Master leung Bik

In Yuen Chai Wan lineage, Fok Bo Chun' s primary teacher was Dai Fa Min Kam, during the opera ban he studied awhile under his sibo Wong Wah Bo.

Wing Chun of Dai Duk Lan primarily trace lineage to Fung Siu Ching. Fung taught a lot of San Sik, his students beyond Yuen family added a lot of Hung Kuen.
 
I know extremely little about Weng Chun so I’m not going to comment on that. I suspect the three form format with dummy and knives predates the Red Boat opera generation (according to everything I have heard the pole was incorporated at that level); or, if the three form format wasn’t around prior to that it was probably put together at that level. Personally I think it’s older.



My Sifu was saying the other night that he suspects Fong Sui Ching added the darts into the system which Yuen Kay San was very good at, he taught them to Sum Nung however he decided it was more important to train his punch than the darts so stopped practicing them (I also vaguely remember something about Yuen Kay San telling sigung he was better off training his punch and buying a gun instead of doing the darts too); so now that’s lost; as is the bamboo dummy, Yuen Kay San told sigung about that on his death bead so even Sum Nung never learned the bamboo dummy. But my sifu at least is coming to figure Fung Sui Ching probably refined the Wing Chun he had a lot in light of the many fights he had and so leading to the reasons that Guangzhou Wing Chun is like it is today.



As for Yip Man’s Wing Chun and Yuen Kay San Wing Chun looking similar, its superficial. I learned both from my sifu (he was also Yip Chun’s private student before he became Sum Nung’s disciple). The differences go right to the core. They are at a surface level the same format, same footwork (assuming people know how to put it together, Guangzhou style has elements of footwork not in Yip Man style too) but beyond that they may as well be different martial arts. So much so that as my Sifu’s private student I was forbidden from ever even comparing them much less mixing them together. They are to be kept completely separate. If I broke that rule I would never learn any more Guangzhou Wing Chun.



Ultimately, on Friday night, I saw a history of our line of Wing Chun that came directly from Yuen Kay San and written down by Sum Nung who told my sifu to copy it all down. It puts Fok Bo Chun as a student of Dai Fa Min Kam definitely not Wong Wah Bo. I figure since Yuen Kay San learned from him he ought to know. I’ll take the word of Yuen Kay San, Sum Nung and my Sifu about Guangzhou Wing Chun over anything else that’s floating about the internets.
 
wckf92 said:
Interesting. Thx APL76
Can you provide further info on this aspect? Or perhaps an example or two?
Click to expand...

Well, I will to an extent, we tend to be very protective of Guangzhou Wing Chun. What I will say is that while the basic structure of the footwork found in Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma (as the foundation of it) the turning stance and stepping sequences in Chum Kue and the turning elements of Bui Ji as well as the circling leg components are more or less the same, same kind of thing at least. What’s extra in Guangzhou style consist of various trapping, sweeping and crushing techniques that aren’t in any YM style I have ever seen. I’m not willing to go into details or specifics.
 
APL76 said:
As for Yip Man’s Wing Chun and Yuen Kay San Wing Chun looking similar, its superficial. I learned both from my sifu (he was also Yip Chun’s private student before he became Sum Nung’s disciple). The differences go right to the core. They are at a surface level the same format, same footwork .
Click to expand...

Superficial similarities still count. Because YKS Wing Chun does not have even these superficial similarities to Weng Chun. Again....no Weng Chun system that traces back to Dai Fa Min Gam or Fung Siu Ching has the 3 form format...they don't abduct the knees inward in the basic stance....they don't have the butterfly knives....they don't have the same footwork, etc.
 
I don’t see why that should matter. Ku Lo wing chun doesn’t have three forms etc., yet no one seems to have a problem with that having the same origins as Yip Man’s wing chun; what’s to say that, assuming Fung Sui Ching does have some connection to Weng Chun, he just didn’t pass on the three form format and so on in that stream?

But my point still stands, when I see something that has come directly from Yuen Kay San, to Sum Nung to my sifu I’ll take that over anything people generations upon generations away from the source have to say about the lineage of Guangzhou Wing Chun.
 
APL76 said:
Well, I will to an extent, we tend to be very protective of Guangzhou Wing Chun. What I will say is that while the basic structure of the footwork found in Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma (as the foundation of it) the turning stance and stepping sequences in Chum Kue and the turning elements of Bui Ji as well as the circling leg components are more or less the same, same kind of thing at least. What’s extra in Guangzhou style consist of various trapping, sweeping and crushing techniques that aren’t in any YM style I have ever seen. I’m not willing to go into details or specifics.
Click to expand...

Ok thx man. No worries. I understand
 
@APL76, you said, "Yuen Kay San telling sigung he was better off training his punch and buying a gun instead of doing the darts too); so now that’s lost; as is the bamboo dummy".

As an FYI, Yu Choi who studied under Yuen Chai Wan passed on Bamboo Dummy. I learned 2 versions of it, all loose technique no form. I can't speak for Yu Choi lineage as to whether or not they have a Bamboo Dummy form, but know they practice it, it is rare but not lost. Agree with you that most of the dart skills are lost, myself I know very little of Yuen Chai Wan's Flying Coin Darts, just a few throwing techniques. Don't know who else preserves it.

If I'm not mistaken Yu Choi lineage says Fok Bo Chun was a student of Lee Man Mau or Law Man Gung, don't know the validity of that. Yuen Chai Wan lineage maintains Fok was a student of Dai Fa Min Jan and learned a little bit from Wong Wah Bo for a brief period during the opera ban, but Dai Fa Min Man was his sifu.
 
Ok, don’t know what Yu Choi ever did but as far as I know Sum Nung considered the bamboo dummy lost with Yuen Kay San’s death.
 
yep, I can only go off what I have been told, who really knows whats out there.

So you are in the Yuen Chai Wan line via Veietnam? A while ago we had a guy from Vietnam come in. He was 4th generation from Yuen Chai Wan and did some wing chun with us. It had been all consolodated in one form rather than the three initial forms, and his chi sao was so different to what we did it was kinda hard to do chi sao with him. Very nice guy though. had obviously trained hard at what he did.
 
APL76 said:
yep, I can only go off what I have been told, who really knows whats out there.

So you are in the Yuen Chai Wan line via Veietnam? A while ago we had a guy from Vietnam come in. He was 4th generation from Yuen Chai Wan and did some wing chun with us. It had been all consolodated in one form rather than the three initial forms, and his chi sao was so different to what we did it was kinda hard to do chi sao with him. Very nice guy though. had obviously trained hard at what he did.
Click to expand...
Yes, Chai Wan lineage. My Sigung came from the Chinese patriots association in the North when Chai Wan was still only teaching Chinese. My Sigung was also a student of Ng Chung So prior to leaving China. There are many branches coming from Chai Wan now, especially after he went south. I have the 3 standard forms, pole & knives. No dummy form, just loose techniques, chi gung & San Sik. Some branches do just Siu Lim Tau, pole & Dummy. Some mixed it with 5 Animals style. Some altered it by adding lots of Chi Gung. There is no consistency. Wing Chun in Vietnam was used as a tool to elevate other styles, as a result a myriad of approaches. My system is best described as similar to Yuen Kay San with Yu Choi flavor, but not as stylish. Related but not the same, we have a heavy focus on Sut Gow & Kum Na.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPM
thanks for that. I do get the impression that what Yuen Chai Wan taught in Vietnam has gone on more different tangents than Yuen Kay San Wing Chun in China, probably because he only had Sum Nung as a desciple. Thanks again.
 
APL76 said:
thanks for that. I do get the impression that what Yuen Chai Wan taught in Vietnam has gone on more different tangents than Yuen Kay San Wing Chun in China, probably because he only had Sum Nung as a desciple. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Yes, very true. What is your impression of Mai Gei Wong and Yu Choi? Mai Gei Wong was a student of Yuan Kay San and Yu Choi of his brother Yuan Chai Wan. I realize Mai Gei Wong wasn't a disciple and added a few things to his Wing Chun and Yu Choi also studied from Ng Chung So, But personally, I see Yuan family signature in their styles and like the look and approach of their methods very much. I know very little of Yuan Kay San's/Sum Nung's approach, is there any overlap with Mai Gei Wong and Yu Choi in your opinion?
 
I have never really seen enough from Mai Gei Wong or Yu Choi lines to risk forming an opinion. For about 20 years I simply did what my sifu taught me and never paid attention to what others were doing. Only in the last couple of years since starting my own school have I started having a look around on the internet.

My sifu has seen a lot of Wing Chun, he saw Yip Man style in both Hong Kong, and in Fat San, he got to know Pan Nam pretty well, he visited the people in Ku Lo village and saw Yu Choi Wing Chun as well. However, my sifu is pretty tight lipped when it comes to his opinions of other’s Wing Chun, will always find something nice to say about all of them at the very least, I have never heard him say a bad word about anyone else or their Wing Chun. So I can’t make a judgement either from my experience or from what I have been told by my sifu in regard to either of those lines of Wing Chun regarding any parallels with Yuen Kay San style.
 
APL76 said:
I have never really seen enough from Mai Gei Wong or Yu Choi lines to risk forming an opinion. For about 20 years I simply did what my sifu taught me and never paid attention to what others were doing. Only in the last couple of years since starting my own school have I started having a look around on the internet.

My sifu has seen a lot of Wing Chun, he saw Yip Man style in both Hong Kong, and in Fat San, he got to know Pan Nam pretty well, he visited the people in Ku Lo village and saw Yu Choi Wing Chun as well. However, my sifu is pretty tight lipped when it comes to his opinions of other’s Wing Chun, will always find something nice to say about all of them at the very least, I have never heard him say a bad word about anyone else or their Wing Chun. So I can’t make a judgement either from my experience or from what I have been told by my sifu in regard to either of those lines of Wing Chun regarding any parallels with Yuen Kay San style.
Click to expand...
That's fair and I can appreciate that. I like many other versions of Wing Chun, some more than others, but at the end of the day I'll stick with what I was taught, because to me it makes sense. I understand it and for me it's cohesive, some others methods contradict mine, doesn't mean they are less worthy, just different and no less original. If I run across another Wing Chun branch, even if they are radically different, if they have something useful to contribute to my own understanding, that's great, if not that's OK too. I only frown upon hubris and claims of superiority and originality. Take care, have fun on the forum, there's some knowledgeable people here.
 
wckf92 said:
@KPM
Which Sergio book are you talking about?
Click to expand...

BOOK: Sifu Sergio - 6 Core Elements (2nd Ed)


In the book he makes a pretty good case for Wong Wah Bo being the one that organized the Wing Chun syllabus into the 3 form format, and Fok Bo Chuen as being the one that introduced the double knives to the Wing Chun system. He connects Fok Bo Chuen to Wong Wah Bo. He is bringing together feedback from multiple Wing Chun lineages and styles and his wide travels and research in China and Hong Kong. So a good portion of it is "connecting the dots" rather than finding dusty old documents that proves anything. But that really is the nature of Wing Chun "research" at this point. What he says makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of what we see today in various lineages. Lineage stories themselves are notoriously unreliable. You have to do a lot of "reading between the lines" in most cases.
 
I don’t see why that should matter.

---It absolutely does matter. What you call "superficial" are often signature features of each Wing Chun system. It is part of their "DNA" which helps us identify which is related to which.

Ku Lo wing chun doesn’t have three forms etc., yet no one seems to have a problem with that having the same origins as Yip Man’s wing chun

---That's because even the Ku Lo guys acknowledge that Leung Jan taught an "abbreviated" San Sik-based method when he retired to the village because he knew he would have limited time to impart his knowledge. None of the Ku Lo guys claim that Leung Jan never taught the 3 form system in his past.


; what’s to say that, assuming Fung Sui Ching does have some connection to Weng Chun, he just didn’t pass on the three form format and so on in that stream?

---So your premise is that Fung Siu Ching taught two totally different versions of Wing Chun? Two versions different not only in the forms taught but the biomechanics used? Highly unlikely! More likely that Fok Bo Chuen learned the 3 form system from Wong Wah Bo as other lineages claim and then taught this to Yuen Kay Shan. As I said, none of the Weng Chun guys that trace to Fung Siu Cheng have anything to say about Fok Bo Chuen. And what the guys that trace to Fung Siu Ching do does not even have the superficial resemblances to YKS's Wing Chun that you mentioned.


But my point still stands, when I see something that has come directly from Yuen Kay San, to Sum Nung to my sifu I’ll take that over anything people generations upon generations away from the source have to say about the lineage of Guangzhou Wing Chun.

---Fair enough. But one should keep an open mind as well. Lineage stories are notoriously inaccurate. Some are told to save face, improve position, give credit to some ancestor, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Yipman Video clips

Previous Thread

Tackling the Tackle

Next Thread

Similar threads

H
Leung Bik a question for fun
Replies
6
Views
2K
jlq
J
P
Old pics of the masters??????
Replies
1
Views
1K
mook jong man
mook jong man
StormShadow
Authentic Photos of Leung Jan and Leung Bik?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Punchy
P
zuti car
Leung Jan's original art
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
27K
Nobody Important
N
yipman_sifu
Yipman's Lineage
2
Replies
38
Views
15K
Kensai
Kensai

Latest Discussions

Back
Top