# Diferences between L. Ting's & W. Cheung's style of Wimg Chun



## nontas (Mar 8, 2007)

_Is anybody who stydied both these 2 styles?_


----------



## EternalSpringtime (Mar 9, 2007)

I studied with the EWTO side of IWTA (Leung Ting). The thing about William Cheung is that he teaches the "Real traditional Wing Chun" as he always states. I think that Wing Chun is not a style but more than some concepts to be applied with the minimum moves. so I really want to know if anyone had trained with the Cheung lineage and can tell us the difference between Cheung's Wing Chun and other Sifus.

As far as Leung Ting's organization, I can say it's very well organized in the way of training. The only problem lies within the large size of the organization, in which like most big organizations, quality sometimes gets lost from a Sifu to a certain student. That's why my advice is to go to Germany or Hong Kong to get the knowledge from the top instructors.


----------



## Longzhua (Mar 23, 2007)

EternalSpringtime, I totally agree.
William Cheung is a self appointed grandmaster and nothing else. I find it funny and sometimes demising to the real Wing Chun community that he still spreads his ******** about. But what can you expect, he just wants the money..

Longzhua


----------



## almost a ghost (Mar 24, 2007)

I've been watching a lot of video's of Cheung doing the forms he teaches and what not that are available on youtube. There's always different way of doing, but what he's doing is *way* different. While one instructor may teach a form different way, the overall structure and principals are still the same, but Cheung's movements seem foreign and highly questionable. 





 - Sil lum tao




 - Chum Kiu




 - Biu Gee





 - Wooden Dummy





 - Pole Form





 - Knife form

If you go through those videos, you'll see that what he's doing differs vastly from what his kung fu brothers teach. Especially the knife form which if anything looks more like some kind of wushu form than wing chun.


----------



## gblnking (Mar 26, 2007)

I dont know William Cheung; Ive never personally trained with him. But I have trained under his style of Wing Chun. My former teachers teacher trained directly from him. He then in turn taught my teacher. Ive seen videos of both my former teacher and his teacher training under William Cheung. From what I was taught it was very different from what I had known Wing Chun to be. (I trained a long time ago under a different Sifu) I wont criticize my former teacher, he was top notch. The quality of his movements and techniques were as thorough as you get. His attention to detail was second to none. But I think that the style that he was teaching was lacking a lot in what Wing Chun is. 
I had the opportunity to train with his teacher (the guy that trained under William Cheung) and found him to be nothing but a thug. My two-day seminar was nothing short of a long lesson in survival. Some may think thats excellent training but not me. I was there to learn not be bullied around. I doubt William Cheung advocated this kind of training being taught under his name. The style as I learned it was a very soft style. Teaching the stance and the very basic movements repetitively, repetitively, repetitively.
I cant criticize or hail the benefits of William Cheungs style. All I can say is that it wasnt what I was looking for in Wing Chun. 
Which begs the question. What is good/correct Wing Chun? My experiences have shown me several very different versions of it.


----------



## Longzhua (Apr 5, 2007)

What do you expect, give me X-amount of dollars and i'll make you a branch. SERIOUSLY... What rank do you want...
Remember he taUght BRUCE LEE,.... 
In his dreams................................

Longzhua...


----------



## EternalSpringtime (Apr 5, 2007)

Longzhua said:


> What do you expect, give me X-amount of dollars and i'll make you a branch. SERIOUSLY... What rank do you want...
> Remember he taUght BRUCE LEE,....
> In his dreams................................
> 
> Longzhua...


 
W.cheung was a friend of Bruce Lee. I am sure they trained together, but being his teacher!. I don't know. Bruce Lee learned Wing Chun from another Yipman student named Wong as I remember, of course not to forget GrandMaster Yipman himself.


----------



## almost a ghost (Apr 5, 2007)

EternalSpringtime said:


> W.cheung was a friend of Bruce Lee. I am sure they trained together, but being his teacher!. I don't know. Bruce Lee learned Wing Chun from another Yipman student named Wong as I remember, of course not to forget GrandMaster Yipman himself.



I've also read that Wong Sheung Leung, one of Ip Man's top students, did teach a young Bruce Lee out of his kwoon. I don't think anybody is argueing that William Cheung did introduce Bruce Lee to Ip Man's school, but I doubt Bruce Lee got much face time with Ip Man before he became famous due to the way the school was run.


----------



## EternalSpringtime (Apr 5, 2007)

almost a ghost said:


> I've also read that Wong Sheung Leung, one of Ip Man's top students, did teach a young Bruce Lee out of his kwoon. I don't think anybody is argueing that William Cheung did introduce Bruce Lee to Ip Man's school, but I doubt Bruce Lee got much face time with Ip Man before he became famous due to the way the school was run.


 
You are absloutely true. I mentioned GM Yipman's name just to what I saw in pictures of him and Bruce Lee. As to the development of JKD. Bruce Lee always was inspired by Wong as I heard.

Wong Shun-Leung saught what it effective since he faught many street fights to prove Wing Chun effectivness. I heard that Bruce Lee learned alot from him, but Wong always gave the full credit to Lee. I don't know the details, but as for William. I am more than sure they at least practised Wing Chun together. 

As far as GM Yipman. I think he was at an old age at that time. Most of the teachings were by his senior students. This as I know includes Leung ting which trained Wing Chun from Yipman's first student Master Leung Sheung.


----------



## almost a ghost (Apr 5, 2007)

I have heard and read different things about Leung Ting's training at the school. I've never heard of him training directly under Wong Sheung Leung, and have seen Leung's name listed as a student under his uncle Leung Shan in some org charts.

Either way, I'm always impressed with the videos of seen of him moving.


----------



## EternalSpringtime (Apr 5, 2007)

almost a ghost said:


> I have heard and read different things about Leung Ting's training at the school. I've never heard of him training directly under Wong Sheung Leung, and have seen Leung's name listed as a student under his uncle Leung Shan in some org charts.
> 
> Either way, I'm always impressed with the videos of seen of him moving.


 
Yea. I said he trained under Leung Sheung, GM Yipman's first disciple in HK. Wong Shun-Leung is different.


----------



## larry (Apr 28, 2007)

Hi.  I have studied under two sifus.  The forms had slight differences, but they were still the same in content.  William Cheung's forms have similar techniques,  but none of them are executed the same as the forms that I learned. If Leung Ting's student is your option then that may be better for you.     I'd be interested to know who you are going to learn from.  Take care


----------



## ArtesMagae (May 3, 2007)

I am brand new to the forum so be gentle!

I have been training in Grandmaster Cheung's Traditional Wing Chun for about a year now. The near constant conflict between the Wing Chun I learn and all other forms is frustrating. I find it frustrating because so very little real information seems to be out there. For instance, in this very thread, like all others on this topic I have seen, the discussion quickly becomes the bashing of William Cheung or another Wing Chun "personality". I have heard people's complaints about the man. But just this once, lets try to talk about the different styles.

What IS the difference? I admit I know very little about any other Wing Chun styles and martial arts in general. I have never trained in another martial art before. But from what I gather from my year of TWC training and seeing videos and discussions on other styles, _the main difference I see is in the footwork._ 

In TWC you are taught to get off the line of attack as soon as possible. To step to the outside of your attacker while blocking, ending up facing your block with the attacker's shoulder in line with the center of your chest. This makes a T shape out of you and the attacker. 

Is this the same in other forms of Wing Chun? Hopefully we can get some discussion at which point I have other questions to ask about the various styles of Wing Chun.


----------



## larry (May 3, 2007)

In wing chun, the proper block on your own center line or the line of the incoming attack will deflect the attack.  This changes your opponent's line and gives you control of the center line.  Initiating the three angle walk to place yourself at the opponent's side,  such as in the first part of the mook jong is just another technique used in wing chun to break in and collapse your opponent's structure.  This is one of many tecniques used in wing chun.   If you practice good structure, then these techniques will work.  If your structure is weak then your blocks and attacks will be useless.  congratulations in joining the wing chun family.


----------



## brocklee (Jun 20, 2007)

larry said:


> In wing chun, the proper block on your own center line or the line of the incoming attack will deflect the attack.  This changes your opponent's line and gives you control of the center line.  Initiating the three angle walk to place yourself at the opponent's side,  such as in the first part of the mook jong is just another technique used in wing chun to break in and collapse your opponent's structure.  This is one of many tecniques used in wing chun.   If you practice good structure, then these techniques will work.  If your structure is weak then your blocks and attacks will be useless.  congratulations in joining the wing chun family.



Very true Larry. These are the fundamentals which I am taught and live by.  While I was under leung ting line they taught me to use the incoming force to  rotate me off the center line and with the unused hand throw an attack.  I believe this breaks one of the wing chun basics and that's one of the reasons I left the school.


----------



## CheukMo (Jun 20, 2007)

gblnking said:


> . The style as I learned it was a very soft style. Teaching the stance and the very basic movements repetitively, repetitively, repetitively.


 
The very little amount of time that I actually studied in a Mo Gwoon was in this fashion.  The "lineage" was Leung Seung's.  I would still be studying there if I were able to afford the travel.


----------



## CheukMo (Jun 20, 2007)

gblnking said:


> Which begs the question. What is good/correct Wing Chun? My experiences have shown me several very different versions of it.


 
That is the same situation in Jeet Kune Do. Different people were taught different things at different times. I hate the criticism involved in (different styles of) WC and JFJKD, the only people who should be criticized are the frauds, and it's hard to find out which are frauds and which are not.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Jul 3, 2007)

Exactly. A lot of people judge wing chun on lineage when technically it might be better to judge it by practicality!! 

I always tell my students - if you ask a question about the style and your instructor cannot answer, leave!! 

Kamon was developed through Sam Kwok and Ip Chun and other good instructors, but Master Chan has developed further parts to the style to allow for clinching and long distance fighting


----------



## gblnking (Jul 6, 2007)

*


Kamon Guy said:



			Exactly. A lot of people judge wing chun on lineage when technically it might be better to judge it by practicality!!
		
Click to expand...

*


Kamon Guy said:


> *Kamon was developed through Sam Kwok and Ip Chun and other good instructors, but Master Chan has developed further parts to the style to allow for clinching and long distance fighting*




If I go to a Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn Tae Kwan Do. If I leave that school and go to another Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn virtualy the same thing. Obviously there will be small differances but a front kick is a front kick in the overall style. 
I have had three experiences with Wing Chun.

1) A real world experience.
2) A school I trained at for a year
3) 10 years later I trained at another school for a few years

There was maybe 50% similarities between the three experiences. The hand movements where fairly similar but the foot work was completely differant, the movement was completely differant, and for the two schools the teaching methodology was very very differant.

This isn't intended to be an attack on Wing Chun. I really enjoyed my times training and my experience of the real world situation confirmed to me the validity of its aggressive nature but is Wing Chun a style unto itself or does one need to add aspects of other martial arts to it (or the other way around) to keep it a viable style?


----------



## CheukMo (Jul 6, 2007)

gblnking said:


> If I go to a Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn Tae Kwan Do. If I leave that school and go to another Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn virtualy the same thing. Obviously there will be small differances but a front kick is a front kick in the overall style.
> I have had three experiences with Wing Chun.
> 
> 1) A real world experience.
> ...


 
Would you tell us which lineage or organization is related with each? 



> This isn't intended to be an attack on Wing Chun. I really enjoyed my times training and my experience of the real world situation confirmed to me the validity of its aggressive nature but is Wing Chun a style unto itself or does one need to add aspects of other martial arts to it (or the other way around) to keep it a viable style?


 
It is both a style and a set of principles. I don't think WC would need anything added to it to be a viable streetfighting art. People are totally enraptured by MMA today, but it is no more "reality" fighting than is boxing. There are still rules that would not exist on the street. How many people are going to try to "shoot in" for a takedown on concrete or asphalt?


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Jul 9, 2007)

gblnking said:


> If I go to a Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn Tae Kwan Do. If I leave that school and go to another Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn virtualy the same thing. Obviously there will be small differances but a front kick is a front kick in the overall style.
> I have had three experiences with Wing Chun.
> 
> 1) A real world experience.
> ...


 
Are you joking? I train in a multitude of styles including TaeKwon Do. 
I have been to severla TKD schools and they all have a different way of teaching the front kick. Some push forward with the back foot (so you move through the target), some plant the foot, some balance 50/50 on the foot. 

In wing chun, this is no different. There are differences in forms, differences in stances, differences in punching. 

But it still has, three hand forms, three non hand forms, chi sao, stamp kicks, chain punching, lok/lap sao and stancework. If your wing chun school doesn't then they are not technically wing chun, but some kind of arrogant derivative.

There are alos a lot of fakes out there. My brother went to a wing chun school up in Sheffield and it turned out he knew more than the instructor!!!

CheukMo - you would be surprised at fights on concrete. I saw someone attempt a belly to belly suplex on a guy on concrete and they both got hurt!!!


----------



## gblnking (Jul 9, 2007)

cheukmo said:


> The last school claimed to come from Leung Sheung (sp?). I wont get into its more recent line so as not to criticize it.  My first schools lineage I dont recall off hand. It wasnt something that was focused on. In both schools the forms where similar in movements and how they were to be done. But that is pretty much when the similarities ended. While one (the first school) was taught as a very hard and aggressive style utilizing movement to advance into an opponents space in order to overwhelm and beat them down. The other school was nearly the exact opposite. The style was taught in a much softer manor. The focus was much more emphasized on waiting for your opponent to come to you. The various two person drills while sharing the same names were practiced very differently. When I say differently Im talking polar opposites. And thats where my confusion about Wing Chun comes into. How is it that something that comes from such a supposedly tight lineage varies so much from school to school? I know about the bad teacher argument and I agree, trust me. Ive experienced the king of bad Wing Chun teachers. But the differences between the two schools that I trained at were so dramatic.
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## CheukMo (Jul 9, 2007)

Leung Seung's school of Wing Chun is very heavily focused on rooting and softness.  I trained in Leung Seung lineage WC.  I never went beyond yi ji kim yeung ma and punching.  His style and the way it is taught is similar to how WC was taught very early on, by Yip Man and his predecessors.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Jul 10, 2007)

gblnking said:


> I have since the age of 12 trained in four different TKD schools. The first was a nationally recognized competition school the second was a very traditional school taught mainly in Korean. The third was a cult like group that took from 8 various styles (mainly Korean). And the fourth was an average neighborhood TKD school. In all of these schools a front kick was a front kick. The knee of the front leg comes up, toes are pulled back to avoid injury, the front leg is snapped out hitting the target with the ball of the foot. All the other stuff is semantics. My point was that it follows a standard curriculum. And because of this its a lot easier to identify the bad schools from the good ones.




Not at all. I have been to schools where they do not perform knees. Other schools rely on them. Some do backfists, some do them differently, some don't do them. If you want - you can give me a private message and I will reply with the different names of the schools I have been to and the differences between the styles. As for belts (tags) I won't even go there about the differences!!! I also currently train in CKD which is nothing like TKD but still flies under the TKD banner



gblnking said:


> You obviously have very little experience with different Wing Chun schools. Ive been at one school where the stance wasnt a main focus, it was fluid and movement was quick. The other school was completely opposite. The stance was rooted like cement and footwork (along with movement) wasnt even taught until after the first year and even then it was awkward and not encouraged. There was a student who moved from a different area who came to train. His understanding of the first form was very different than what I had been taught. His chi sao was more fluid than what was being taught to us, and his stance was different in both weight distribution and detail. Be careful in what you claim as arrogant derivative. It wouldnt be a hard leap for someone to make that claim about you and the style you practice in.


Yeah but the stancework still existed right? At Kamon there are some instructors who train the stance to be relied up on and others that are more fluid. I can do both and you need to train both. If you had stuck with wing chun you would realise this

Hey if someone wants to call us arrogant and can back that statement up, then fine. But so far you have not given me anything to suggest that wing chun is completely different from school to school. I know that some schools out there are almost carbon copies of what Kamon does (or vice versa). Small independent schools or WT (which I do not really categorize as wing chun by the way) might do things different, but then that is a DERIVATIVE of the core wing chun that has been passed down by Yip Man
It doesn't make it worse but they should not be claiming that it is 'original wing chun' or nonsense like that

Just like in TKD - I have been to schools where the forms (patterns) are completely different from other schools. And they train their kicks harder or their punches harder. 

You also have to remember that TKD, like boxing is a sport based art. 
It is not really a self defence based art. Don't get me wrong, some of the best practitioners of the art are extremely good at what they do, but in a close quarter situation (bar fight, club, kebab shop etc) you are going to be hard pressed to perform spinning/jumping kicks etc. 

Because it is a sport based art, the moves are limited by rules.


----------



## gblnking (Jul 10, 2007)

Kamon Guy said:


> [/size][/font][/size][/color]
> 
> Not at all. I have been to schools where they do not perform knees. Other schools rely on them. Some do backfists, some do them differently, some don't do them. If you want - you can give me a private message and I will reply with the different names of the schools I have been to and the differences between the styles. As for belts (tags) I won't even go there about the differences!!! I also currently train in CKD which is nothing like TKD but still flies under the TKD banner
> 
> ...


 
***sigh*** The only response I can offer here is that you incorrect. I can confidently say this because TKD as I've been exposed to is governed under large orginizations. While there will be small differances, every school [I've] attended or visited has the same basic syllabus. Every single one of them. With Wing Chun I've found that the same is almost true. They all (the ones I've attended or visited) teach the same forms but the differances in them from spelling to practise have varied greatly. From the two schools I attended to the two that I visited to the one real world situation I witnessed, the stance was differant in all five instances. The footwork was so dramatically differant from situation to situation, and the only other similarities were the hand positioning. There is absolutely no end in trying to make my point because your so completely rooted in your "style" of Wing Chun that you've got a hard on for it. I mean it's all said in your name. That's great that you've found something that is so near and dear to your hart, but your experiences must be dramatically differant from mine. Some how we've completely deviated from the original post***nuff said***


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Jul 11, 2007)

gblnking said:


> ***sigh*** The only response I can offer here is that you incorrect. I can confidently say this because TKD as I've been exposed to is governed under large orginizations. While there will be small differances, every school [I've] attended or visited has the same basic syllabus. Every single one of them. With Wing Chun I've found that the same is almost true. They all (the ones I've attended or visited) teach the same forms but the differances in them from spelling to practise have varied greatly. From the two schools I attended to the two that I visited to the one real world situation I witnessed, the stance was differant in all five instances. The footwork was so dramatically differant from situation to situation, and the only other similarities were the hand positioning. There is absolutely no end in trying to make my point because your so completely rooted in your "style" of Wing Chun that you've got a hard on for it. I mean it's all said in your name. That's great that you've found something that is so near and dear to your hart, but your experiences must be dramatically differant from mine. Some how we've completely deviated from the original post***nuff said***


 
Not at all. I have trained with and under James Sinclair, Wai Po Tan, Alan Orr, Viktor Khan, Sam Kwok, WT, Austin Goh and several wing chun instructors. This has culminated in twenty years of wing chun experience

Yes I do like and love Kamon as it is the most progressive and I have found Master Chan and some of the senior instructors to be the best in the business. But that doesn't mean I won't criticize the art

As I said I currently train in CKD which is basically TKD BUT SPELT DIFFERENTLY!!!
This is because Master Choi wanted to deviate slightly from TKD so has called it Choi Kwang Do. There are differences, but it is still a TKD system

Just like WT and WC

I have been to several TKD schools where the syllabus varies greatly. 

I would agree that there are more 'unified arts' such as Karate, where styles within the art follow a similar syllabus but I have still seen differences in these arts. (It's why some black belts are exceptional and others are dreadful)

The Yip Man lineage of WC should all have the same stance which is developed for training. If an independent school is not training it this way then they should give a reason

It would be like me doing a punch and a kick and calling it TKD. When people ask why it is TKD I can just say it is becaue I am doing a punch and a kick

Can I also just point out that you seem to have only visited these wing chun schools rather than trained in them. In Kamon we change drills week to week to keep the class exciting and less static. So that means that one week we may be doing drills involving stance and the next week looser drills/sparring where stance isn't trained so much. 

If a person just visits they will not know/appreciate everything that we do.


----------



## brocklee (Jul 15, 2007)

Kamon Guy said:


> Not at all. I have trained with and under James Sinclair, Wai Po Tan, Alan Orr, Viktor Khan, Sam Kwok, WT, Austin Goh and several wing chun instructors. This has culminated in twenty years of wing chun experience
> 
> Yes I do like and love Kamon as it is the most progressive and I have found Master Chan and some of the senior instructors to be the best in the business. But that doesn't mean I won't criticize the art
> 
> ...



If a person just visits ANY school, the will not know/appreciate everything that is done.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Jul 16, 2007)

Exactly. I'm not saying people on here are not experienced, I would just ask that people slow down and think about what they have actually seen and what they have heard. 

I heard that boxing was full of criminals and violent fools who just wanted to hurt people, before I started doing it. When I did train, I found that many of the boxers were awesome individuals who love what they do.


----------

