Are there things Yip Man knew but didn't teach?
- Thread starter Marnetmar
- Start date
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
I would think that a master that has studied his main art for 40 or 50 years (and probably has experience in other arts as well) has a depth of knowledge that goes beyond what is taught to his students. For one thing, the master decides what to teach. He may decide not to spend time on teaching some things he has learned as he considers them less important/effective, preferring to stress other concepts/techniques. Many karate masters knew more kata than they taught. Another thing is that few students stay with their master long enough to be able learn all the system has to offer.
More important however, is that it's impossible for a master to teach all he has learned. There are things that cannot be taught - they must be learned/discovered by the student himself during his long MA journey.
More important however, is that it's impossible for a master to teach all he has learned. There are things that cannot be taught - they must be learned/discovered by the student himself during his long MA journey.
Yes and yes kind of. Most early first gen direct Yip Man students are gone so all we have for proof are stories that they left behind. The only video evidence is the video of Yip Man doing the first 2 forms and the dummy. What he is doing in that video has many differences with forms performed by his early students and later ones as well.
Yip Man changed or held back things for many reasons. For example , the first person he taught the dummy to in Hong Kong,Yip Bo Ching, used a technique in a fight and seriously hurt some one. Yip Man changed the dummy form by removing that technique,. In an old Interview Hawkins Cheung talks about Yip Man teaching people different things if they were having trouble getting something. I was at a dinner where Yip Ching explained why his knife form was different than Yip Chuns same type of thing.
The only people that really got close to everything were the few private students that paid a lot or the early fighters since Yip Man reviewed fights with them and showed them different solutions when they lost or got hit. This is how the gaan sau got added to the SNT Yip Man taught. It was not in the early form he taught.
It is an odd story, that a "Gaan Sau" had to be introduced in the pertinent section of the SNT form, for a few reasons:
1. In the version of the set Yip Man taught to his early Fatsaan students, there is already a Gaang Sau in that section. In fact, in every version of the SLT practiced by his contemporaries, this particular section is about covering high and low, and interchanging between the two.
2. Why would it be necessary to add a movement in that section, when the Gaang Sau, covering the low gate was already present in the very first motion of the form? And anyway, why would it be necessary to change the form at all? One doesn't need a form to understand the "Sei Mun" concept and have the hands to cover those gates...
The story is from Wong Sheun Leung.
All you have to do is look at the versions that Yip Man taught his early Hong Kong students and track the evolution to see he taught different things at different times. Also some people have better instincts than others some can extrapolate techniques and others need to have every step shown .
According to Jui Wan,who would have known, YMs wing chun was like everyone else's in Fatshan however when he met up with YM in Hong Kong YM was doing some different things. YM explained to Jui Wan where these things came from and Jui Wan wanted to learn them so he became a student of YM.
According to Yip Chun Yip Man was always trying to streamline and simplify so this probably was one of those things that he was trying to simplify that didn't work out
It’s not that they hold back, it’s that they have accumulated a depth of knowledge that only comes from their personal journey and theirs alone. In FMA we have such folks as Leo Giron, Gerardo Alcuizar, Braulio Pedoy, Angel Cabales, etc that spend a lifetime, 24 hours a day on that journey. Same art with different personalities only they could impart. I only know the CMA via Inosanto's relationship with Bruce Lee, I’m sure Yip Man had an amazing journey as well.
wckf92
Master of Arts
Question: what are considered "the early years"? I'm not sure how many years Yip Man actually taught.
One of the Yip Man students told me this:
In WC, you suppose to use left Tan Shou to block a right punch. In one Hong Kong tournament, a CLF guy threw a right hook punch at a WC guy. The WC guy used left Tang Shou to block it. The CLF guy's right hook knocked through the WC guy's left Tang Shou and still knocked on the WC guy's head. After that tournament, Yip Man taught his student to use right Tang Shou to block right hook punch instead.
wckf92
Master of Arts
Your post mentions a "right punch", but then mentions a "right hook punch"...?
In your CLF story, it could just be an example of a WC guy who was using his Tan Sau incorrectly?
Maybe, but getting to the outside of a fast round hook with taan when square facing is not the most constantly practical action. IMO it's the difference between thinking in terms of training the mechanics as opposed to going through the motions of preconceived techniques.
Tang Shou is not suitable to be used to block a hook punch. The 45 degree upward Bong Shou can be more suitable for that. I assume Yip Man taught that student if he needs to use Tang Shou to block a hook punch, he will need to use the opposite side Tang Shou with body rotation.
Indeed it is!
But even so, does it make any sense?
Does adding a move which already exists in the form (all three of them, actually) mean “improving the style based on the fighting experience of his students”?
In fact, does changing a form, adding something or subtracting from it, have any bearing on practical application of the art?
There is no question that Yip Man taught different things at different times – in fact, any traditional martial arts teacher will do so. But the question is why and how those changes came about... Sometimes they are based on practical experience, sometimes on something else...
If we want to make the claim that Yip Man “improved” the art throughout his life, and prove it objectively, we need a measure: are people who learn the later versions consistently better and more efficient fighters?
That is a very difficult thing to demonstrate...
As far as what his students from various periods of his teaching did, an important question is whether or not this differences come from Yip Man or from the students themselves.
For what it is worth, having seen the videos filmed of Yip Man in Tang Sang’s police club, when he was still healthy, and the later, publicly available ones, I would say that there is not any “development”, it is pretty much the same stuff, same way of moving. With the obvious difference that the Grand Master was very depleted in the videos shot a short time prior to his passing.
Of course, it is only videos of him doing forms, not a discussing/demonstration of fighting theories, applications, etc.
As far as what Jiu Wan is supposed to have said, critical evaluation of that statement puts it into perspective:
The first question is how Jiu Wan, who was a grand student of Chan Yu Min, a Sihing of Yip Man, would know what all the other Wing Chun styles in Fatsaan were like. To what extent would he possibly have known those different styles?
It is not like they were publicly accessible – in fact, quite the opposite.
People like Yuen Kei Saan and Yip Man, very reluctant teachers and only passed on their respective arts to a very small group of people in Fatsaan, and would not perform their art in public.
If Jiu Wan didn’t have significant knowledge about and insights into the various branches of Wing Chun in Fatsaan, what significance does this (purported) statement have?
What we can say for a definite fact is that in the 1940s there were several different versions of Wing Chun in Fatsaan, all with their differences and special characteristics. Thus, Yip Man’s Wing Chun was already not the same as everybody else’s in Fatsaan – it didn’t suddenly become different from the other Fatsaan Wing Chun in HK, because of some refinements made there.
Jiu Wan’s exact relationship with Yip Man is unclear, there are different stories.
Some claim that he was already studying under Yip Man in Fatsaan, while others relate that he did so after finding him in HK. Others claim that there was no student/teacher relationship, but that they were martial “colleagues”.
Jiu Wan was supposedly on the “wrong” side, and decided to leave Fatsaan as the political climate changed, when the Communists rose to power. This means that he would have arrived in HK around the same time as Yip Man, or close to that. According to some sources, he studied under Yip Man for about 20 years, until the latter’s passing, so taking this as a reference, he must have started studying under Yip Man since 1952 at the latest.
Now, exactly how much would Yip Man’s Wing Chun have changed within the short time between Jiu Wan seeing Yip Man in Fatsaan and Hong Kong?
Some sources suggest that Jiu Wan wanted to study those differences which supposedly came from Leung Bik, but the story breaks down on a few grounds.
One is the fundamental question of Yip Man actually learning from Leung Bik, and why Yip Man would – if he had indeed learnt from him – would only teach those in Hong Kong?
Never mind the fact, that if he had learnt from Leung Bik, that would have been in the early 20th century, so those supposed differences introduced by Yip Man in HK would not have come from improvements or developments “discovered” there.
If we talk about simplification, Yip Man is supposed to have said something along the lines of “The best style is the one which can use the least techniques to deal with the most situations”. From this it can be inferred that one would seek improvement by whittling away any (perceived) fluff...
However, the reality is that any practical fighting art is doing that – it is not a specific hallmark of Wing Chun, or Yip Man. The question though is when things get too simplified, so as to become too limited to be functional in combat.
As I said earlier, changing a form by adding a move, removing a move, or changing a move to make it easier for a student to learn is not necessarily an improvement or even “streamlining” in the sense of creating a more effective art.
If we presume Yip Man changed an original way (Taan Gaan Taan) to a more “simplified” version (Taan Jaam Taan), only to change it back to the original way because one of his students applied the wrong technique in combat, can hardly be called innovative or a great development.
From a logical perspective, it just doesn’t make any sense to consider this a serious example of meaningful “refinements” to make the art more effective in combat...
It depends...
If applied correctly ("Straightening the Circle", “Nose to Nose", correct distance, application of "body momentum”, etc.) it can work quire well. If not... well, yes... it is not a very effective way to deal with a hooking type motion. Bong Sau as you describe can work quite well, under appropriate circumstances. Using a diagonal Taan Sau (with body rotation) is potentially problematic, and needs to meed certain requirements to work effectively and safely (reaching across with the lead hand on the inside creates a "wrong Bong situation", where you leave one side exposed). It is also not something "new" or a discovery made by Yip Man (or his students) in HK...
From my experience, an inside taan is a common action used by many VT groups against a round hook (ex: use left taan on the inside of a right hook punch). Depending on how tight the hook is, a fuk (like the one found in the WSLVT Chum Kiu form) is a preferred inside solution as well.
An "opposite side taan" is questionable in general, wrong mechanics, does not make contact with the thumb side of the hand, etc... What you're describing is more like part of gaan, or seung gaan sau, which is a two-handed clearing action (found in the WSLVT Biu Jee, Muk Yan Jong and Baat Jam Do forms).
Last edited:
