Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[Jicjeung]

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.
>>>Yes you did, thanks for the update.

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

>>>That would be an interesting find! If you please, What is the source of this information? I have never even Heard it from friends of the Hung Ga lineage of Wong Fei Hung.

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.

>>>Again I suggest Meir Shahar book Shaolin Monestary. Meir spent some Ten years in China and abroad researching remaining texts, tablets and Documents at the Shaolin Temple.

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

>>>>See above, there was only ever one shaolin temple. The Southern temple is the stuff of myth with various locations desiring to be it's official home to draw Tourists. Sorry to say.


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

>>>Some wing chun/ weng chun lines claim descent from Jee Shin others Ng Mui none claim to have been taught in the temple itself. Yim Wing Chun and all that. Even IF you buy the Myth the most common of which is that Jee Shin reworked the art to fits the opera folks on the boat it was technically not a shaolin art created in the temple. During the Ming Period many people of shall we say a rebellious nature, traveled disquised as Monks (it was common among secret society members in fact) and did so under assumed names as the punishment for membership was severe.

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.

>>>Well Thank you! LOL In fact I go where the where the path leads in coming to my conclusions. You may want to examine the Tihandhui myths and notice how close they are to the martial arts 5 elders stories. The names are changed but the storyline is spot on. Again I would advise reading Dian Murray, david Ownby etc.... read some academics and then consider what they have to say before forming your conclusions. I do not get offended because you don't agree, that's your opinion, I just don't see anything bearing it out and a ton of corroborating stories and documents to support the alternative. As to Chan Gouji, of course not, everyone has a bias or preference if you will. I only mentioned it as it was germain to your previous comments. You are of course free to accept or dismiss it as you chose. Regards!

 

[geezer]

Man, Jicjeung you are both well informed and patient with foolishness ..an example to us all. I especieally appreciate ypur listing of additional academic sources. One more that folks may want to refer to is Ben Judkins and his "Kung fu Tea" blog.

 

[Feitianwu]

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.

You have a point to argue? Argue it. Troll

 

[Feitianwu]

>>>Well Thank you! LOL In fact I go where the where the path leads in coming to my conclusions. You may want to examine the Tihandhui myths and notice how close they are to the martial arts 5 elders stories. The names are changed but the storyline is spot on. Again I would advise reading Dian Murray, david Ownby etc.... read some academics and then consider what they have to say before forming your conclusions. I do not get offended because you don't agree, that's your opinion, I just don't see anything bearing it out and a ton of corroborating stories and documents to support the alternative. As to Chan Gouji, of course not, everyone has a bias or preference if you will. I only mentioned it as it was germain to your previous comments. You are of course free to accept or dismiss it as you chose. Regards!

Well, honestly that's all right on Wikipedia. Sources are cited.

Good luck with your search though

 

[Jicjeung]

Man, Jicjeung you are both well informed and patient with foolishness ..an example to us all. I especieally appreciate ypur listing of additional academic sources. One more that folks may want to refer to is Ben Judkins and his "Kung fu Tea" blog.

>>>>Thank you, that is kind of you to say. Yes, I am familiar with his writing in fact here is a relevant Piece.
Did Ip Man Invent the Story of Yim Wing Chun?

Additionally for Chinese history and Culture for the times in question Frederick Wakeman is another good source.

Regards

 

[Jicjeung]

Well, honestly that's all right on Wikipedia. Sources are cited.

Good luck with your search though

>>>Ah I was hoping for something a bit more academic then something anyone can edit. BTW If you read the entry you Cite, Wong Qi ying is listed in lineage however Clicking on Wong mentions nothing about Leung jan at all. The only reference at the bottom being Leung Ting's Fighters of Fatshan....reading this you will further find no mention of Leung Jan Learning from Wong Qi ying. So there is in fact no reference to who added the name to Leung Jan's lineage or any corroboration (written or Oral stories) ie....Gulao Village Leung Jan retired to taught (what is known by some as slant body Wing Chun) and where he passed away leaving personal affects makes no mention (to my knowledge) of Wong Qi ying as his Sifu. Unless new information comes to light my search is over, thank you for your attempt to assist though! Regards

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You have a point to argue? Argue it. Troll

Sure. I'd argue that you tipped your hand a little too soon and were a little too obvious for your intended purpose.

You came in to an established community of experienced and knowledgeable martial artists and jumped in right away stating nonsensical claims about martial arts history, insulting forum members at random, and telling fantastical tall-tales about your own prowess that no one above the age of 10 is likely to believe.

You were probably hoping to provoke a storm of angry responses to your nonsense. I'm not sure why playing such games is emotionally rewarding to some people, but apparently it is.

The problem, however, is that you've been so obvious with your ploys that most of us have figured out that your silliness isn't sincere. You're just looking for reactions. As a result, the general inclination is to mostly ignore you and wait until you get yourself banned by the moderators.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Sure. I'd argue that you tipped your hand a little too soon and were a little too obvious for your intended purpose.

You came in to an established community of experienced and knowledgeable martial artists and jumped in right away stating nonsensical claims about martial arts history, insulting forum members at random, and telling fantastical tall-tales about your own prowess that no one above the age of 10 is likely to believe.

You were probably hoping to provoke a storm of angry responses to your nonsense. I'm not sure why playing such games is emotionally rewarding to some people, but apparently it is.

The problem, however, is that you've been so obvious with your ploys that most of us have figured out that your silliness isn't sincere. You're just looking for reactions. As a result, the general inclination is to mostly ignore you and wait until you get yourself banned by the moderators.

Either that or have fun with it. I had a great time last night engaging him.

 

[jlq]

Jicjeung, Leung Jan didn't pass away in Gulao - he died and was buried (somewhere) in Fatsaan.

 

[jlq]

Also, it is not generally said in Fatsaan circles that Yeun Kei learnt from Ng Chun So. What is in fact generally said is that YM, YKS, Yiu Choi (and others) trained together at Ng Chun So's school and that they learnt from each other, because they were all good friends. I have personally asked quite a few of the seniors in Fatsaan about this, but no one said explicitly that YKS was a student of Ng Chun So. When drawing conclusions, one has to be careful with English translations, as they are often not good or inaccurate. Fwiw Gwok Fu's son related a rather detailed version of the story about YKS visiting YM's class, and he mentioned that YKS was from another lineage. So apparently, Kwok Fu, who had known YKS personally, believed that YKS was not a Tung Muhn of Yip Man...
As far as Yuen Kei Saan learning from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Siu Ching, it is not only Sum Nung telling this story - Leung Ngau Sifu (only living disciple of YKS), Yuen Jotong (YKS's grandson) and the Wong Jing (friend and student of YKS) descendants such as Wong Wufong ("Mai Gei Wong") also do...

 

[APL76]

Yuen Kay San only had one disciple, and that was Sum Nung.

 

[jlq]

APL, that is what Sum Nung's descendants say...

 

[APL76]

Sum Nung is my Si Gung, I'll take his word for it over anyone else. Regardless of what anyone says, it's the Wing Chun is what speaks.

Though Yuen Kay San did teach one other student, though he wasn't his disciple. He only lasted a few months before he gave up.

 

[jlq]

Well, APL76, in Fatsaan there is no dispute that YKS had more students than what you have heard. The most senior of YKS students told me just recently that including him, YKS had nine students. It is also corroborated by multiple other sources that there were more than just Sum Nung. Of course, as a loyal follower of the style, whatever Sifu/Sigung says must be true - however, if one looks into things, one will see a totally different picture and turning a blind eye to the evidence just means that one doesn't want to accept that Sifu/Sigung was just human... To put things into perspective, many people believe YM was the grandmaster of the entire Wing Chun pai, and when pointed out to them that this is not exactly the truth, they will make a statement just like yours... What would you say to such persons? As far as your comment about the Wing Chun speaking... That is really a hollow statement in this context and doesn't say anything about Sum Nung being the only disciple of Yuen Kei Saan.

 

[Jicjeung]

Jicjeung, Leung Jan didn't pass away in Gulao - he died and was buried (somewhere) in Fatsaan.

>>>Then we have been told conflicting information.
Leung Jan's Pin Sun Wing Chu Boxing - Kulo Village, China

regards

 

[APL76]

Yuen Kay San did show a few people a thing or two about wing chun, including Yip Man, but the only disciple he had was Sum Nung. The wing chun speaks for itself, there is nothing hollow about it, most of them cant even get the fundamentals right, its obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at. And where were these people when Sum Nung was alive? Its all good and well to make claims when he is dead. the same thing happened in the Yip Man style, once the big name guy dies they all come out of the woodwork making all sorts of claims. They didn't dare do it while Sum Nung was alive.

 

[wckf92]

Just a thought...but maybe you guys ( @jlq and @APL76 ) are talking about two different things? I.E. one of you is saying "students"; the other is saying "disciples"...?

 

[Jicjeung]

Also, it is not generally said in Fatsaan circles that Yeun Kei learnt from Ng Chun So.
>>>Well not in yks/sum nung lineage it wouldn't be, It is however stated in others...Naturally believe as you wish but I did post one example (which you can see rather then take my word for, that Yuen Kay san was considered primarily a student of Ng by senior student of Yiu Choi lineage who lived in the time period) naturally you are free to disagree.

What is in fact generally said is that YM, YKS, Yiu Choi (and others) trained together at Ng Chun So's school and that they learnt from each other, because they were all good friends.
>>>>Yes, that is generally said. Are we assuming it is/was common for an someone from another lineage (then Ng CHun So)to just show up and train on a regular basis? because he was friends with two students there (Yip Man and Yiu Choi)? Not likely in my opinion unless Yuen was also a student. Just my opinion based on what is stated prior.

I have personally asked quite a few of the seniors in Fatsaan about this, but no one said explicitly that YKS was a student of Ng Chun So.
>>>Yes, they tend to tread lightly on these things and don't want to get into feuds over things which can be argued either way,

When drawing conclusions, one has to be careful with English translations, as they are often not good or inaccurate. Fwiw Gwok Fu's son related a rather detailed version of the story about YKS visiting YM's class, and he mentioned that YKS was from another lineage. So apparently, Kwok Fu, who had known YKS personally, believed that YKS was not a Tung Muhn of Yip Man...
>>>Yes, we must be careful with translations but also in delicate politics and the way people phrase things. Kwok Fu has made statements and was there he passed in 2011. It is natural Kwok Wai Jarn would not wish to eb embroiled in arguments, He just enjoys teaching and is a wonderful person. It is also possible he was describing the end result ie.... YKS melding the teachings of Fok Bo Chun and Ng Chun so to his own system. Who knows. We come to the conclusions we do based on available information and what we are told. It gives us a base to view our own wing chun world. Its all good.

As far as Yuen Kei Saan learning from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Siu Ching, it is not only Sum Nung telling this story - Leung Ngau Sifu (only living disciple of YKS), Yuen Jotong (YKS's grandson) and the Wong Jing (friend and student of YKS) descendants such as Wong Wufong ("Mai Gei Wong") also do...

>>>Yes, I have seen an interview done with him but as I stated, the Timeline as put forth by Sum Nung does not fit. Fung siu Ching teaching Yuen at family home 1933 to 1936 Yuen Kay san would have been 44 to 47 when training and Yuen Chai wan was 12 years older? then his younger brother. If Fung Siu Ching was there at that time and they officiated at his funeral (as Sum said) why does no one know where Fung Siu Ching was buried? It also seems to be strange etiquette for the Yuen Brothers to spend so many years under Fok Bo Chun to then in their 40's and 50's claim Fung as Their wing chun Sifu (when they spent 3 years with him) Unless maybe Fok bo chun did not teach wing chun? Perhaps Snake set as some speculate? I don't know....
What is an interesting thought , now that I think of it is (Speculating out loud about wing chun history in general) According to the stories passed via Sum nung Fok Bo Chun taught the Yuen brothers for many years. Allegedly Fok taught them Wing Chun (not snake style sets) the three wing chun hand sets etc...etc.... then reffered them both to Fung siu Ching (who trained alongside him under Dai fa min Kam and who was doing the same system according to the story)... If Fung was 73 when he died in 1936 then he would only have been born around 1863 so he was not training on the Red Boats Dai fa min Kam prior to the uprising, so assuming Dai Fa min Kam brought Fung out of the tailor shop and to the red boat as an apprentice (let us guess as early as early age 10 years old) this would have been 1873. Fung reputedly learned 6 years before going out to teach so this would be around 1879 so we have a much later generation then Leung Jan learning in the mid 1850s by the mid 1870s Chan wah was likely learning the three sets of leung jan....Not a criticism but just wondering,,,Why Fung siu Ching a later generation Never taught Siu Lim tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Tze to any of his first students (See lineages of Chu chong man, tang yik etc..or look up Tang family weng chun history which states Leung Jan lineage was only one using the three sets pao fa lien , Fung siu ching others all different)...but according to this Fung for some reason decided to learn and teach slt, chum kiu and biu tze in his 70's? Also IF ..Fung and Fok bo chun were allegedly doing same system why Fung early students do not have bamboo Dummy or pronounced snake hands motions? Now forgive me, I do not mean to insult, There may be very good explanations I have over looked but I am always eager to learn more. Thank you in advance.

 

[jlq]

These people were all around when Sum Nung was around, too... Most of them even before. Just because you never heard about them, doesn't mean that they weren't. Don't be so naive and blindly believe all your hear from just one source... Wing Chun speaks for itself... That is again a supremely arrogant attittude, by people who are ignorant about the broader scope of things. Who are you to judge whether anyone is doing their basis correctly? You know, SN changed stuff himself, taught people different things at different times during his teaching career - do you know why that is? There is at least one very specific reason... So which group is doing it the "correct" way, say his early students from ca. 1946-48 or the later ones? They don't do things the same way, sometimes even by far... The world is not as simple and dogmatic as you believe it is. Of course, I understand that you will not accept this, however, if you truly want to know, instead only relying on Sifu says, I recommend you to go to Fatsaan and talk to various people there. You will be surprised...

 

[jlq]

Jic Jeung,

Jim's article is from 2007...