Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[JowGaWolf]

It seems to me that a lot of people get pretty worked up over old stories that nobody can prove or disprove. I've had experience with several WC groups, and they all tell a story that makes them look great and everybody else is portrayed as wanting. Maybe this is why WC in general could benefit from a competitive format that would let people test out their stuff. Then people might start worrying less about the old stories and more about what works.

I'm all for this.
Person 1: Your kung fu sucks
Person 2: Only one way to find out.
Person 1 & Person 2 enter the ring.
I know some say violence isn't the answer, but it sure would stop a lot of the nonsense. We will learn 3 things from competitive formats.
1. If a technique works or not
2. If the person was skilled enough to work the technique
3. If the person was skilled enough to even comment on what's best or not.

Some people comment on "what's best" without actually having any ability to do what they claim. This is a problem simply for the that they do not have the experience to know a technique beyond what someone has told them. For the longest Jow Ga has always said how great one technique is. No matter what school you'll go to, it will always be the same. My first time trying the technique resulted in me getting punched multiple times. I probably ate about 50 punches in the learning process before I learned that there was some stuff the Sifu was leaving out. I see a lot of this especially in Wing Chun and TKD hand techniques. I see the technique but I can also see that some stuff was left out and the only way a person will know what was left out is if they spent time "eating punches to learn." I don't have to be an expert to know this, I just need to see someone who knows how to use WC vs someone who only knows the "demo mode" of WC. You can see the level of understanding when they spar against someone outside of the WC system.

A good example was that post a few months ago with someone that was using WC principles and techniques against a grappler on the ground. Sparring against another system brings out the truth of how much a person understands about their system.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you get smashed tell them thanks, ask what allowed them to smash you. Learn from it. Practice more and test again. Help others get better as well. If you are good...Great, keep training and practicing. If you aren't so good...Great, keep training and practicing. If you aren't good at all...Great, keep training and practicing.

Best thing I've read since being on MT. That statement is a conversation killer because there's nothing to add to it. Very good perspective.

 

[Martial D]

I'm all for this.
Person 1: Your kung fu sucks
Person 2: Only one way to find out.
Person 1 & Person 2 enter the ring.
I know some say violence isn't the answer, but it sure would stop a lot of the nonsense. We will learn 3 things from competitive formats.
1. If a technique works or not
2. If the person was skilled enough to work the technique
3. If the person was skilled enough to even comment on what's best or not.

Some people comment on "what's best" without actually having any ability to do what they claim. This is a problem simply for the that they do not have the experience to know a technique beyond what someone has told them. For the longest Jow Ga has always said how great one technique is. No matter what school you'll go to, it will always be the same. My first time trying the technique resulted in me getting punched multiple times. I probably ate about 50 punches in the learning process before I learned that there was some stuff the Sifu was leaving out. I see a lot of this especially in Wing Chun and TKD hand techniques. I see the technique but I can also see that some stuff was left out and the only way a person will know what was left out is if they spent time "eating punches to learn." I don't have to be an expert to know this, I just need to see someone who knows how to use WC vs someone who only knows the "demo mode" of WC. You can see the level of understanding when they spar against someone outside of the WC system.

A good example was that post a few months ago with someone that was using WC principles and techniques against a grappler on the ground. Sparring against another system brings out the truth of how much a person understands about their system.

We are talking about martial arts though, which are ultimately (with some exceptions) about violence. Who can do it better, who can do it best, who can do it when it counts?

The answer to those questions is violence too. Or rather, that's how to answer them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

We are talking about martial arts though, which are ultimately (with some exceptions) about violence.

I agree completely with you. I don't have a hang up on Violence like some people. To be violence is not bad or good by default. Some people think violence is evil and should never be done. Some of the best times in my life was me being violent with my brother and friends "wrestling as kids" and me being violent in a kung fu class during sparring.

This is the definition of violence that I found on the internet - "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." The "or kill someone or something" is extreme. The other part of the definition has degrees of hurt and damage. The word violence just has so many perspective that many just automatically think that it's this malicious thing where you are trying to take someone out with cruel and uncaring intention.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It would keep the techniques safe from your enemies and potential enemies but not your allies. The same way that people from different villages / clans can be friends and even marry someone from a different village /clan is the same way that martial arts can spread. You will always want a strong ally because a weak one would be of no use to you, so that in itself would be valid enough reason to share martial arts with each other.

Perhaps, unless there was a lot of changing of alliances. If today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy, the idea of sharing becomes less tenable.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Perhaps, unless there was a lot of changing of alliances. If today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy, the idea of sharing becomes less tenable.

I just look at today's history and I multiply today's occurrences. For example, The us trains other countries how to fight and use military weapons, Governments are over thrown, defections occur, sometimes defections move to allied countries, sometimes defections move to the enemies. Then you have people for hire. The founder of Jow Ga kung fu was commissioned to train China's army after he won a competition of 100 fighters. Then you have those who sought refuge at the Shaolin Temples. Friends form different villages or clans. There's just so many ways military information and knowledge could have been shared.

At one time Japan and the U.S. were enemies now they do military drills with each other. One time Iraq and the U.S. were enemies now the U.S is training them. The U.S. helped trained people in the middle east only for them to turn around and use that same knowledge against the U.S. Depending on the size of a clan or village, ossible for that group to have a split now they are fighting against each other and creating alliances with other to defeat their own "brother." Which was the case in the American civil war.

 

[KPM]

I just look at today's history and I multiply today's occurrences. For example, The us trains other countries how to fight and use military weapons, Governments are over thrown, defections occur, sometimes defections move to allied countries, sometimes defections move to the enemies. Then you have people for hire. The founder of Jow Ga kung fu was commissioned to train China's army after he won a competition of 100 fighters. Then you have those who sought refuge at the Shaolin Temples. Friends form different villages or clans. There's just so many ways military information and knowledge could have been shared.

At one time Japan and the U.S. were enemies now they do military drills with each other. One time Iraq and the U.S. were enemies now the U.S is training them. The U.S. helped trained people in the middle east only for them to turn around and use that same knowledge against the U.S. Depending on the size of a clan or village, ossible for that group to have a split now they are fighting against each other and creating alliances with other to defeat their own "brother." Which was the case in the American civil war.

I think "back in the day" in China there was distinction between military arts and village arts. Sure, military arts may have had wider dissemination and therefore more "mixing and matching", just as in your example above. But the village arts tended to be more secretive and limited. They didn't share what they knew because they may need to use it to defend their village against local bandits or from people for the next village up the valley. These village arts were often based upon a "family" model....that's how we got traditional terms like "Sifu", "Sidai", "Sihing" etc, rather than military terms based on rank. So if you see your fellow martial arts students as brothers and family members with a bond, then you aren't likely to share your art with others that are outside of the family. A military art would not necessary have the same attitude.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I just look at today's history and I multiply today's occurrences. For example, The us trains other countries how to fight and use military weapons, Governments are over thrown, defections occur, sometimes defections move to allied countries, sometimes defections move to the enemies. Then you have people for hire. The founder of Jow Ga kung fu was commissioned to train China's army after he won a competition of 100 fighters. Then you have those who sought refuge at the Shaolin Temples. Friends form different villages or clans. There's just so many ways military information and knowledge could have been shared.

At one time Japan and the U.S. were enemies now they do military drills with each other. One time Iraq and the U.S. were enemies now the U.S is training them. The U.S. helped trained people in the middle east only for them to turn around and use that same knowledge against the U.S. Depending on the size of a clan or village, ossible for that group to have a split now they are fighting against each other and creating alliances with other to defeat their own "brother." Which was the case in the American civil war.

Oh, I'm not arguing at all that there was no sharing. Just that they would have been more cautious about it, possibly keeping sections of what they know only for their own group. There were reasons for doing so that were more pertinent back there (a matter of life and death) and it was easier to do (nobody releasing YouTube videos of the battle). I think the social structure in the history CMA is different - I'm not as familiar with Chinese history as Japanese - so the influences would be different, too.

 

[Danny T]

Best thing I've read since being on MT. That statement is a conversation killer because there's nothing to add to it. Very good perspective.

Why thank you.
Even a broken clock is right on every now and then.

 

[Jicjeung]

Interesting! What is the source of this information?

There are several sources orally in Foshan. You Can see Kwok Fu's interview on youtube (it is in Cantonese so you will need someone to translate assuming you can not understand Cantonese). Lun Gai was another source. Leung tings Book Roots and branches book repeats these. All the info on Yuen Kay San wee have came from Sum Nung (who is not unbiased himself). Numerous people in Foshan know that Yuen was a student of Ng Chun so primarily. Here is a source with no skin in the game from the Yiu Choi lineage Wing Chun Fok Chiu USA note Yuen as being a student of Ng Chun so. Yes, I believe He did train with both Fok Bo Chun and Fung siu ching as a boy, (which Leung ting repeats in his book)however the other Fung siu ching stories are likely bogus and the timeline doesn't fit, ( look at the Tang Family Weng Chun History... note Fung siu Ching was retiring when Tang Yik was Born (this would be in 1911) Tang Suen already took over teaching from Fung siu Ching) so to claim that Yuen began learning from Fung (when he lived at his home?) was put forth by Sum nung in response to critics, According to the dates given 1933 to 1936 would mean Yuen (born 1889) trained supposedly many years under Fok Bo Chun and became a student of Fung siu Ching in 1933 til 1936 (when he was 44 thru 47yrs old) yet regarded Fung as his teacher???? and this somehow made him senior to Yip man makes no sense if you really look at it. Most people don't look into Sum's statements and take them at gospel (Yes people do this with Yip man's and others as well). Honestly I think they were both great at what they did but grand students and students of a lineage tend to promote and market their own lineage and they count on people not being able to verify what is said. While there is no concrete proof of most things, analysis of the statements themselves often points the way to logical interpretation for the individual. In short like him or not I think Leung Ting's was fairly accurate.

 

[Jicjeung]

We know that Yip Man trained with Cha Wah Shun from age 9-11 before Cha Wah Shun died of a stroke.

From 11-16 he learned from his Sihing Ng Chun So.

At age 16 he moved to Hong Kong where he learned from age 17-24 from Yeun Kay San.

>>>>As has been pointed out, Yuen Never lived in Hong Kong. All that is known is that his skills improved significantly upon his return to Foshan. Verbally Yip Man attributed this to leung Bik according to many of his students. As he was formally accepted as a student of Chan wah shun, Ip man could never claim Leung Bik was his Sifu traditionally but rather as he did, that he learned from him (his sibok). Evidence has been put forward as to the existence of Leung Bik in Hong kong. Many want to dismiss this (without evidence to the contrary) however a source for the existence of Leung Bik from another style which not only corroborates his existence but that he trained Wing Chun under his father Leung Jan would be The late master Chu Chong Man (He wrote recounting his training under big mountain Shu (who for a time was a leung Jan student) and who passed on to him an incident where He was doing Chi sau with Leung Bik and pushed him over the bed in the family home breaking the bed. He had no reason to make this up. FWIW.

At 24 he goes back to Fatsan and teaches Wing Chun there.

At 56 he returns to Hong Kong, and begins teaching students there while (simultaneously) learning from Yuen Kay San again?

We know for a fact that he did not teach the Baat Jaam Do until after he returned to Hong Kong (after age 56). (No one who he taught in Fatsan knows the Baat Jaam Do form) Is this because he learned his Baat Jaam Do from Yuen Kay San when he returned to Hong Kong?
>>>>I do not know where your information comes from but with all due respect, as stated Yuen is never known to have lived there. While Leung Gai did not learn the knives in Foshan, Kwok Fu family members assert he did, Yip man stayed with him for a period of three years after the class he taught at the factory broke up.

Does anyone have any info on how much Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun / Ng Chun So, and what he learned from Yuen Kay San?

>>>There is zero evidence Yip man learned anything from Yuen, it is likely that they exchanged much during classes as both were likely students under Ng Chun so (as noted by many sources). This is also the likely reason BTW that when Yuen Chai Wan left Foshan for Vietnam he sent Yiu Choi to Ng Chun so instead of his brother (who was likely training with Ng). Many Foshan lines regarded Yuen as an excellent senior student of Ng Chun so (believe it or not but it is the other side of the story).

 

[Jicjeung]

I won't speak for Yuen Kay San branch, but will for Yuen Chai Wan branch. They learned more than just first form, San Sik & bamboo dummy. Ng Chung So is not listed as a teacher of either Yuen family branch, but they did know each other. Yiu Choi did not study under Chai Wan for that length of time, more like 3-4 years. It's true he only learned first form, some san sik, bamboo dummy and some pole work (if I'm not mistaken) from Chai Wan, but this was because Chai Wan left for Vietnam. Yiu Choi finished his training under Chai Wan's friend Ng Chung So. Your story is an old smear campaign told by students of Yip Man to bolster their lineage.

>>>>Well, that would come from Leung Ting's roots and Branches Book however if you look at Vietnamese wing chun via the net there was no Chum kiu or Biu tze taught, Many of the lineages claim he did study with Chan Wah shun and one even claimed Leung Jan (unlikely due to Leung Jan's presumed death date).

 

[Jicjeung]

YKS and YCW did know the entire system. Yip Man developed his Dummy form and evolved it in HK.
It my understanding, not factual - but consistently upheld by documents and 1st hand account, Yip did learn various things from the Yuen's. Aside from luk sao/chi sao, who knows.
>>>>I don't know of any "Documents" other then the writings of Sum Nung which Coroberate this but of course it is possible, As I stated in another post Yuen and Yip both (likely trained under Ng Chun So with Yuen Kay san as Ng's senior student so there would still have been a good amount of exchange but that would have been under the teaching of Ng at the time). As to Chi Sau/luk sau this may have been the influence of Ng Chun so. We do not know exactly what Yuen's Chi sau/Luk sau looked like except via Sum Nung. Sum Nung is known to have trained with many people outside his lineage ro improve himself (not a criticism, I think it's great! However we can not tell what sum Attributed to Yuen and what he added himself. Again according to Kwok Fu (who was living in Guangzhou in 1948 He and Sum trained and exchanged together and he told him to look up Yip man if he got to Hong kong and there are senior who claim Sum then around 30 years old spent two weeks and visited Yip man training with his group on a restaurant roof top) true or not, we can not say whether Yip got his Luk sau from Yuen or Sum got his luk sau from Yip but attributed it to Yuen? Who knows for sure? We can't say. IT's a matter of who we chose to believe or not.

Possible that Yip said don't perform dummy in front of Yuen. NO ONE knows this to be the true reason. I know both of these forms and they are DRASTICALLY different. Different jings, methods and choreography. Also, the YKS dummy is much longer and more intricate than YM. Not saying one is better than the other, just that they are very different. as are the knives.
>>>Agreed, Yip could have even been working on his own dummy version. Who knows both are of value!

I have studied and completed BOTH YM and YKS systems, I teach both. I can say first hand that ALL WCK is similar. The differences come from methodology, jings, center, issuance and shapes. I have my personal preference of which is better, but that is for me. BOTH have their place(s). being able to adapt and move between the two methods has served me well.
>>>>Bravo. This is a great attitude in my opinion.
Here is a clip of Kwok Wan Ping, my line of YKS. Keep in mind, the gross motor skills and methods are correct. its just not as exact and tight as I'm sure it once was.

Not trying to FLAME. Just give more insight since I'm from the line.

>>>Understood and appreciated, me neither. Just offering the other side of the coin as people tend to accept silence as confirmation to historical claims. Regards!

 

[geezer]

Jicjeung-- Welcome to Martialtalk and specifically, the WC forum. I see you just joined Tuesday! Thanks for your informative posts, and I hope you will continue posting here.

 

[Feitianwu]

Being as how he was from Foshan, as was Huang Fei Hong, the Legendary Hero of China, whose master was Huang QiYing, one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, who also taught Liang Zan (the Sifu of Ip Man), whose Sifu was Lu A Cai, whose Sifu was Reverend Jee Sin, who was one of the Legendary 5 Elders of Shaolin who escaped the Purging of the Shaolin Monastery, his lineage is therefore to the Shaolin Elders

 

[Jicjeung]

Jicjeung-- Welcome to Martialtalk and specifically, the WC forum. I see you just joined Tuesday! Thanks for your informative posts, and I hope you will continue posting here.

>>>Thank you for the warm welcome, I will certainly post as much as time permits. Thank you for having me.

 

[Jicjeung]

Being as how he was from Foshan, as was Huang Fei Hong, the Legendary Hero of China, whose master was Huang QiYing, one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, who also taught Liang Zan (the Sifu of Ip Man), whose Sifu was Lu A Cai, whose Sifu was Reverend Jee Sin, who was one of the Legendary 5 Elders of Shaolin who escaped the Purging of the Shaolin Monastery, his lineage is therefore to the Shaolin Elders

>>>>With all due respect, Leung Jan was not Ip Man's Sifu , and Wong Fei Hung does not have a known Gung fu Connection to leung jan, you appear to be confusing Wong Fei hung's father (Wong Qi ying} with Wong Wah Bo one of the reputed teachers of Leung Jan (the other being Leung yi Tai or Liang er di if you prefer) Ip Man was officially a student of Chan Wah Shun, continuing to learn after his death from Ng Chun so and possibly Leung Bik. There was a family story however from Chan Gouji (Great x3 grandson of Chan wah shun) Does however tell a story where Wong Fei Hung went to find Leung Jan after hearing about his skill with the pole. To Paraphrase and sum up, Leung jan was too Old, Chan wah Shun stepped in besting Wong with the pole and impressing Wong. As a result they had a pleasant exchange and were friends with Wong added parts the Luk Dim boon guan into one of his pole forms(if memory serves the 5 brothers 8 trigram set) and Chan Yiu Min (Chan wah Shun's son who also was allegedly present) coming away with a version of Fuk Fu (Taming the Tiger set) which is still seen in his lineage today. As to the Five elders story , IMO this is just a creation myth that is likely based off the older creation myths of the secret societies which in turn adopted stories from folk literature at the time. I would advise you to read Meir Shahar;s excellent work on the Shaolin Monestary, Dian Murray;s book on the Tihandhui is also very useful as well. Regards

 

[Tony Dismukes]

>>>>With all due respect, Leung Jan was not Ip Man's Sifu

I don't know if you've been following his rants on the other threads today, but FeitanWu's grasp on history (and reality in general) is not something you need to give that much due respect to.

Good job being informative for other readers, though.

 

[Feitianwu]

>>>>With all due respect, Leung Jan was not Ip Man's Sifu , and Wong Fei Hung does not have a known Gung fu Connection to leung jan, you appear to be confusing Wong Fei hung's father (Wong Qi ying} with Wong Wah Bo one of the reputed teachers of Leung Jan (the other being Leung yi Tai or Liang er di if you prefer) Ip Man was officially a student of Chan Wah Shun, continuing to learn after his death from Ng Chun so and possibly Leung Bik. There was a family story however from Chan Gouji (Great x3 grandson of Chan wah shun) Does however tell a story where Wong Fei Hung went to find Leung Jan after hearing about his skill with the pole. To Paraphrase and sum up, Leung jan was too Old, Chan wah Shun stepped in besting Wong with the pole and impressing Wong. As a result they had a pleasant exchange and were friends with Wong added parts the Luk Dim boon guan into one of his pole forms(if memory serves the 5 brothers 8 trigram set) and Chan Yiu Min (Chan wah Shun's son who also was allegedly present) coming away with a version of Fuk Fu (Taming the Tiger set) which is still seen in his lineage today. As to the Five elders story , IMO this is just a creation myth that is likely based off the older creation myths of the secret societies which in turn adopted stories from folk literature at the time. I would advise you to read Meir Shahar;s excellent work on the Shaolin Monestary, Dian Murray;s book on the Tihandhui is also very useful as well. Regards

Huang Qi Ying was one of the 10 Tigers of Guangdong, and was also Huang Fei Hong's Father. And in China, 90% of Gong Fu secrets are kept within a family or close relationships, particularly amongst the Cantonese in Guangdong Foshan.

Chan Wah Shun was the Student of Liang Zan, and I think I omitted Chan Wah Shun from the pedigree in my last post.

Liang Zan was also taught by Huang Qi Ying, Huang Fei Hong's father

Huang Qi Ying was taught by Lu A Cai, a disciple of Reverend Ji Sin of the 5 Elders which is not even close to old enough to be myth. Its a clear succession.

The only ambiguity is which of the Shaolin Monasteries he was originally from.

Therefore, Huang Fei Hong, Ip Man, and Bruce Lee all have a lineage to Shaolin, as do all Foshan Martial Arts

You have a very Hong Kong view, or overseas Hong Kongese view. Which is simply very Ip Man-centric and wanting to seem separate from the Shaolin monks in Henan or even Fujian. A story from his great great great grandson is likely not the most neutral study.

 

[Jicjeung]

I don't know if you've been following his rants on the other threads today, but FeitanWu's grasp on history (and reality in general) is not something you need to give that much due respect to.

Good job being informative for other readers, though.

>>>>Thank you, I regret I have not read them. I always try to keep in mind I was also young once upon time! We talk exchange idea's to consider we learn, it's the way of Life! LOL Thank you for your kind comments.