Master wong lineage

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

From these situations, still see no reason other than the ego of yourself or your teachers to keep hidden who taught you. As for disrespecting them, surely it's more disrespectful to a teacher to not acknowledge them than it is to acknowledge them along with your other teacher(s)?

 

[Aiki Lee]

In my experience, when someone doesn't want to say the name of his instructor, it comes out that he hasn't trained with anyone more than a couple years. He may have been "doing martial arts" for decades, but if you don't have at leaset one teacher that you've spent years with and are proud to have been associated with (at least in terms of skill), then you may not be qualified to teach martial arts in my opinion.

 

[Jake104]

In my experience, when someone doesn't want to say the name of his instructor, it comes out that he hasn't trained with anyone more than a couple years. He may have been "doing martial arts" for decades, but if you don't have at leaset one teacher that you've spent years with and are proud to have been associated with (at least in terms of skill), then you may not be qualified to teach martial arts in my opinion.

I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s). The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system. Since at the time the Japaneese weren't making it a habit of teaching westerners. The Gracies boast about how they changed the art into what we see today and could angurably be considered one of the most effective MA on the planet. Good thing there wasn't an internet back in the 1900's to discourage Carlos's self expression or to tell him on what he can can't do.

 

[geezer]

I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s). The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system....

Good point. Think how many really great figures in the fighting arts did something similar. They typically started with legitimate training but then went off and did their own thing and developed something even better than what existed before. As others have pointed out, it's not who you trained under, but what you can do that matters.

Unfortunately, I doubt that "Master Wong" is one of these. I suspect he refuses to talk about his background because he has something to hide. Whatever. It doesn't really concern me. BTW Jake, its good to see you posting again. Check your PMs.

 

[celestial_dragon]

Good point. Think how many really great figures in the fighting arts did something similar. They typically started with legitimate training but then went off and did their own thing and developed something even better than what existed before. As others have pointed out, it's not who you trained under, but what you can do that matters.

Unfortunately, I doubt that "Master Wong" is one of these. I suspect he refuses to talk about his background because he has something to hide. Whatever. It doesn't really concern me. BTW Jake, its good to see you posting again. Check your PMs.

They said the same thing about bruce lee.

 

[mook jong man]

He can do what ever he wants , just don't call it Wing Chun.
It could be a modified form of Wing Chun or a hybrid , but strictly speaking it is not Wing Chun.

Most lineages would be aware of the five main principles of Wing Chun.

Simplicity
Directness
Economy of movement
Minimum use of brute strength
Practicality

These principles should be the test of any Wing Chun system , they form the basis of the system and will help to preserve it into the future.
If we throw them out or start bending the meaning of them to suit our own personal artistic expression , are we still doing Wing Chun ?
I say we are not.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

They said the same thing about bruce lee.

I believe that was his point. Fighters exist who do similar things and become great. He's just stating that he doesn't believe Master Wong is at the same level of skill/talent/the special "something" that makes someone that great.If you mean people doubted bruce lee was one of those, I'm pretty sure most people who came in contact with him did not doubt him. May be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

He can do what ever he wants , just don't call it Wing Chun.
It could be a modified form of Wing Chun or a hybrid , but strictly speaking it is not Wing Chun.

Most lineages would be aware of the five main principles of Wing Chun.

Simplicity
Directness
Economy of movement
Minimum use of brute strength
Practicality

These principles should be the test of any Wing Chun system , they form the basis of the system and will help to preserve it into the future.
If we throw them out or start bending the meaning of them to suit our own personal artistic expression , are we still doing Wing Chun ?
I say we are not.

If you saw his videos, did Master Wong throw out those principles? Genuine question, because the two that were linked looked different than Wing Chun I've seen in the past, and actually looked a bit like Shaolin Kempo combinations/DM's, though I could be wrong...
(Not exactly like them, was not a DM that I'm familiar with, just followed similar concepts to the concepts behind the ones I've learned).

 

[mook jong man]

If you saw his videos, did Master Wong throw out those principles? Genuine question, because the two that were linked looked different than Wing Chun I've seen in the past, and actually looked a bit like Shaolin Kempo combinations/DM's, though I could be wrong...
(Not exactly like them, was not a DM that I'm familiar with, just followed similar concepts to the concepts behind the ones I've learned).

I haven't seen much , and I don't need to.
His chi sau and his Chum Kiu form were enough for me.

His Chum Kiu form had a lot of vertical movement in the stepping which indicates a lack of foundation.
In his chi sau he uses a lot of brute strength and his hips were unlocking , again indicating a lack of foundation and body unity.

 

[WingChunIan]

B is C's teacher. B takes C to meet B's teacher A. C then learns directly under A and becomes A's disciple. Should C call B as "teacher" or "brother"?

depends upon how long you study with each and the nature of your relationship with both. This is unfortunately far too common especially when the learning from the teacher's teacher actually only constitutes a few lessons. I have kung fu brothers who have followed the path you describe with the blessing of their first sifu and now proudly call both Sifu. If a student has genuinely moved on to another sifu then there is nothing wrong with crediting your new sifu but one should never deny the influence and input of their earlier training. In all cases whilst you may not make a big song and dance about who you learnt from it is highly unusual to refuse to name anyone that has taught you even when directly questioned as appears to be the case here.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I guess with this logic you could argue that Carlos Gracie was not qualified to teach his MA? Since he didn't train with his teacher Mitsuyo Maeda for decade(s).

Let's look at what I actually said.

"He may have been "doing martial arts" for decades, but if you don't have at leaset one teacher that you've spent years with and are proud to have been associated with (at least in terms of skill), then you may not be qualified to teach martial arts in my opinion."

I never said you needed decades of training (it certainly doesn't hurt though). What I said was one can claim to have studied martial arts for decades, but never stayed with a teacher for more than a couple years which is never enough time to learn enough of a system that would qualify him to teach. When people don't give the name of there instructors I usually discover that it is because they have not had much instruction at all. I don't know how long Gracie spent training with his teacher, but I would bet it's more than a couple years. Plus Gracie revealed the name of his instructor so he has a verifiable line of quality instruction, which this Wong guy is not displaying. So you pretty much missed the whole point of what I said.

The Gracies openly admit that he was not taught the complete system. Since at the time the Japaneese weren't making it a habit of teaching westerners.

Again, from what has been said on the thread, Wong has not talked much at all about who he studied under. That is the opposite to openly admiting that "he was not taught the complete system". Gracie seemed up front on honest about his training if what your saying is true. Wong seems to dodge it; that's sneaky behavior and sets off a red flag for me.

The Gracies boast about how they changed the art into what we see today and could angurably be considered one of the most effective MA on the planet. Good thing there wasn't an internet back in the 1900's to discourage Carlos's self expression or to tell him on what he can can't do.

First, any martial art can be considered "one of the most effective MA on the planet". If people didn't think their martial art was effective they wouldn't train in it. What makes an art effective is if it does what it claims to do in the environment it was designed for. Second, I have no problem with people branching off to do their own thing so long as they are qualified to do so. If someone spent years studying martial arts, and I mean actually studying not just mimicking what they see, then he or she would develope the qualifications to create their own organization or their own art (so long as they understand what makes their art different from what already exists). Third, I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything. I'm not qualified to look at a CMA practitioner and know if what they are doing is correct. Other people on this site are and I would defer to their opinion on the matter. All I'm saying is either Wong had a major falling out with his teacher (which does happen), or he never had enough quality instruction to name a teacher. From some of the comments made by other posters who practice CMA, it sounds like the latter to me.

I have no idea why you made this about Gracie. I see no similarities between him and this Wong fellow.

 

[Domino]

He may have had a few teachers but I believe from what I have seen it is almost a mish mash of various styles and approaches that he chooses to be most efficient.

The Gracie example I think shows how they changed it up to suit themselves and made something their own and how it can work.

I mean, in class I see new students trained by novices but the new students are naturally good fighters regardless of wing chun knowledge.

 

[Thunder Foot]

I personally think its silly to dodge the "lineage" bullet... and when I encounter someone who does this, I immediately feel they are hiding something. I'm a believer in honesty being the greatest policy, and when someone isn't honest (I consider withholding the truth a form of dishonesty), it speaks to me of their integrity as a Martial Artist.

"Master" Wong (who has given him this title anyway?) has a similar situation with his Jeet Kune Do lessons he teaches.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I personally think its silly to dodge the "lineage" bullet... and when I encounter someone who does this, I immediately feel they are hiding something. I'm a believer in honesty being the greatest policy, and when someone isn't honest (I consider withholding the truth a form of dishonesty), it speaks to me of their integrity as a Martial Artist.

"Master" Wong (who has given him this title anyway?) has a similar situation with his Jeet Kune Do lessons he teaches.

I agree with this. My taiji sifu will not tell you who his teacher was unless asked, however if you ask him he will tell you. He is not using his sifu to impress anyone or going on the coat tails of his sifu, he is just teaching taijiquan

 

[Dirty Dog]

I agree with this. My taiji sifu will not tell you who his teacher was unless asked, however if you ask him he will tell you. He is not using his sifu to impress anyone or going on the coat tails of his sifu, he is just teaching taijiquan

This is entirely reasonable. Not all students give a flying fart about lineage. And putting up signs saying "Master Toughguy, student of Immortal Imperial Grand Poobah Great GrandMaster of All Arts whatchaknow" seems silly. But refusing to answer questions about ones training, while sometimes understandable, is always going to send a Big Red Flag up the pole for me.

 

[Vajramusti]

I agree with this. My taiji sifu will not tell you who his teacher was unless asked, however if you ask him he will tell you. He is not using his sifu to impress anyone or going on the coat tails of his sifu, he is just teaching taijiquan

--------------------------------------------------------Much ado about nothing!!!

 

[Wingsingh]

Hi, I would just say Master Wong doesn't say his methods are 'traditional.' His methods are designed for the 'modern world.'

Master Wong's Wing Chun system uses most of Wing Chun's main principles, but with a lot more realism for actual 'use.' (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful)

As for his lineage, if he doesn't want to discuss it, that's his business.

 

[Nabakatsu]

A lot more realism.. I doubt anyone who has trained other WC/WT/VT systems and than trained with Mr. Wong would agree with that.. of course it sounds disrespectful.
Sure it's his business what he chooses to do.. but it does seem shady.
I hope this didn't sound disrespectful

 

[jeff_hasbrouck]

Ya know honestly, good for "master" wong for being such a entrepenuer. But IMO he is fake as a push up bra. He won't tell you the lineage? RED FLAG! I've never met anyone who actually trained in person with him. Just people who have learned from his "online" courses. And it is terribly embaressing to have people say they "know" wing chun from the internet. There isn't any possible way you can become even mediocre at martial arts over the internet.

He's a phoney, I would have to swear.

And as for the Sifu Nam lineage debaucle, I can see a little bit in there, but I haven't seen too much of the snake style business in Wong's WC. If ya'll haven't had a chance to read it, pick up LT's book "Roots and Branches of Wing Tsun". It has a whole section on Pang Nam (And his students)...

Matter o' fact, I might just have to go pull mine outta the book rack and see if Wong's stuff matches up.

All the best, and sorry for sounding disrespectful if I came off that way. I was just being brazenly honest.



Jeff

 

[jks9199]

Folks,
MartialTalk has a rule against fraudbusting. You can discuss qualifications, in a factual and non-accusatory manner. Stay objective, and support your opinion, and keep away from labeling someone a fraud.