A quite different 1st form!
- Thread starter wckf92
- Start date
I should have been clear - I was referring to the OP video.
Danny T
Senior Master
Really???You guys don't get it then!
There is still only "ONE WING CHUN" (116 WING TSUN)
Wing Chun is Wing Chun in the original 116 techniques
So Wing Chun has had no evolution?
When was the dummy incorporated into original wing chun?
When was the Pole incorporated into original wing chun?
When were the knives incorporated into original wing chun?
No additions to training methods, no evolution, no changes from one person down to another?
More in-depth research and study on your part is needed.
FighterTwister
Blue Belt
I don't know where you are coming from with all this. First of all, your knowledge of Wing Chun history is totally inaccurate and seems to be very influenced by the fantasy versions of Wing Chun's origins as seen in old kung fu movies and some of the oral traditions erroneously taught as fact in some WC clubs.
I mean, do you really, literally believe wu-xia stories like the tale of the Shaolin Hall of 108 Wooden Men? ...or Ng Mui teaching Yim Wing Tsun to defeat a local bully who was trying to force her to marry him? Do you also believe that George Washington chopped down his father's cherry tree and threw a silver dollar across the Potomac? How about stories about Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill?
Dude, you seem to be the one who needs to get off Youtube and do some legitimate research. I, for one, studied Wing Chun/ Wing Tsun/ Ving Tsun with legitimate sifus starting back in the 70s when there was no internet. I did bai si and became a disciple of one of Yip Man's direct students back in the early 80s, so with over forty years in Kung Fu, and most of it in WC, I've been around the block, so to speak. And there are a number of people posting here who are way senior to me.
You apparently have studied some Wing Chun. Well, there's an old Chinese saying, "The bottle that's half-full makes the most noise when shaken!" Let me spell that out for you. Bottles that are either empty or very full don't slosh and make noise. Similarly a martial-arts noob and a master both tend to keep quiet, while those with a little knowledge are often overly proud and full of themselves. Another way of putting it: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
...So, here's a bit of friendly advice. Get off your high horse, show a little humility (like in your avatar/picture), and try emptying your cup. You might actually learn something.
Pfft, say's the guy that quotes me his martial arts resume LoL get over yourself m8 that doesn't impress me at all, but this is the internet LoL and thats the point you missed entirely as a focal point of my constructive feedback on the first post being the thread discussion
I know quite allot about Wing Chun and the Mook Jong Wooden Dummy in practice and theory but I wasn't born in the 15-16-17 century neither were you LoL
Its you who has not taken the time to listen nor have understood the thread in content and context because you are choosing to quack like a duck that is not really a duck defending its own, only just following the crowd.
Also you are coming from an American western point of view in the modern era, I might add meaning your are not Chinese with direct roots or knowledge that could shed some light on this subject but just studied whatever was given or handed down to you as we all have unless you make your own studies and pursue things further.
So its you who is still a noob in real matters of the Shoalin, Kung Fu and Wing Chun roots and history or even its teachings or linage that is very difficult to follow without some common sense and seeking the correct information.
So don't even raise your voice at me M8 when your ready to give proper input on the discussion as to the validity of the system as to whether or not there is such a thing or not of shifting feet then quote my post if you like for constructive feedback but this childish nonsense of calling me out, m8 grow a brain first and just post good discussion just talk to me m8 without the crap you posted, do you understand now.
However to emphasize do not insert provocation online when you would not do it person would be my best bet choosing to be personal calling someone derogatory and ridiculing names that I have not made to any on this Forum as a personal attack on character, the discussion is and I copy paste in bold..............
"A quite different 1st form!"
............... for you to respect with your input anytime you want m8
Because that what I'm addressing first as a concept stating that there is only one Wing chun and not what we see now with people popping up like weeds claiming they have something new as a Wing Chun practice also there is no clear documentation but certain views by Ip Man and others put forward as factual information provided.
Its a mess to follow but some common sense and articles that I have and read adding them up make some sense to many that I have trained with.
However if you study the start of the root you will find some clear answers that links the concept also tracking the linage and sifu's etc. thats not easy but do it..........
Here are some good Links:-
I did my homework many years ago with printed material by my teachers and fellow Chinese students answering some questions.
Also what did you not understand when I said and I quote ......"I'm going to stop here because I know where this is going and I really don't care to argue over the roots" post #31
Obviously its you who has trouble listening and in your words - "The bottle that's half-full makes the most noise when shaken!"
You made the noise by making things personal how silly are you now for doing so, comes off a little arrogant and foolishly aggressive for no reason at all, sadly on your part!
The point to my feedback is that there are many people distorting the actual style these days with changes in forms and methods that are confusing when people title it Wing Chun hence again............. "A quite different 1st form!" ................. its the very reason that has led to much argument and debate online that is what I'm addressing not its roots is that clear now, because thats another issue and debate as I mentioned earlier.
M8 its very simple you believe what you want so will I but the point was to preserve the original form of Wing Chun by Ip Man for future students as a discussion I joined, I'm 45 and out so to speak.
The important points of my input or replies are to keep the Wing Chun system intact or true so that other arts like Jeet Kune Do will also have that supporting backbone for future students studying these arts. I have good intentions for what I was posting but the internet and people like yourself make things difficult for others to even speak. I also answered a post with some humor to break the tension and still keep to the core of my argument (feedback or point of view) being that many try to modify a simple form that was or is the very intent and concept being a concise concept based on the economy of motion in close quarter combat that does combine shifting feet in application protecting the center-line and you say you study this so why aren't you commenting and ensuring the system stays true to its original form and concept.
Your unwillingness creates doubt that your understanding of Wing Chun is even solid enough to convey a good discussion so I will see what happens next LoL
Please enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom???
Aggh, I'm not bothered and its no skin off my nose this is the internet
............... so whatever carry on............
Danny T
Senior Master
Oh...so now it is the "original form of Wing Chun by Ip Man"; of which he made several changes...which of course is fine because after all, it is Ip Man who made the changes. But if someone else makes a changePfft, say's the guy that quotes me his martial arts resume LoL get over yourself m8 that doesn't impress me at all, but this is the internet LoL and thats the point you missed entirely as a focal point of my constructive feedback on the first post being the thread discussion
I know quite allot about Wing Chun and the Mook Jong Wooden Dummy in practice and theory but I wasn't born in the 15-16-17 century neither were you LoL
Its you who has not taken the time to listen nor have understood the thread in content and context because you are choosing to quack like a duck that is not really a duck defending its own, only just following the crowd.
Also you are coming from an American western point of view in the modern era, I might add meaning your are not Chinese with direct roots or knowledge that could shed some light on this subject but just studied whatever was given or handed down to you as we all have unless you make your own studies and pursue things further.
So its you who is still a noob in real matters of the Shoalin, Kung Fu and Wing Chun roots and history or even its teachings or linage that is very difficult to follow without some common sense and seeking the correct information.
So don't even raise your voice at me M8 when your ready to give proper input on the discussion as to the validity of the system as to whether or not there is such a thing or not of shifting feet then quote my post if you like for constructive feedback but this childish nonsense of calling me out, m8 grow a brain first and just post good discussion just talk to me m8 without the crap you posted, do you understand now.
However to emphasize do not insert provocation online when you would not do it person would be my best bet choosing to be personal calling someone derogatory and ridiculing names that I have not made to any on this Forum as a personal attack on character, the discussion is and I copy paste in bold..............
"A quite different 1st form!"
............... for you to respect with your input anytime you want m8
Because that what I'm addressing first as a concept stating that there is only one Wing chun and not what we see now with people popping up like weeds claiming they have something new as a Wing Chun practice also there is no clear documentation but certain views by Ip Man and others put forward as factual information provided.
Its a mess to follow but some common sense and articles that I have and read adding them up make some sense to many that I have trained with.
However if you study the start of the root you will find some clear answers that links the concept also tracking the linage and sifu's etc. thats not easy but do it..........
Here are some good Links:-
I did my homework many years ago with printed material by my teachers and fellow Chinese students answering some questions.
Also what did you not understand when I said and I quote ......"I'm going to stop here because I know where this is going and I really don't care to argue over the roots" post #31
Obviously its you who has trouble listening and in your words - "The bottle that's half-full makes the most noise when shaken!"
You made the noise by making things personal how silly are you now for doing so, comes off a little arrogant and foolishly aggressive for no reason at all, sadly on your part!
The point to my feedback is that there are many people distorting the actual style these days with changes in forms and methods that are confusing when people title it Wing Chun hence again............. "A quite different 1st form!" ................. its the very reason that has led to much argument and debate online that is what I'm addressing not its roots is that clear now, because thats another issue and debate as I mentioned earlier.
M8 its very simple you believe what you want so will I but the point was to preserve the original form of Wing Chun by Ip Man for future students as a discussion I joined, I'm 45 and out so to speak.
The important points of my input or replies are to keep the Wing Chun system intact or true so that other arts like Jeet Kune Do will also have that supporting backbone for future students studying these arts. I have good intentions for what I was posting but the internet and people like yourself make things difficult for others to even speak. I also answered a post with some humor to break the tension and still keep to the core of my argument (feedback or point of view) being that many try to modify a simple form that was or is the very intent and concept being a concise concept based on the economy of motion in close quarter combat that does combine shifting feet in application protecting the center-line and you say you study this so why aren't you commenting and ensuring the system stays true to its original form and concept.
Your unwillingness creates doubt that your understanding of Wing Chun is even solid enough to convey a good discussion so I will see what happens next LoL
Please enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom???
Aggh, I'm not bothered and its no skin off my nose this is the internet
Oh, no, no, no!! That is wrong!! What about Ip Man's brothers who also made changes? Or Ip Man's different instructors who also made changes?
FighterTwister
Blue Belt
Mr Geezer the Mentor LoL
Exactly, just like I thought you would reply and act like a two year old!
So next time be quiet or really provide good feedback!
Please work on your humor because that was sad.
So you choose what best direction helps the community at large?
Exactly, just like I thought you would reply and act like a two year old!
So next time be quiet or really provide good feedback!
Please work on your humor because that was sad.
So you choose what best direction helps the community at large?
Yes, I try to nurture my inner child!
Now back to what you were saying about there being only one Wing Chun. I actually do see strong connections between most of the different lineages, unlike one forum member (who hasn't posted much lately). He held that only the particular branch that he studied was an effective system, even among other closely related Yip Man lineage groups. Several times he went so far as to state that the Ving Tsun he studied should be considered an altogether different style from other Wing/Chun/Ving Tsun groups.
You, on the other hand, are at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, insisting that all Wing Chun is essentially the same system, even when different groups claim different lineages, have different forms, or no forms at all and instead stress san sik, and often have very different, even contradictory conceptual bases.
Now these different branches are nothing new. They did not sprout up in the last 20 years.They can be traced well back into the 19th Century. And, FYI, you should know that regardless of the internet sources you sited, there really isn't much reliable historical evidence that Wing Chun even existed as a distinct and recognizable system before the era of Leung Jan. It may go back a ways further, but the records from before that time are unreliable. Your faith in the literal truth of the old stories of the Five Elders of Southern Shaolin, of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun, and so forth ...is just that.. I.e."faith". It isn't history.
BTW @ KPM: I can only assume that M8 = "mate". So this guy must be down in OZ, and if like you suggest, he is a "wacko", at least I'm relatively safe here on the other side of the globe! LOL.
Last edited:
Ok Twistyfighter. Now that you've gone through and disliked everyone's posts, how about engaging in an actual discussion? Drop the silly memes, drop the repeatitive declarative statements, etc. and simply answer some of the questions and points that have been put to you so far.
So how do you define this "original" or "one" Wing Chun that you keep referring to? Whose system do you see as an example of that?
How do you support saying that there is only "one" Wing Chun when there exists a Wing Chun system that is Ku Lo Pin Sun and is organized around 18 short sets and does not use the typical SNT/CK/BG form format? Or when there exists Wing Chun systems that are as technically different as Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun is from Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun? Or when it is well-established that Ip Man himself had different teachers, changed his own Wing Chun somewhat, and taught it differently in various stages of his career? Maybe we are all missing your true meaning or intent and you can elaborate on it a bit?
You seem to have said that Wing Chun is based upon the 116 dummy? How do you see that working given that every Wing Chun branch seems to have a different dummy form? Ip Man's dummy is not the same as Yuen Kay Shan's or Yiu Choi's. Ku Lo Pin Sun doesn't even have a dummy "form", but practices all of the sets individually on the dummy and then links them together at will "freestyle." If the base is the dummy, yet everyone has a different dummy form, then how can all be "one"?
Your version of the legendary origins of Wing Chun is different than most others. I don't recall hearing anyone in the past say that a person combined all of the dummy techniques from the Shaolin hall into one 116 move form and that this was the first example of Wing Chun. Most of the legends talk about someone combining movements from each of the standard Shaolin 5 animal forms, or innovating from knowledge of the Shaolin system after watching a fight between a snake and a crane (some say a fox and a crane). Who did you learn this version of the legend from? What are your sources for what you are calling the "history" of Wing Chun?
You said something about how we all just needed to study the root from the Shaolin monks, then how Wing Chun is based on the 116 dummy form from the Shaolin Wooden man hall. This sort of implies that you think this original dummy form is still around? True or not?
Thanks!
So how do you define this "original" or "one" Wing Chun that you keep referring to? Whose system do you see as an example of that?
How do you support saying that there is only "one" Wing Chun when there exists a Wing Chun system that is Ku Lo Pin Sun and is organized around 18 short sets and does not use the typical SNT/CK/BG form format? Or when there exists Wing Chun systems that are as technically different as Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun is from Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun? Or when it is well-established that Ip Man himself had different teachers, changed his own Wing Chun somewhat, and taught it differently in various stages of his career? Maybe we are all missing your true meaning or intent and you can elaborate on it a bit?
You seem to have said that Wing Chun is based upon the 116 dummy? How do you see that working given that every Wing Chun branch seems to have a different dummy form? Ip Man's dummy is not the same as Yuen Kay Shan's or Yiu Choi's. Ku Lo Pin Sun doesn't even have a dummy "form", but practices all of the sets individually on the dummy and then links them together at will "freestyle." If the base is the dummy, yet everyone has a different dummy form, then how can all be "one"?
Your version of the legendary origins of Wing Chun is different than most others. I don't recall hearing anyone in the past say that a person combined all of the dummy techniques from the Shaolin hall into one 116 move form and that this was the first example of Wing Chun. Most of the legends talk about someone combining movements from each of the standard Shaolin 5 animal forms, or innovating from knowledge of the Shaolin system after watching a fight between a snake and a crane (some say a fox and a crane). Who did you learn this version of the legend from? What are your sources for what you are calling the "history" of Wing Chun?
You said something about how we all just needed to study the root from the Shaolin monks, then how Wing Chun is based on the 116 dummy form from the Shaolin Wooden man hall. This sort of implies that you think this original dummy form is still around? True or not?
Thanks!
Danny T
Senior Master
Now this is comical.
You tell gezzer he is acting as a two year old as you go about disliking any discussion that disagrees with you while also not providing any substantial reasoning for your thoughts on 'original wing chun'. Only that Ip Man's wc is the original even when it is known that he as well as instructors before him modified, added, & changed things within the system and their teachings. Would not that mean that even Ip Man's wc is not original?
FighterTwister
Blue Belt
@KPM - You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?
Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.
You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.
However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.
But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay!
Here you go…………
First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!
More info here:- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –
Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.
Also wars or other powers in that era had an effect on the Chinese culture in that time period might want to look into Sun Tze philosophies of deceit and tactical advantage - http://www.puppetpress.com/classics/ArtofWarbySunTzu.pdf
More info here:-
Confucius:- Confucius - Wikipedia
Shaolin:- Shaolin - Wikipedia
Links:-
Watch this...........
Again my view is there is only one Wing Chun system based on the theory and principles being a simple form and not complicated, we only have 2 arms 2 legs so to speak hence the 116 techniques in Wing Chun are the base form tried and tested on the frame work of economy of motion hand trapping techniques closing the gap demonstrated on the Mook Jong (Wooden Dummy that traces back to Shaolin versions of Wooden men types as training equipment.)
Link:- 116 Wing Chun Dummy Techniques
The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.
Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others hence why I base my opinion on links as some form or factual findings being the most common of all beliefs.
Lets not make this a problem its not a religion but just to establish some root going back centuries as a form of acknowledgment to end the online madness.
You are entitled to your view but then you can't complain when there is more mess created over time and needing explanations and fixing some are trying to correct the path and have done all they can as you can see by peoples research and historical writings in those links and going back the Shaolin origins so on.
Cheers
Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.
You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.
However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.
But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay!
Here you go…………
First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!
More info here:- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –
Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.
Also wars or other powers in that era had an effect on the Chinese culture in that time period might want to look into Sun Tze philosophies of deceit and tactical advantage - http://www.puppetpress.com/classics/ArtofWarbySunTzu.pdf
More info here:-
Confucius:- Confucius - Wikipedia
Shaolin:- Shaolin - Wikipedia
Links:-
- Ving Tsun Athletic Association
- Family Tree
- The Chinese LoHan of Kung Fu - KaiMen
- Return of Wing Chun to Shaolin Temple Grandmaster William Cheung's Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
Watch this...........
Again my view is there is only one Wing Chun system based on the theory and principles being a simple form and not complicated, we only have 2 arms 2 legs so to speak hence the 116 techniques in Wing Chun are the base form tried and tested on the frame work of economy of motion hand trapping techniques closing the gap demonstrated on the Mook Jong (Wooden Dummy that traces back to Shaolin versions of Wooden men types as training equipment.)
Link:- 116 Wing Chun Dummy Techniques
The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.
Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others hence why I base my opinion on links as some form or factual findings being the most common of all beliefs.
Lets not make this a problem its not a religion but just to establish some root going back centuries as a form of acknowledgment to end the online madness.
You are entitled to your view but then you can't complain when there is more mess created over time and needing explanations and fixing some are trying to correct the path and have done all they can as you can see by peoples research and historical writings in those links and going back the Shaolin origins so on.
Cheers
Last edited:
Asking for clarification and evidence of another's position is how discussions work. If you just want to give your opinion and never have it questioned, start a blog (and turn off comments). Forums are for discussion. Discussion frequently includes disagreement, questioning, and challenges. That's how we all learn.@KPM - You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?
Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.
You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.
However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.
But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay!
Here you go…………
First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!
More info here:- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –
More info here:-
Confucius:- Confucius - Wikipedia
Shaolin:- Shaolin - Wikipedia
Links:-
- Ving Tsun Athletic Association
- Family Tree
- The Chinese LoHan of Kung Fu - KaiMen
- Return of Wing Chun to Shaolin Temple Grandmaster William Cheung's Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
Watch this...........
Again my view is there is only one Wing Chun system based on the theory and principles being a simple form and not complicated, we only have 2 arms 2 legs so to speak.
The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.
Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others hence why I base my opinion on links as some form or factual findings being the most common of all beliefs.
Lets not make this a problem its not a religion but just to establish some root going back centuries as a form of acknowledgment to end the online madness.
You are entitled to your view but hen you can't complain when there is more mess to created over time and needing explanations and fixing some are trying to correct the path and have done all they can as you can see by peoples research and historical writings in those links and going back the Shaolin origins.
Cheers
FighterTwister
Blue Belt
Discuss this over a PM if you like I wont drag this thread out with off topic conversation only attracting negative feedback if thats okay!
Also people can discuss this thread in private with me also if anyone likes!
Cheers
Last edited:
Nope. Not sure there's much to discuss.
You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?
---Yeah we know your opinion. We have just been asking for you to elaborate on it and support it. That's what a discussion is!
Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
---I'm always open to new ideas....as long as there is some evidence to back them up. You have refused to discuss or detail any evidence or even the "why" of what you believe.
Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.
---Why it is too much to cover? The answers to the questions I asked of you in my prior post wouldn't be too much to write. After all you just made this long post and hunted up all kinds of links to add to it. You could have used that time to actually enter into a discussion by addressing the questions I asked.
You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.
---And you invite that by your evasive behavior, dismissiveness of what other people have said, and unwillingness to actually discuss and answer questions. And I do believe you turned around and used just as much personal ridiculing and mocking directed at Geezer!
However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.
----Rather than playing the "chinese master" trying to "put me on the path", how about just simply answering the questions I asked in a direct fashion? That is what a discussion forum is for, after all! Do you know how to conduct a simple discussion on a topic without resorting to all kinds of memes and youtube videos and links?
But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay!
---You haven't provided any historical accounts.
First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!
---I know what Occam's Razor is, no need for youtube videos! The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. There is no documentation from the time of the Shaolin temple that links Wing Chun to the temple. That is all just legendary stories. There is documentation of Leung Jan's era. In fact, Leung Jan's generation is the only one that has been shown to be real people. And the spoke of Wing Chun on the Red Boats. So the simplest explanation is that Wing Chun likely developed on the Red Boats and was refined by Leung Jan's generation. Occam's Razor.
The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –
----If you spent as much time actually engaging in discussion as you did hunting for and posting links, we might be making better progress here!
Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.
----And you really think there would be no "communication breakdown" by taking this attitude of "putting people on the path" rather than just answering questions and engaging in discussion in a straight-forward way? So who is the owner of the original "communication" that has the Wing Chun wisdom before is was broken down by all these "chinese whispers" over time?
----Just because William Cheung bought into the myth of Shaolin origins for Wing Chun doesn't make it true.
---Did you watch it? Sifu Kwok actually says that in Ng Mui's day nothing was written down and that this is legend. He also says nothing about the Shaolin Wooden man hall being the origin of Wing Chun. I didn't see that in any of your many links. Where is that idea coming from?
The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.
---No, people putting crap on the internet as if it was the gospel truth with nothing backing it up is what creates confusion.
Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others
----Who exactly? What "many others"? Like I said before, you are the only one I have seen that says Wing Chun derived from the combination of moves from the Shaolin wooden man hall. None of your links said that. So just who says this besides you?
----Let me suggest that you spend some time reading through this site:
Kung Fu Tea
Ben Judkins is an actual historian.
---Yeah we know your opinion. We have just been asking for you to elaborate on it and support it. That's what a discussion is!
Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
---I'm always open to new ideas....as long as there is some evidence to back them up. You have refused to discuss or detail any evidence or even the "why" of what you believe.
Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.
---Why it is too much to cover? The answers to the questions I asked of you in my prior post wouldn't be too much to write. After all you just made this long post and hunted up all kinds of links to add to it. You could have used that time to actually enter into a discussion by addressing the questions I asked.
You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.
---And you invite that by your evasive behavior, dismissiveness of what other people have said, and unwillingness to actually discuss and answer questions. And I do believe you turned around and used just as much personal ridiculing and mocking directed at Geezer!
However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.
----Rather than playing the "chinese master" trying to "put me on the path", how about just simply answering the questions I asked in a direct fashion? That is what a discussion forum is for, after all! Do you know how to conduct a simple discussion on a topic without resorting to all kinds of memes and youtube videos and links?
But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay!
---You haven't provided any historical accounts.
First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!
---I know what Occam's Razor is, no need for youtube videos! The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. There is no documentation from the time of the Shaolin temple that links Wing Chun to the temple. That is all just legendary stories. There is documentation of Leung Jan's era. In fact, Leung Jan's generation is the only one that has been shown to be real people. And the spoke of Wing Chun on the Red Boats. So the simplest explanation is that Wing Chun likely developed on the Red Boats and was refined by Leung Jan's generation. Occam's Razor.
The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –
----If you spent as much time actually engaging in discussion as you did hunting for and posting links, we might be making better progress here!
Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.
----And you really think there would be no "communication breakdown" by taking this attitude of "putting people on the path" rather than just answering questions and engaging in discussion in a straight-forward way? So who is the owner of the original "communication" that has the Wing Chun wisdom before is was broken down by all these "chinese whispers" over time?
- Roots of Wing Chun -
- That link gives a pretty standard history. Nothing there about Wing Chun being the distillation of the moves from the wooden dummy halll, or the system originally being 116 dummy moves.
- International Wing Chun Organization
----Just because William Cheung bought into the myth of Shaolin origins for Wing Chun doesn't make it true.
---Did you watch it? Sifu Kwok actually says that in Ng Mui's day nothing was written down and that this is legend. He also says nothing about the Shaolin Wooden man hall being the origin of Wing Chun. I didn't see that in any of your many links. Where is that idea coming from?
The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.
---No, people putting crap on the internet as if it was the gospel truth with nothing backing it up is what creates confusion.
Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others
----Who exactly? What "many others"? Like I said before, you are the only one I have seen that says Wing Chun derived from the combination of moves from the Shaolin wooden man hall. None of your links said that. So just who says this besides you?
----Let me suggest that you spend some time reading through this site:
Kung Fu Tea
Ben Judkins is an actual historian.
FighterTwister
Blue Belt
Is that all you can come up with at least share your opinion and leave it at that, but keep respect to all other members and don't abuse your posting privileges on this Forum can't be any clearer!
Or do you go around calling people ill because you cant settle a matter, how empty of thought or any sense of being able to communicate are you.
I have said all along its messy to understand or unraval and have given my opinion and with supporting links being the most common view but with some common sense you can at least appreciate what is possibly a solution to the story. But you and others are just baiting an argument and "Stoking the fire" and so to speak and a Forum Moderator should just lock this thread and give you and a few others a private warning.
You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?
---Yeah we know your opinion. We have just been asking for you to elaborate on it and support it. That's what a discussion is!
Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
---I'm always open to new ideas....as long as there is some evidence to back them up. You have refused to discuss or detail any evidence or even the "why" of what you believe.
Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.
---Why it is too much to cover? The answers to the questions I asked of you in my prior post wouldn't be too much to write. After all you just made this long post and hunted up all kinds of links to add to it. You could have used that time to actually enter into a discussion by addressing the questions I asked.
You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.
---And you invite that by your evasive behavior, dismissiveness of what other people have said, and unwillingness to actually discuss and answer questions. And I do believe you turned around and used just as much personal ridiculing and mocking directed at Geezer!
However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.
----Rather than playing the "chinese master" trying to "put me on the path", how about just simply answering the questions I asked in a direct fashion? That is what a discussion forum is for, after all! Do you know how to conduct a simple discussion on a topic without resorting to all kinds of memes and youtube videos and links?
But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay!
---You haven't provided any historical accounts.
First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!
---I know what Occam's Razor is, no need for youtube videos! The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. There is no documentation from the time of the Shaolin temple that links Wing Chun to the temple. That is all just legendary stories. There is documentation of Leung Jan's era. In fact, Leung Jan's generation is the only one that has been shown to be real people. And the spoke of Wing Chun on the Red Boats. So the simplest explanation is that Wing Chun likely developed on the Red Boats and was refined by Leung Jan's generation. Occam's Razor.
The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –
----If you spent as much time actually engaging in discussion as you did hunting for and posting links, we might be making better progress here!
Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.
----And you really think there would be no "communication breakdown" by taking this attitude of "putting people on the path" rather than just answering questions and engaging in discussion in a straight-forward way? So who is the owner of the original "communication" that has the Wing Chun wisdom before is was broken down by all these "chinese whispers" over time?
----So is that your answer to one of my questions? Chow Tze Tsun is your source of "original Wing Chun"?
- Roots of Wing Chun -
- That link gives a pretty standard history. Nothing there about Wing Chun being the distillation of the moves from the wooden dummy halll, or the system originally being 116 dummy moves.
- International Wing Chun Organization
----Just because William Cheung bought into the myth of Shaolin origins for Wing Chun doesn't make it true.
---Did you watch it? Sifu Kwok actually says that in Ng Mui's day nothing was written down and that this is legend. He also says nothing about the Shaolin Wooden man hall being the origin of Wing Chun. I didn't see that in any of your many links. Where is that idea coming from?
The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.
---No, people putting crap on the internet as if it was the gospel truth with nothing backing it up is what creates confusion.
Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others
----Who exactly? What "many others"? Like I said before, you are the only one I have seen that says Wing Chun derived from the combination of moves from the Shaolin wooden man hall. None of your links said that. So just who says this besides you?
----Let me suggest that you spend some time reading through this site:
Kung Fu Tea
Ben Judkins is an actual historian.
I have read all and understand all the info found online and the link to Kung Fu Tea you linked great stuff, but sadly you have missed my point of view entirely and its why talking on Forums makes things difficult and cumbersome.
My only absolute last answer is study the "Chinese Culture" in that era then the roots and the issues of that time period and at least settle the matter for yourself thats what I did, why is this so hard for you or anyone to understand., we will never know 100%.
Here is something that might help I don't know but again its all about choice how you chose to settle the matter or understand it...............
"Wing Chun is a traditional Chinese martial arts form which originates from South China(Guang Zhou & Fu Jian Province ). There is an interesting story about how and why Wing Chun has created. During the Qing dynasty, In order to revolt against the tyrannies of Qing Dynasty government’s reign, the southern shaolin temple had a fight with the government. The government destroyed the southern shaolin temple. The monks left the temple and became homeless. One of the five greatest martial arts artists that escaped was a girl named WuMei. She fled to the mountains. One day when she was out searching for food she saw a snake and a crane fighting. She studied their moves and tactics with intense focus, and with her knowledge of Shaolin Kung fu then created Wing Chun."
*Online Reference:- Wing Chun training in China | Dragon Mountain Kung Fu School
So again, all the information and my stance on the subject are in those links given over a few posts now thats my historical accounts you ask as those links have provided or noted as doing all possible research and if your browse through each link and read the entire Webpage of each link there is great material and info to base an opinion on, you seem to keep insisting I have to prove myself on what exactly, that I have a time machine and went back in time to discover the secrets LoL do you no know the meaning of an opinion or stance on a subject to resolve the matter at least for oneself.
My opinion on the matter is sorted, and I have come to a final belief many years ago as stated earlier that there is only one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques ever taught rooted from the Shaolin monks and the rest is crap just changes added and people passing on the style and variances of the original. I also say this because of the current dilemma we have now being a circus show of who has a better form and who's origins are more accurate than the other, just online madness that has done more harm than good hence all my previous posts in thread.
Again its pointless to keep talking believe what you want so will I and on that note why don't you guys explain to the community what your opinions and beliefs are? mm
Using facts or documented views either legends or historical research none here has given any substantial discussion as to what or how they see this matter to be.
By now you know what mine is trying to filter me through a swifter ain't going to cut it since we really are basing the origins on a messy historical view with so much conjecture and misinterpretations so on.
Where now everyone in the world claims a story or an origin but only one is more common that the others and its more about culture than origins thats key in this discussion some are missing altogether and thats what i have had to learn more than just Wing Chun to have a view of my own.
In the end I am entitled to have an opinion a belief based on facts, historical records and legends and so are you/ others, enough said!
Can we end this now and move on I wonder!
Last edited:
