Master leung Bik

[Vajramusti]

"The worst blind is the blind who doesn't want to see". Chan Wah Shun and his old students, the brothers Ng Siu Lo & Ng



Chung Sok were the teachers of Yip Man. Just 6 yeas of education. (Remember that Bruce Lee was under the direction of Yip Man only for......5 years too). The problem is that all the students of Yip Man use a different way to teach. In Gulo (and all the others lineages of Leung Jan), have only one way to teach. You know that..........
Wing Chun is ONE..........and maybe you must serach the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------
Ip Man's structure and footwork is quite different from Chan Wah Son and his students. He had to make a living from scratch after escaping from Foshan to HK.
He 'taught" many students in the general class and only a very few who paid huge sums to learn privately.Very few learned from Ip Man for 3 years or more.No surprise that most teach differently among themselves.That is why the spreading of wing chun is a disaster.

 

[Nobody Important]

-----------------------------------------------------
Ip Man's structure and footwork is quite different from Chan Wah Son and his students. He had to make a living from scratch after escaping from Foshan to HK.
He 'taught" many students in the general class and only a very few who paid huge sums to learn privately.Very few learned from Ip Man for 3 years or more.No surprise that most teach differently among themselves.That is why the spreading of wing chun is a disaster.

It sounds like, from your own admission, that the spreading of Wing Chun is disastrous due to Yip Man purposely teaching bad Wing Chun to good students simply because they were poor and couldn't afford what he considered the real material.

Wing Chun shouldn't take a real long time to learn well, over all it isn't very athletic; like Northern Shaolin, it doesn't contain a lot of material and it was billed as a system that could be learned much quicker than other TCMA's.

To withhold material & information from a student base from who you rely on financially to support yourself, simply because they are poor and you don't believe them to be worthy is quite deceitful.

Seems to me this is either a bold face lie to support a narrative of superiority, or Yip Man evolved his method over his lifetime as new understandings were developed, or he truly was of shitty moral character. Which is it?

 

[Vajramusti]

Neither a lie or a matter of character. Good wing chun takes time to learn and wing chun had to make a living after the japanese invasion and Mao's revolution. Ego of students is a big factor in made up wing chun.

 

[Nobody Important]

Neither a lie or a matter of character. Good wing chun takes time to learn and wing chun had to make a living after the japanese invasion and Mao's revolution. Ego of students is a big factor in made up wing chun.

While true, so is the ego of the teacher. All things take time to master, not necessarily to learn. Yip Man didn't study that long with a formal teacher. He had 3 years with Chan Wah Shun as a child and few years with Ng Chung So after. If we are to believe the Leung Bik story, he only had around 2 years training as an adult while in college. If he couldn't impart the full system in 3-4 years to his own full time students, what does that tell of his own background and ability to teach effectively? Especially since his fractured training wasn't much more.

Kano studied Jujutsu for 3- 4 years before developing Judo, Ueshiba around 3 - 4 years in Aikijutsu before developing Aikido, Lee around 3 - 4 years in Wing Chun before developing Jeet Kune Do, Lewis received a black belt in Okinawa in just under 2 years prior to becoming a kickboxing champion, etc.

Time isn't a factor, instruction is, student is. When an instructor purposefully withholds because of money, an incohesive training regimen, lack of developed or finalized ideas, or because they themselves are still learning and developing, who is to blame? The student? That is a poor excuse to rationalize "true transmission" and marginalize "broken transmission" by labeling the student as ignorant. Could it be that the blame lies more in inconsistent and evolving methodology as taught by an instructor teaching while still developing and refining his art?

 

[KPM]

There is no doubt that what Ip Man taught in Foshan prior to moving to HK is different from what he taught early on in HK which is again different from what he taught near the end of his career in HK. To deny that Ip Man's Wing Chun evolved and changed over time is just foolish.

 

[KPM]

-----------------------------------------------------
Ip Man's structure and footwork is quite different from Chan Wah Son and his students. He had to make a living from scratch after escaping from Foshan to HK.
.

What is your reference for Chan Wah Shun's structure and footwork to compare to Ip Man's?

 

[wckf92]

Is Yip Man's "final version" of his own WC at all similar to the Gulo Leung Jan stuff?

I think KPM has said or posted that the Pin Sun lineage/curriculum doesn't contain the knives? Is that correct?

 

[KPM]

Is Yip Man's "final version" of his own WC at all similar to the Gulo Leung Jan stuff?

---Not really. Maybe in the sense that he seemed to pivot more deeply and maybe used more of a "side body" position. But Yuen Kay Shan did that as well.


I think KPM has said or posted that the Pin Sun lineage/curriculum doesn't contain the knives? Is that correct?

---That is correct. However, some Pin Sun people have added it to their curriculum in more recent years. But the Ku Lo guys say that Leung Jan did not teach the knives in Ku Lo village. Some historical references put the origin of the knives with Fok Bo Chuen, who was Leung Jan's classmate under Wong Wah Bo. So it is possible that Leung Jan did not do the knives.

 

[wckf92]

However, some Pin Sun people have added it to their curriculum in more recent years

Is this what is taught up in the Boston area? (i.e. Kulo... + the knives?)

 

[KPM]

Is this what is taught up in the Boston area? (i.e. Kulo... + the knives?)

No. Sifu Henry Mui does not know or teach the butterfly knives.

 

[wckf92]

No. Sifu Henry Mui does not know or teach the butterfly knives.

Cool. Thx KPM!

 

[APL76]

Is Yip Man's "final version" of his own WC at all similar to the Gulo Leung Jan stuff?

---Not really. Maybe in the sense that he seemed to pivot more deeply and maybe used more of a "side body" position. But Yuen Kay Shan did that as well.


I think KPM has said or posted that the Pin Sun lineage/curriculum doesn't contain the knives? Is that correct?

---That is correct. However, some Pin Sun people have added it to their curriculum in more recent years. But the Ku Lo guys say that Leung Jan did not teach the knives in Ku Lo village. Some historical references put the origin of the knives with Fok Bo Chuen, who was Leung Jan's classmate under Wong Wah Bo. So it is possible that Leung Jan did not do the knives.

Fok Bu Chuen learned from Dai Fa Min Gam, not Wong Wah Bo.

 

[Jeansus]

While true, so is the ego of the teacher. All things take time to master, not necessarily to learn. Yip Man didn't study that long with a formal teacher. He had 3 years with Chan Wah Shun as a child and few years with Ng Chung So after. If we are to believe the Leung Bik story, he only had around 2 years training as an adult while in college. If he couldn't impart the full system in 3-4 years to his own full time students, what does that tell of his own background and ability to teach effectively? Especially since his fractured training wasn't much more.

Kano studied Jujutsu for 3- 4 years before developing Judo, Ueshiba around 3 - 4 years in Aikijutsu before developing Aikido, Lee around 3 - 4 years in Wing Chun before developing Jeet Kune Do, Lewis received a black belt in Okinawa in just under 2 years prior to becoming a kickboxing champion, etc.

Time isn't a factor, instruction is, student is. When an instructor purposefully withholds because of money, an incohesive training regimen, lack of developed or finalized ideas, or because they themselves are still learning and developing, who is to blame? The student? That is a poor excuse to rationalize "true transmission" and marginalize "broken transmission" by labeling the student as ignorant. Could it be that the blame lies more in inconsistent and evolving methodology as taught by an instructor teaching while still developing and refining his art?

 

[Jeansus]

My friend "Nobody Important" , I almost agree with you. I'll explain you what I mean.....almost!
The problem of Yip Man was not his talent but his education. The talent is not enough to teach.....if there is not education. I have seen many athletes in China with talent to be champions.......but not great teachers. I am sure that you understand me.

 

[Jeansus]

Only in Hong Kong and the west, you need many years for a complete education of a traditional style. Not in China.

 

[KPM]

Fok Bu Chuen learned from Dai Fa Min Gam, not Wong Wah Bo.

That depends on whose lineage you are going by! I believe the Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun people state that Fok Bo Chuen learned from Wong Wah Bo and that it was Fung Siu Ching that learned from Dai Fa Min Gam. Having studied Weng Chun myself, I can testify that it is very different from Ip Man Wing Chun and what I have seen of YSK Wing Chun. So I find it very likely that YSK's primary teacher was Fok Bo Chuen (Wing Chun via Wong Wa Bo) and he did some additional supplementary study with Fung Siu Ching (Weng Chun via Dai Fa Min Gam). No Weng Chun lineage I have ever seen claims Fok Bo Chuen as part of Weng Chun.

 

[APL76]

Only last Friday night my sifu (who was a disciple of Sum Nung) was showing me a history of wing chun that he wrote down word for word from a history of wing chun that Sum Nung wrote down as Yuen Kay San told it to him. In it, Fok Bo Chun is a student of Dai Fa Min Kam. There is no connection to Wong Wah Bo other than him being a contemporary/kung fu brother to Dai Fa Min Kam. Given that it came directly from Yuen Kay San, to Sum Nung then to my Sifu stating that Fok Bo Chun is Dai Fa Min Kam’s student I don’t know why anyone would think that Yuen kay San people would think of him as Wong Wah Bo’s student; Im third generation from Yuen Kay San so most definitely part of that line, and we have never heard of any connection of Fok Bo Chun with Wong Wah Bo. I could be wrong of course but in twenty years of being my sifu’s student I have never heard him make such a connection; though he is willing to say quite openly that there isn’t a great deal known about Fok Bo Chun other than before he taught Yuen Kay San that he was a very well known fighter and a student of Dai Fa Min Kam.

 

[Vajramusti]

There is no doubt that what Ip Man taught in Foshan prior to moving to HK is different from what he taught early on in HK which is again different from what he taught near the end of his career in HK. To deny that Ip Man's Wing Chun evolved and changed over time is just foolish.

-----------------------------------------------
superfcial analysis-wandering without a compass.

 

[KPM]

-----------------------------------------------
superfcial analysis-wandering without a compass.

Head in the sand. Refusing to look at what seems pretty obvious to most people.

 

[KPM]

WingChunPedia | WCP / YuenKayShan browse

But it seems that various lineages have different versions, so its really hard to know for sure. But as I noted....if you believe that both Fok Bo Chuen and Fung Siu Ching were solely students of Dai Fai Min Gam, then you have to explain why YKS's Wing Chun looks so much more like Ip Man's Wing Chun than it does the Weng Chun that came down from Fung Siu Ching's students (other than YKS). The Weng Chun lineages do NOT teach the 3 form version of the art....Siu Nim Tao, Chum Kiu, Biu Gee. So where would YKS have learned this, if not from Wong Wah Bo via Fok Bo Chuen as WWB's student?

I came across one lineage history that tried to explain this away by saying that it was Fok Bo Chuen that came up with the 3 form structure. But then how do you explain Leung Jan teaching the 3 forms? Leung Jan was Wong Wah Bo's student.

Whatever you think of Sifu Sergio, his book does give some decent historical background on the arts. And what he says corresponds pretty well to what I have seen over the years from other sources and matches what my Sifu in Tang Yik Weng Chun has said. If you recall, several teachers of Weng Chun came together at the Dai Duk Lan in HK in the 1950's to share notes and train together. It is very clear that none of them had learned the 3 form version of Wing Chun, and while related, their art was quite different from both Ip Man's and Yeun Kay Shan's Wing Chun. They all traced back to Dai Fai Min Gam and a couple directly to Fung Siu Ching. None of them noted Fok Bo Chuen in their lineages. If you deny YKS's connection to the Wing Chun branch via Fok Bo Chuen to Wong Wah Bo, then you have a LOT of explaining to do to figure out why his system is so much like Ip Man's and nothing like the Weng Chun guys!