Differences between older and newer Yip Man Wing Chun

[Vajramusti]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.