know what Ip Man's own personal Wing Chun was like because we don't have him on film in his prime and he  seems to have taught different things to different people through-out his career.  I used to think that perhaps it was Wong Shun Leung that made some of these "adjustments"....going to pivoting on the heels, 50/50 weight distro, more emphasis on driving up the center...and that Ip Man just gave his approval.   After all, at one point WSL was doing most of the public teaching in Ip Man's school and Ip Man just went around making corrections and suggestions.   But then you have someone like Ho Kam Ming that does things pretty much like WSL.  We know that HKM learned directly from Ip Man and was at least WSL's equal if not his senior.  So the only logical conclusion seems to be that Ip Man taught different things at different times.

So....since Leung Ting pivots near K1 and uses the 70/30 or 90/10 weight distro I've always taken this as a strong indicator of a  Leung Sheung influence on his Wing Chun.  I've never heard of a Sum Nun connection before and would take that story with a huge grain of salt.  But LT also had direct instruction from Ip Man in Ip Man's later years when he had already been teaching the "Hong Kong" version of Wing Chun to people like WSL and HKM for many years.   So why wouldn't he have made LT change everything?  Again, I think this is evidence of the idea that Ip Man was somewhat "flexible" in his interpretation of Wing Chun and didn't see anything wrong with LT using the "old" version as his base. 

But none of us where there and this is really all just conjecture.  I'm sure Joy would stick to the "party line" and deny all of this.   Heck, who knows?  Maybe Leung Sheung trained with Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nun and never told anyone!  ;-)


----------



## zuti car (May 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> Based on my contacts, I know those old assertions to be incorrect, but they do reveal the degree of partisanship that developed in the Hong Kong WC community. Sadly, my old sifu and _his_ first sifu, Leung Sheung, grew to dislike each other so intensely that not only did they part ways, but _each denied contact with the other_. When I first met my old sifu in 1980, he would not even speak the name of his first sifu. And that's not even the worst of it. I've learned of things that went on in the Hong Kong WC community that stagger the mind.
> 
> I will only say that these kinds of hostilities have only hurt the development of WC and are one reason why I train independently now. But these things have nothing to do with the OP, and certainly won't be resolved here. You are welcome to your opinions and I will not try to convince you otherwise.
> 
> Now, with regard to the OP, do you have an opinion on that, _Zuti?_


What is OP?


----------



## Tez3 (May 1, 2015)

zuti car said:


> What is OP?



Original Post or Poster.


----------



## zuti car (May 1, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Original Post or Poster.


Thanks .


----------



## Vajramusti (May 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> This is a tough one. My old sifu learned from Leung Sheung, then trained  directly with Yip Man, so I assume what he taught us had elements of both. Also, from looking at clips of various Yip Man students, I don't see a clear progression from early to late. What each  student learned seems to have varied greatly depending on the student. Maybe that was at least as important as the period in which they trained?


----------



## Vajramusti (May 1, 2015)

Geezer got one part right.An important variable in learning is the student and how long they learned.

Some of the speculation  and gossip on this thread is plain silly IMO


----------



## zuti car (May 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> Based on my contacts, I know those old assertions to be incorrect, but they do reveal the degree of partisanship that developed in the Hong Kong WC community. Sadly, my old sifu and _his_ first sifu, Leung Sheung, grew to dislike each other so intensely that not only did they part ways, but _each denied contact with the other_. When I first met my old sifu in 1980, he would not even speak the name of his first sifu. And that's not even the worst of it. I've learned of things that went on in the Hong Kong WC community that stagger the mind.
> 
> I will only say that these kinds of hostilities have only hurt the development of WC and are one reason why I train independently now. But these things have nothing to do with the OP, and certainly won't be resolved here. You are welcome to your opinions and I will not try to convince you otherwise.
> 
> Now, with regard to the OP, do you have an opinion on that, _Zuti?_


It is only natural that someones art changes over time . Personality changes and art changes along with it . Experience , not only martial ,but all things that happened in life will influence someone's way of understanding and of course teaching . Thing is ,sometimes this process has retrograde course , and sometimes it just changes things, doesn't make them better or worse , just different . I believe that was happened with Yip Man, in time his view on his art changed and he taught differently in different time periods . And I think this is a good thing . Arts that do not change over time are arts in the hands of people who do not understand them and they are afraid to change anything .True kung fu changes, grows , evolve , adapts ...and true teacher will teach his students to take the most form his art and , if there is a possibility to even surpass his art and him self .


----------



## Callen (May 1, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> what exactly separates Yip Man's earlier Hong Kong teachings from his later teachings? Or better yet, what exactly is it that gave Hong Kong Wing Chun its own distinctive flavor over the years?



Some valid points have been brought up.  It would seem that time is the biggest factor, as Zuti and Danny T indicated above. Unless we asked an actual authority on Yip Man's life, to Joy's point, it's really all speculation.

We know that Yip Man started teaching in Hong Kong around 1950. There weren't a lot of students and he had a high turn-over rate. That would no doubt could have had an affect on how he taught, even if only a little. Eventually he gained traction, taught and kept more students. Naturally, their progress and training most likely influenced what was taught and to whom. He ended up teaching less, leaving it to senior students as the years went on as well. To me it seems that all of these factors helped shape how Yip Man's Wing Chun was taught, understood and translated through time.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> what makes the earlier Wing Chun of Ip Man and the Wing Chun of Leung Sheung similar to some of the mainland styles (particularly Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun) are these points:
> 1.  Pivoting near the K1 point rather than on the heels
> 2. Using a weight distribution that is closer to 70/30 or 90/10 than one that is closer to 60/40 or 50/50
> 3.  Having a more "internal" or "softer" approach that involves more angling and yielding and less driving up the center
> 4.  The specific way certain hand forms or defenses are used, which is near impossible to describe in a forum format



Agree! I would also add that Leung Sheung wck has tighter elbow in structure (Mai Jang) and Kim Sut until the knees are 1-fist distance.



KPM said:


> Heck, who knows?  Maybe Leung Sheung trained with Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nun and never told anyone!  ;-)


There is a story I heard about Leung Sheung learning some kind of mainland wing chun because Yip Man wouldn't teach him the weapons form, and taught it to Yip Bo Ching whom was his junior.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 1, 2015)

zuti car said:


> According to Sum Nung's wife, your old sifu learned from Sum Nung for 3 years .



There maybe some truth to this, as I can clearly see certain elements of Sum Nung's wck in leung ting WT such as the kick in the second section of his chum kiu form with the toes angled inward like a side kick, in Yip Man Wck it's done as a front kick with the toes angled outward.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 1, 2015)

zuti car said:


> According to Sum Nung's wife, your old sifu learned from Sum Nung for 3 years . And Leung Sheung never taught Leung Ting , at last that is what Leung Sheung said .



IIRC before learning from Yip Man, Leung Ting learned from one of LS's senior students (Pak Cheung I think).


----------



## geezer (May 1, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> IIRC before learning from Yip Man, Leung Ting learned from one of LS's senior students (Pak Cheung I think).


 
Yeah, I forget who exactly....but it was one student learning from another, not a sifu-todai relationship. Leung Ting began his formal training in WC with Leung Sheung. How he later came to learn directly from GM Yip is another story.

As for the side kick in Chum Kiu, Leung Ting added that in the 1980s after his first "research trip" back to the mainland. Prior to that, he taught that section with a front kick as he learned it.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 1, 2015)

zuti car said:


> It is only natural that someones art changes over time . Personality changes and art changes along with it . Experience , not only martial ,but all things that happened in life will influence someone's way of understanding and of course teaching . Thing is ,sometimes this process has retrograde course , and sometimes it just changes things, doesn't make them better or worse , just different . I believe that was happened with Yip Man, in time his view on his art changed and he taught differently in different time periods . And I think this is a good thing . Arts that do not change over time are arts in the hands of people who do not understand them and they are afraid to change anything .True kung fu changes, grows , evolve , adapts ...and true teacher will teach his students to take the most form his art and , if there is a possibility to even surpass his art and him self .



IMO, there is a difference between someone's 'art' and the system logic of WC. All of our 'art' (usage of the system) changes as we gain experience and better understanding of the core WC system. Same can go with the curriculum, the way a form is done, drill variations, etc.  I think issues most often arise when someone tries to mimic someone else's expression of the system or passes on their own expression vs. the actual system knowledge. Look at all the confusion and arguments from all of Ip Man's students stemming from this.

But that aside, the principles/concepts of the system shouldn't change all that much and don't need to constantly 'grow' or 'evolve'. Unless someone has a limited understanding to begin with by either not completing the system, not being taught the entire system by their Sifu, their sifu didn't know it all himself, etc, things like centerline, gravity, leverage, structure, efficiency, economy of motion, etc should always remain the same. Shortest distance between 2 points will always be a straight line. IMO, understanding of these things are what make up the WC 'system'. And while it drives what we do with our expression of the system (our 'art') it is also something that should remain constant in it's truths. Laws of physics and nature along with the human body have been the same for a loooong time


----------



## zuti car (May 1, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> IMO, there is a difference between someone's 'art' and the system logic of WC. All of our 'art' (usage of the system) changes as we gain experience and better understanding of the core WC system. Same can go with the curriculum, the way a form is done, drill variations, etc.  I think issues most often arise when someone tries to mimic someone else's expression of the system or passes on their own expression vs. the actual system knowledge. Look at all the confusion and arguments from all of Ip Man's students stemming from this.
> 
> But that aside, the principles/concepts of the system shouldn't change all that much and don't need to constantly 'grow' or 'evolve'. Unless someone has a limited understanding to begin with by either not completing the system, not being taught the entire system by their Sifu, their sifu didn't know it all himself, etc, things like centerline, gravity, leverage, structure, efficiency, economy of motion, etc should always remain the same. Shortest distance between 2 points will always be a straight line. IMO, understanding of these things are what make up the WC 'system'. And while it drives what we do with our expression of the system (our 'art') it is also something that should remain constant in it's truths. Laws of physics and nature along with the human body have been the same for a loooong time


Confusion and arguments among Yip Man's students comes from market position , not from the art its self . Some always want more , and thous who have more do not want anyone to take their position.
I don't think Yip Man changed core of his art , that is the same among most of his students (yes, some of them couldn't understand everything , but there will be people like that in every system) .
About need for constant changing , I believe that is necessary , our knowledge grows, are way of understanding things is changing, the way of fighting is constantly changing , art can give the answer on all that changes or not. Arts stuck in the past , stuck in a feeling that they have perfect set of concepts which will give them answer to any possible problem will have a problem . As much as concepts can be good if there is no work on their practical development , testing and adjusting to the most common threats of the time the art will be inefficient .
About laws of physics , I do not agree on a way you connected them to wing chun ( if i understood it wrong I apologize in advance) . It is true , laws of physics do  not change and human body do not change , but I have a feeling you want to say Wing Chun is based on the laws of physics . It is not , everything we do , including wing chun is bounded by the laws of physics , but the art its self is not built on a foundation of modern physics ( I am sure that founders of the art didn't know even Newton's physics , about space, \time\energy\gravity\force vectors\ect, all of that are modern terms used by people of this time to explain what they are doing) . Wing Chun is based on understanding of the human body and fighting models of the time of its creation ( pretty limited). Wing Chun is a good art , most  arts are based on efficiency , preservation of the energy , structure , economy of motion ...ect. Wing Chun is not better or worse than most of other arts. Straight line is not always the best course of action , not the most efficient one. I know for a fact that some arts that use wide circular motions use much less energy to execute these punches and they generate much stronger force ( Pi Gua for example ) . Some arts have very efficient angling approach which is extremely difficult to counter , very powerful strikes , also use center line theory , and all things numbered above (Baji) ... Wing Chun is good ,  but, like everything else , requires a lot work , is some cases much more work than other arts .


----------



## Marnetmar (May 2, 2015)

^I have found over the course of my training that there are many areas of Wing Chun that you simply can't teach somebody because they're so intangible I.E constantly making minuscule adjustments to your structure, a lot of the way power is generated, etc.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 2, 2015)

Callen said:


> Some valid points have been brought up.  It would seem that time is the biggest factor, as Zuti and Danny T indicated above. Unless we asked an actual authority on Yip Man's life, to Joy's point, it's really all speculation.
> 
> We know that Yip Man started teaching in Hong Kong around 1950. There weren't a lot of students and he had a high turn-over rate. That would no doubt could have had an affect on how he taught, even if only a little. Eventually he gained traction, taught and kept more students. Naturally, their progress and training most likely influenced what was taught and to whom. He ended up teaching less, leaving it to senior students as the years went on as well. To me it seems that all of these factors helped shape how Yip Man's Wing Chun was taught, understood and translated through time.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 2, 2015)

Recreating an understanding of and generalizing about  what Ip Man taught  to whom is a complex matter. Before people jump to conclusions
it is worth noting that after he got started in wing chun-   a good part of Ip Man's income came from private
lessons to wealthy students.


----------



## Callen (May 3, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Recreating an understanding of and generalizing about what Ip Man taught to whom is a complex matter. Before people jump to conclusions
> it is worth noting that after he got started in wing chun- a good part of Ip Man's income came from private
> lessons to wealthy students.


Very insightful, and clearly a piece of the puzzle that should be considered as well.


----------



## Danny T (May 3, 2015)

Teaching for income, I am certain, had many of the same problems and concessions as today. 
Instructors teach different aspects based upon what they are emphasizing at any one point in time.
If one trained for a year or two one may never have been exposed to some other aspect or different method that was shown later.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 4, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Teaching for income, I am certain, had many of the same problems and concessions as today.
> Instructors teach different aspects based upon what they are emphasizing at any one point in time.
> If one trained for a year or two one may never have been exposed to some other aspect or different method that was shown later.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 4, 2015)

Cant generalize.IMO depends on who what when where. Of course Ip Man left with more knowledge than any one had about wing chun at that time. But great craftsmanship can be handed down one to one over time. Ho Kam ming  took private lessons with Ip Man EVERYDAY for a number of years- then continued other things including chi sao with him for more years.Now he is retired and is about  90 years old leaving his best students to carry on.I just got back from a hands on seminar with Sifu Fong and his best students.Good wing chun lives!
Chat lists and youtube nibble at the whole picture...or is like reading tea leaves.


----------



## KPM (May 4, 2015)

While certainly various individuals got different depths of knowledge depending on talent and time spent with Ip Man.  But things like whether you pivot on the heels or near K1 and whether you maintain 50/50 or 70/30 weight distributions are basic fundamentals.  These are the things that seem to vary between early and later Ip Man students.  So I think there is still the point that Ip Man taught things differently at different stages of his teaching career.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 4, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Confusion and arguments among Yip Man's students comes from market position , not from the art its self . Some always want more , and thous who have more do not want anyone to take their position.
> I don't think Yip Man changed core of his art , that is the same among most of his students (yes, some of them couldn't understand everything , but there will be people like that in every system) .
> About need for constant changing , I believe that is necessary , our knowledge grows, are way of understanding things is changing, the way of fighting is constantly changing , art can give the answer on all that changes or not. Arts stuck in the past , stuck in a feeling that they have perfect set of concepts which will give them answer to any possible problem will have a problem . As much as concepts can be good if there is no work on their practical development , testing and adjusting to the most common threats of the time the art will be inefficient .
> About laws of physics , I do not agree on a way you connected them to wing chun ( if i understood it wrong I apologize in advance) . It is true , laws of physics do  not change and human body do not change , but I have a feeling you want to say Wing Chun is based on the laws of physics . It is not , everything we do , including wing chun is bounded by the laws of physics , but the art its self is not built on a foundation of modern physics ( I am sure that founders of the art didn't know even Newton's physics , about space, \time\energy\gravity\force vectors\ect, all of that are modern terms used by people of this time to explain what they are doing) . Wing Chun is based on understanding of the human body and fighting models of the time of its creation ( pretty limited). Wing Chun is a good art , most  arts are based on efficiency , preservation of the energy , structure , economy of motion ...ect. Wing Chun is not better or worse than most of other arts. Straight line is not always the best course of action , not the most efficient one. I know for a fact that some arts that use wide circular motions use much less energy to execute these punches and they generate much stronger force ( Pi Gua for example ) . Some arts have very efficient angling approach which is extremely difficult to counter , very powerful strikes , also use center line theory , and all things numbered above (Baji) ... Wing Chun is good ,  but, like everything else , requires a lot work , is some cases much more work than other arts .



Our experience and understanding of what WC is or isn't differs greatly then - as mine tells me a much different tale that what you are saying above. And I think you may have missed my distinction between the term 'art' and what is the WC 'system', but no reason to repeat it in case I am incorrect in that assumption


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 12, 2015)

I'm not going to claim any special historical knowledge and I have no interest in joining a lineage debate, but let me share my observational opinions on some of these things.

When I look at "mainland" wing chun or have had insight from older, non-Yip Man practitioners who stayed in Asia, it looks and feels a lot more like other Southern Systems than modern, Yip Man attributed Wing Chun. The forms and practice and language seem more consistent with what I think of as parallel systems or maybe sister systems. There seemed more emphasis on qualities of what you do (sink, float, spit, swallow...) than techniques (kwan sao, bong sao, bil sao).

Yip Man Wing Chun is much more organized and direct and orthodox than that and it feels more modern and frankly more western to me. Now, some would say it's better to be modern and some would say that you've lost something if you've modernized. I'm not suggesting either, just an observation.

My thinking is really two fold:

Because of the (loose) link to Bruce Lee, Yip Man Wing Chun became an export product and in the process, became more western. We westerners like for things to be programmatic and follow a path that we can see in the beginning and check our progress against and I think "they" have accommodated that for us. The older, non-commercial Chinese sifus I have known, don't really seem to be that way. Stories that you read about people becoming someone's disciple and living with them for x years don't really talk about the program that they were on or the techniques they were taught in which order.

The other possibility is that all systems evolve and maybe Yip Man Wing Chun continued to evolve beyond what some of the "mainland" systems did, because a lot of them dwindled under political and social change in Asia, rather than finding a global market like Wing Chun did.

In context, Hong Kong was modern, unorthodox and more western to mainland China during the time Yip Man was living there and still is. Maybe it started there and the longer Yip Man was there the more prominent it became. I do think that people who teach under his name did and do as time went by. We're all aware of the differences in both activity and claims of general awesomeness that exist across Yip Man lineages. What little I actually know about Yip Man doesn't really follow that pattern chronologically. It appears that as he got mellower and more withdrawn, the sifus of that era got bolder and more assertive.

Let me bookend this, though, with my opening disclaimer. I don't know. It's interesting to me and those are my current thoughts on the subject, but I don't claim exclusive, special knowledge.


----------

