The True History of Wing Chun?

[Eric_H]

It's an informed opinion... Check my claims, see for yourself.

Actually, the burden is on you who makes the claims to provide the proof.

So far, I'm not seeing any.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Or one can also do the research if one is interested to find evidence to prove or disprove a statement

I have no horse in this but it goes both ways folks

 

[SamAbb]

I'm aware how forums work guys. I post some more stuff perhaps, you argue with it some more because you are cemented in your beliefs, and around and around we go. I'm not going to waste my time if your mind is already made up. How about instead of believing what people tell you (me included) you just do a bit of digging for yourself. Or you can blindly follow. Up to you. Point is if you train hard and make your art work for you, I respect you. Lets not get hung up on the politics too much.

Remember this though, when Pan Nam and Ip Chun first circulated the Cheung Ng theory, they didn't have google scholar...

 

[Koryu Rich]

Or one can also do the research if one is interested to find evidence to prove or disprove a statement

I have no horse in this but it goes both ways folks

And how would someone, like myself, who has virtually zero experience in this corroborate all of that?

It doesn't go both ways, not if you wish to be taken seriously in any discussion.

 

[Koryu Rich]

I'm aware how forums work guys. I post some more stuff perhaps, you argue with it some more because you are cemented in your beliefs, and around and around we go. I'm not going to waste my time if your mind is already made up. How about instead of believing what people tell you (me included) you just do a bit of digging for yourself. Or you can blindly follow. Up to you. Point is if you train hard and make your art work for you, I respect you. Lets not get hung up on the politics too much.

Remember this though, when Pan Nam and Ip Chun first circulated the Cheung Ng theory, they didn't have google scholar...

Carrying on from my previous point.

How does that help complete beginners in the system or those from other backgrounds? Take me for example I'm pretty much completely from Japanese systems.

It's basic procedure on most forums and in academia to back up, in some way, any claims like this you make.

It not only lends credence to what you have written but also enables those interested to follow your thought process and research.

 

[SamAbb]

I respectfully disagree. Sheep read and accept. If you want to do that, fine. When I release my book I'll let you know. On a web forum I'm more than entitled to throw in my opinion and run. I believe I'm right, others believe they are right. If I've made a comment or shared an opinion that provokes thought and you'd like to look into it further... That onus is on you, not me.

 

[SamAbb]

You also may wish to direct your enquiries about academic citations to those who promote the Cheung Ng angle. A part from being in the Cantonese opera from about 1730, there is no mention or connection of that name to anything Wing Chun related. Some WC systems try to connect Cheung Ng to one of our first known ancestors Wong Wah Bo, who spread Wing Chun in the post opera ban era (1855). If Cheung Ng was say 30 in 1730 and Wong Wah Bo was say 30 in 1855... Do the math, could Cheung Ng have taught Wong Wah Bo?

 

[Eric_H]

I respectfully disagree. Sheep read and accept. If you want to do that, fine. When I release my book I'll let you know. On a web forum I'm more than entitled to throw in my opinion and run. I believe I'm right, others believe they are right. If I've made a comment or shared an opinion that provokes thought and you'd like to look into it further... That onus is on you, not me.

So now you're anti reading. This has got to be the worst constructed argument I've ever seen. You are nothing but a troll.

 

[Eric_H]

You also may wish to direct your enquiries about academic citations to those who promote the Cheung Ng angle. A part from being in the Cantonese opera from about 1730, there is no mention or connection of that name to anything Wing Chun related. Some WC systems try to connect Cheung Ng to one of our first known ancestors Wong Wah Bo, who spread Wing Chun in the post opera ban era (1855). If Cheung Ng was say 30 in 1730 and Wong Wah Bo was say 30 in 1855... Do the math, could Cheung Ng have taught Wong Wah Bo?

Who said Tan Sau Ng taught wong wa bo? Our line has him a few generations before that timeframe.

 

[SamAbb]

Eric, that's pretty unfair. A guy comes in here and shares a little insight into his own formed opinion and gets torn down because he doesn't reference?!?!?! Is the way all posts/posters/opinions are treated on this forum? I hesitated joining forums, now I know why.

i tried to come in here respectfully and I get accused of being anti reading? Unbelievable. My opinions have been formed from reading. Something you should do Eric and not VTM or HFY material, source your own. Are you afraid to do this? Like the fanatical religious, too much money and emotion invested into something, you will hold your breath, turn blue and pass out before hearing anything that might debunk your beliefs.

Open up and free yourself from one lineage perspective and "Sifu says". It's okay to have your own opinions you know. My Sifu and I share different beliefs in WC origins, what's wrong with that? If this kind of free thinking is discouraged in your organisation Eric, I suggest your drastically Re think who you are involved with.

i am no troll, but comments like that border on turning me into one. I was looking forward to some good discussion and potentially making some friends and contacts. Instead I've been gifted with yet more closed minded cult/group like thinkers.

Thanks but no thanks. I'm off (last post).

 

[SamAbb]

Which version is that? This has changed several times in your org.

Pan Nam (and Ip Chun by association) also listed Cheung Ng as having taught Wong Wah Bo.

Thats it, I'm done.

 

[Eric_H]

Eric, that's pretty unfair. A guy comes in here and shares a little insight into his own formed opinion and gets torn down because he doesn't reference?!?!?! Is the way all posts/posters/opinions are treated on this forum? I hesitated joining forums, now I know why.

When you offer up an opinion as fact, you should expect it to be questioned. When you act like a troll, expect to be called a troll. When you act like a child running away and crying about it as you are now, expect to be treated that way too.

i tried to come in here respectfully and I get accused of being anti reading? Unbelievable. My opinions have been formed from reading. Something you should do Eric and not VTM or HFY material, source your own. Are you afraid to do this? Like the fanatical religious, too much money and emotion invested into something, you will hold your breath, turn blue and pass out before hearing anything that might debunk your beliefs.

I'm still waiting for that reference so that I can read it and change my opinion based on available evidence.

Open up and free yourself from one lineage perspective and "Sifu says". It's okay to have your own opinions you know. My Sifu and I share different beliefs in WC origins, what's wrong with that? If this kind of free thinking is discouraged in your organisation Eric, I suggest your drastically Re think who you are involved with.

Here you are telling me not to believe what my sifu says, but rather what your sifu says. That's not really free thinking.

i am no troll, but comments like that border on turning me into one. I was looking forward to some good discussion and potentially making some friends and contacts. Instead I've been gifted with yet more closed minded cult/group like thinkers.

Thanks but no thanks. I'm off (last post).

And the last little piggy cried WAH WAH WAH all the way home.

Which version is that? This has changed several times in your org.

Pan Nam (and Ip Chun by association) also listed Cheung Ng as having taught Wong Wah Bo.

Thats it, I'm done.

From Pan Nam through Eddie Chong:
http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.ThePanNamWingChunBranch-ByEddieChong

"The Shaolin Temple monk, Yi Chum, was said by Pan Nam to be the true founder of Wing Chun. Yi Chum taught Tan Sau Ng, who taught Dai Fa Min Kam, Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tei (Leung Jan’s teachers) and so on until Pan Nam"

My org, the HFYWCKA doesn't try to write the red boat opera history with Wong Wa Bo and Leung Yi Tai - we try to just work with what is widely available. Its not our line, so it's not our prerogative. In the 1850's-1870's we had a lineage holder named Hung Gun Biu, who was the 4th generation successor down from Tan Sau Ng. This person is total separate from the opera troupe. It's all oral legend however, and free to attack or disagreement from people who present solid evidence.

Also consider that Tan Sau Ng, is a nickname and may have been given to more than one person. Additionally it points out 5 cardinal uses of Tan Sau the tool as used in Wing Chun, so it may be more of a codeword than an actual person.

 

[Koryu Rich]

I respectfully disagree. Sheep read and accept. If you want to do that, fine. When I release my book I'll let you know. On a web forum I'm more than entitled to throw in my opinion and run. I believe I'm right, others believe they are right. If I've made a comment or shared an opinion that provokes thought and you'd like to look into it further... That onus is on you, not me.

Strawman.


Not for one moment have I suggested that anyone should read and accept.

In fact one main reason for you showing what your opinion is based on is so that people can examine it critically.

Of course you can shoot and run with your opinions but don't expect them to be given much credence if you don't provide any backup for them, especially when you state them as fact.

You'll also do them and yourself a further disservice when you show that you find backing up your word to be so objectionable.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And how would someone, like myself, who has virtually zero experience in this corroborate all of that?

It doesn't go both ways, not if you wish to be taken seriously in any discussion.

Yeah it does, welcome to the real world if you truly care about the topic or the history you are discussing. You are on a computer there is Google, there are tons of resources available, there are libraries, there are thousands that do research all the time to find the truth of things based on something they read or heard and they are taken very seriously. Basically being spoon fed is easier but not the best way to learn and not always right. Following tradition is easier, following what you have been told is easier (the earth use to be flat you know and the center of the universe ) but it is not always right. Do the work, do the research and you can get a lot more solid proof. Being pointed in a direction is nice but still does not give solid irrefutable proof, "you" need to verify it all to be certain.

People make statements and if you agree or disagree it may or may not produce in the person making the statement a need to explain further. Or they can give you all sorts of documentation and it may or may not be correct.

There are tons of books out there from reputable people and there are a lot of reputable people making statements that the founder of Taijiquan was Zhang Sang-Feng. I can produce tons of documentation in from the heavy weights of taijiquan history that say he existed and be taken seriously and argue the point Ad nauseam. But it is all historically un-provable if you go beyond what you are given and do the research yourself based on historical documentation.

But if it helps….even Ip Chun is not so sure about the origin stories of Wing Chun and if you read his books, and I will not tell you which one, he says it himself.

 

[Koryu Rich]

Yeah it does, welcome to the real world if you truly care about the topic or the history you are discussing. You are on a computer there is Google, there are tons of resources available, there are libraries, there are thousands that do research all the time to find the truth of things based on something they read or heard and they are taken very seriously. Basically being spoon fed is easier but not the best way to learn and not always right. Following tradition is easier, following what you have been told is easier (the earth use to be flat you know and the center of the universe ) but it is not always right. Do the work, do the research and you can get a lot more solid proof. Being pointed in a direction is nice but still does not give solid irrefutable proof, "you" need to verify it all to be certain.

Most of that research that you would be looking at, what would it have? Yep sources, it would be built on other's work to one degree or another.

It's not about being spoon fed and at no point have I indicated that I feel it should be, it's simply makes the conversation flow far easier, lends weight to your opinion and allows those you are dealing with to follow your train of thought and reasoning.

At no point have I mentioned irrefutable proof and in fact the main reason for asking for sources is so that one can verify things, so that you can in fact do the leg work.

A great number of other places from educational establishments to other forum would not bat an eye at such a request.

Asking for a reference or source is not expecting someone else to do the work.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Most of that research that you would be looking at, what would it have? Yep sources, it would be built on other's work to one degree or another.

It's not about being spoon fed and at no point have I indicated that I feel it should be, it's simply makes the conversation flow far easier, lends weight to your opinion and allows those you are dealing with to follow your train of thought and reasoning.

At no point have I mentioned irrefutable proof and in fact the main reason for asking for sources is so that one can verify things, so that you can in fact do the leg work.

A great number of other places from educational establishments to other forum would not bat an eye at such a request.

Asking for a reference or source is not expecting someone else to do the work.

I know how research works, done a lot of it since my college days (and a lot during) and many times it is based solely on a statement with no additional source to back it up, sometimes I have done this for work and other times because I was interested. It is not always easy but it can be quite interesting

And I had this long multiple post response I was working on and then I thought….this is getting silly and is not worth my time so I deleted the entire thing

Bottom-line

You can ask for a source and one may or may not be given and you can at that point, should you desire, dismiss the entire thing. Or if you are truly interested look into it yourself and find out if it is right or wrong and either way you learn something.

Beyond that, I have no horse in this race

Xue is out…Peace

 

[Kenpo5.0Hawker]

I like to see sources etc. that really improves a scholorly debate. Yet I want to ask certain posters here that are currently disputing this history to provide proof (cite resources) that the history the OP provided is incorrect. Do you have a Better version you can back up with citations? If so I'd love to see them. If you cannot back your claim then stop asking for others to provide what you yourself cannot. So. If you dispute th OP and that history. Please show me why. Otherwise it's a bunch I've very awesome myths. All unsubstantiated and yet very insperational.
Tom

 

[StormShadow]

Yeah it does, welcome to the real world if you truly care about the topic or the history you are discussing. You are on a computer there is Google, there are tons of resources available, there are libraries, there are thousands that do research all the time to find the truth of things based on something they read or heard and they are taken very seriously. Basically being spoon fed is easier but not the best way to learn and not always right. Following tradition is easier, following what you have been told is easier (the earth use to be flat you know and the center of the universe ) but it is not always right. Do the work, do the research and you can get a lot more solid proof. Being pointed in a direction is nice but still does not give solid irrefutable proof, "you" need to verify it all to be certain.

People make statements and if you agree or disagree it may or may not produce in the person making the statement a need to explain further. Or they can give you all sorts of documentation and it may or may not be correct.

There are tons of books out there from reputable people and there are a lot of reputable people making statements that the founder of Taijiquan was Zhang Sang-Feng. I can produce tons of documentation in from the heavy weights of taijiquan history that say he existed and be taken seriously and argue the point Ad nauseam. But it is all historically un-provable if you go beyond what you are given and do the research yourself based on historical documentation.

But if it helps….even Ip Chun is not so sure about the origin stories of Wing Chun and if you read his books, and I will not tell you which one, he says it himself.

Technically, we can still be the center of the universe if it indeed spans (using a directional compass as concept) to the east and west of the earth. We primarily explore the east as leading out from the earth toward the sun. I doubt, the earth is the end of all solar systems in the grand universe. The concept of the expansion of the universe is all based on the big bang and the dissemination of matter. We do not know 100% that we are not the center, only on estimates and speculation of theories in physics. *just a little aside*