Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[jlq]

[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?

PARDON THE CAPITALS, I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!

REMEMBER, IT IS NOT JUST SUM NUNG, WHO PUT OUT THIS STORY OR TIMELINE. ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER, IF WE GO INTO NITPICKING, FSC IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAUGHT THE YUEN BRO.S FOR TWO YEARS, SO CA. 1935-1936 OR 1934-1936, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT DATES HE WAS HIRED TO TEACH AND DIED. SO YES, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN YKS WAS IN HIS MID TO LATE 40S, YCW EVEN OLDER. NOW, THE BROTHERS DID NOT, AS YOU SAY, LEARN FROM FOK BO CHUEN FOR A LONG TIME, BUT A FEW YEARS WHEN YKS WAS YOUNG. FBC WAS NOT A WING CHUN EXPONENT, BUT A (FIVE PATTERN) HONG KUEN PRACTICIONER FROM YAMCHOW IN GONGSAI, SPECIALIZING IN THE SNAKE STYLE. SO THE STORY ABOUT HIM LEARNING FROM EITHER LAW MAN GONG OR EVEN DAI FA MIN GAM AND (AS SOME GROUPS PUT IN THEIR LINEAGE TREE) WONG WAH BOU, IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. UNLESS... BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY... HAHA
FONG SIU CHING IS A MYSTERY, EVEN TO REAL NATIVE, FATSAAN MARTIAL ARTS RESEARCHERS, AS IT SUPPOSEDLY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUT ANY TANGIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HIM. GIVEN THE DATES OF THE OFFICIAL YUEN KEI SAAN ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR LAW BENG JEUNG (THE VICEROY OF SEICHUEN) AS THE LATTER DIED WHEN THE FORMER WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 YEARS OLDS OR SO. BUT GIVEN THAT HE IS NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME, HE SURELY EXISTED, BUT YKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT ...LIBERAL... WHEN IT CAME TO EXTOLL HIM. ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES YUEN CHAI WAN AND YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T GROW UP TOGETHER, YUEN CHAI WAN CAME TO FATSAAN MUCH LATER AND STAYED THERE FOR A FEW YEARS (IT WAS DURING THIS PERIOD HE TAUGHT YIU CHOI) UNTIL HE WENT TO VIETNAM. IIRC SOME SN/YKS GUYS SAY THAT HE MOVED TO VIETNAM IN 1939, BUT - AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD - ACCORDING TO YCW'S SON (WHO IS STILL ALIVE) IT WAS IN 1936. GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, BOTH YUEN KEI SAAN AND HIS OLDER BROTHER HAVE QUITE LEARNT WING CHUN (FROM WHOEVER... ) IN FATSAAN, AND ALSO FROM FONG SIU CHING. ACCORDING TO YKS FAMILY LORE, HE JUST TAUGHT THEM SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS, NOT THE SAAM TOU KUEN.

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?

IT IS VERY STRANGE INDEED THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHERE FONG SIU CHING IS BURIED, GIVEN THE YUENS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OFFICIATED, ETC. BUT WHO KNOWS IF THAT PART IS ACTUALLY TRUE. ALSO, GIVEN THE DIFFULTY FINDING THE GRAVES OF PEOPLE IN CHINA - THEY TEND TO MOVE THE GRAVES AROUND AND THE NAMES OF LOCATIONS GET LOST, AS IS THE CASE FOR LEUNG JAN'S GRAVE IN FATSAAN - THAT MAY VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THAT. LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT.

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....

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME COMMENTS RELATING TO THIS. AS FAR AS CHAN WAH SHUN GOES, HE DIDN'T START LEARNING FROM LEUNG JAN UNTIL HE WAS 39 YEARS OLD (ACCORDING TO HIS FAMILY) THIS WAS CA. LATE 188OS, GIVEN THAT LEUNG JAN RETURNED TO GULAO - AND THEN TO FATSAAN AGAIN, WHERE HE DIED IN 1894 (ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGY OF HIS FAMILY), HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEARN TOO LONG UNDER 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)...

IF YOU REFER TO THE SERIES OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MR. HOI (FOR THE HK NEWSPAPER) MANY MOONS AGO, YOU NEED TO APPLY A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING. IF YOU STUDY TANG YIK WENG CHUN, YOU WILL KNOW SOME OF THE PARTS I AM REFERRING TO IN PARTICULAR. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, THAT IT IS A MIX OF STORIES MR. HOI (HIMSELF A STUDENT OF NG CHUN SO) HAD HEARD IN FATSAAN AND THEN CREATED A VERY INTERESTING STORY OFF. SO SOME OF IT IS TRUE, OTHERS FICTICIOUS - CAVEAT EMPTOR...

NOW, IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY FONG SIU CHING DIDN'T TEACH SAAM TOU KUEN - HE WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY. ACCORDING TO TANG YIK - AND OTHER SOURCES - HE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO TEACH, ACTUALLY. SO HIS EARLY STUDENTS LEARNT A WOODEN DUMMY FORM, A SORT OF "HONG JONG" CALLED "CHONG KUEN" AND MAYBE SOME SAN SAU. YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T LEARNE ANY OF THESE BUT RATHER SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS.

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?

THEY DIDN'T, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. FOK BO CHUEN WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY EITHER... SO THE GREAT MYSTERY IS: WHERE DID YKS GET THE SAAM TOU KUEN FROM? AND HIS BROTHER, TOO... THEY CAN ONLY HAVE GOTTEN THOSE FROM A VERY LIMITED GROUP OF PEOPLE EITHER FORMALLY, OR INFORMALLY (CURRENTLY, I AM OF THE OPPINION THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMAL LEARNING AND EXCHANGING GOING ON BETWEEN VARIOUS PEOPLE)

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.[/QUOTE]

INSULT? HOW DO YOU GET THAT IDEA? NOTHING INSULTING IN ANYTHING YOU WROTE - NOT TO ME, AT LEAST. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY PROUD ABOUT HIS LINEAGE AND TAKES THE HISTORY AS GOSPEL TRUTH WILL OBVIOUSLY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT I AM NOT IN THAT CATEGORY.

 

[Nobody Important]

Fok Bo Chun was a student of Wong Wah Bo according to my branch of Yuen Chai Wan's lineage, that's where the 3 forms came from. Fung Siu Ching (student of Dai Fa Min Kam) was a 5 Pattern Hung Kuen practitioner and passed on Chong Kuen which is the mother form (I learned this form along with the 3 standard). This is where the Vietnamese 5 Animal forms came from. These specific forms were "developed" from Chong Kuen after Yuen Chai Wan left the patriots association and went to south Vietnam. Old Hung Kuen, White Crane & Wing Chun have a shared ancestry and were often taught alongside each other, much intermingling that led to creation of specific systems based on preference of technique, tactic and personal preference.

 

[APL76]

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...

There is nothing arrogant about saying some are not doing the fundamentals properly, I'm sure the people not doing them properly would claim it's arrogant, but for anyone who knows what they are doing its a no brainer. For example. There are three points of the body that MUST be coordinated to do wing chun (id say probably any martial art) properly, its a thing that a good number of the sup yi sik are designed to inculcate. Yet most of the people coming out and claiming they learned from both Yuen Kay San, and Sum Nung, appear to not even have knowledge that these three things need to be coordinated. So when I see that, and when I have seen Sum Nung himself say these things need to be coordinated, and seen what he can do, I'll take his word for it over someone who cant even get the fundamentals right.

People can make all the claims they want, what I know however is where many of these people actually did learn their wing chun from. Just because people in China tell you stuff doesn't mean its true.

 

[jlq]

There is nothing arrogant about saying some are not doing the fundamentals properly, I'm sure the people not doing them properly would claim it's arrogant, but for anyone who knows what they are doing its a no brainer. For example. There are three points of the body that MUST be coordinated to do wing chun (id say probably any martial art) properly, its a thing that a good number of the sup yi sik are designed to inculcate. Yet most of the people coming out and claiming they learned from both Yuen Kay San, and Sum Nung, appear to not even have knowledge that these three things need to be coordinated. So when I see that, and when I have seen Sum Nung himself say these things need to be coordinated, and seen what he can do, I'll take his word for it over someone who cant even get the fundamentals right.

People can make all the claims they want, what I know however is where many of these people actually did learn their wing chun from. Just because people in China tell you stuff doesn't mean its true.

It certainly doesn't, but the same goes for blindly believing in what you hear from your Sifu/Sigong, etc. If you want to find out how things really were, then you need to look at multiple datapoints. Now, in this case there are so many of these contradicting what you are believing... As I said, you need to go out with an open mind and collect and evaluate information objectively, just hearing one side and its spin on things doesn't give a clear picture of the situation.

 

[jlq]

Fok Bo Chun was a student of Wong Wah Bo according to my branch of Yuen Chai Wan's lineage, that's where the 3 forms came from. Fung Siu Ching (student of Dai Fa Min Kam) was a 5 Pattern Hung Kuen practitioner and passed on Chong Kuen which is the mother form (I learned this form along with the 3 standard). This is where the Vietnamese 5 Animal forms came from. These specific forms were "developed" from Chong Kuen after Yuen Chai Wan left the patriots association and went to south Vietnam. Old Hung Kuen, White Crane & Wing Chun have a shared ancestry and were often taught alongside each other, much intermingling that led to creation of specific systems based on preference of technique, tactic and personal preference.

That is very interesting. Which lineage of the Vietnamese style are you from? Because what you are saying contradicts quite a few of the other lineages coming out of Vietnam... A problem with that story is that Fong Siu Ching - according to Tang Yik - and other sources in Fatsaan - didn't have much to teach. And hence had to invent this Chong Kuen (which is basically the techniques of his dummy form performed with footwork) on the request of some of his students because they wondered why he didn't have more to teach. The Chong Kuen form as taught by the Dong, Tang and Tam families don't look like anything which could inspire the five animal forms the Vietnamese Wing Chun people do today. If Yuen Chai Wan did in fact learn from Fong Siu Ching, alongside YKS and a handful of others, why is it then that YCW would have Chong Kuen and the others not? This also contradicts the information from the YKS lineage - and others - as to what was taught by Fong Siu Ching when he was teaching after his retirement.
Now, in Fatsaan there are people who said YkS and YCW learnt the same things, so the little problem discussed above aside, what you are saying makes absolute sense to me and has been something matching ealier speculations of mine. However, the Vietnamese Sifus descending from YCW will of course object strongly to this
Fong Siu Ching being a Hong Kuen practicioner is not an idea strange to me either, for certain reasons. Although, this doesn't match up very well with the stories of the other lineages which claim Dai Fa Min Kam as their ancestor and still have Saam Tou Kuen...

 

[wckf92]

...Saam Tou Kuen...

What is saam tou kuen?

 

[Nobody Important]

That is very interesting. Which lineage of the Vietnamese style are you from? Because what you are saying contradicts quite a few of the other lineages coming out of Vietnam. A problem with that story is that Fong Siu Ching - according to Tang Yik - and other sources in Fatsaan - didn't have much to teach. And hence had to invent this Chong Kuen (which is basically the techniques of his dummy form performed with footwork) on the request of some of his students because they wondered why he didn't have more to teach. The Chong Kuen form as taught by the Dong, Tang and Tam families don't look like anything which could inspire the five animal forms the Vietnamese Wing Chun people do today. If Yuen Chai Wan did in fact learn from Fong Siu Ching, alongside YKS and a handful of others, why is it then that YCW would have Chong Kuen and the others not? This also contradicts the information from the YKS lineage - and others - as to what was taught by Fong Siu Ching when he was teaching after his retirement.
Now, in Fatsaan there are people who said YkS and YCW learnt the same things, so the little problem discussed above aside, what you are saying makes absolute sense to me and has been something matching ealier speculations of mine. However, the Vietnamese Sifus descending from YCW will of course object strongly to this
Fong Siu Ching being a Hong Kuen practicioner is not an idea strange to me either, for certain reasons. Although, this doesn't match up very well with the stories of the other lineages which claim Dai Fa Min Kam as their ancestor and still have Saam Tou Kuen...

The majority of the Vietnamese branches are a mess with a lot of material added to fill the voids and created history to match. My line descends from the Doan (Duan) family. My Dai Sigung was a Chinese expat living in North Vietnam, he was also supposedly a student of Ng Chung So prior to learning from Yuen Chai Wan. Yuen initially taught his Chinese & Vietnamese students differently. The Chong Kuen form passed on from Fung Siu Ching is officially named Chong Sin Jeung (Heart Penetrating Palm). You will see different versions of it in all of Fung Siu Ching's descendants including Yiu Choi branch. My version is nothing like Tang or Dong family version (choreography wise) but has similarity to Lam family Red Boat Wing Chun and Yiu Choi post form. Each branch/version has evolved, muddying what the original material may have looked like, my own included. For example, I have a good friend who studies Hung Kuen, his Dai Sigung was a student of Wong Fei Hung and training brother of Lam Sai Wing. His Hung Kuen looks nothing like Lam family Hung Kuen, because Lam Sai Wing changed the material by adding his family's Wing Chun to it. Yet, world wide, people accept Lam family as the standard and epitome of Wong Fei Hung's boxing method, it is not, just the most popular. Again, legends state that Hung Kuen, Pak Hok & Wing Chun share a common ancestry. Wing Chun was a term used to describe arts derived from crane boxing, much like Hung Kuen was used to describe arts derived from southern Siu Lam tiger boxing. N'g Chung So also passed on a version of this 4th form as well as others. The legends of 2 methods of Wing Chun, 1 male 1 female, speak to the 2 approaches, Siu Lim and Dai Lim (Big and Small Training), or Snake & Crane and 5 Animals. The Siu Lim Tau and Dai Lim Tau naming conventions are also found in various Hung Kuen methods, this is not by coincidence, it's because they are two aspects of the same art. Oral legends surrounding Wing Chun state it was a theory developed by 5 Ancestors, each diseminating that theory in their own manner, and this is why we see arts that share similar concepts, techniques and history called Wing Chun and Hung Kuen. It was a theory developed in Siu Lin (Little Training) temple in Fukien, passed on by Hung society members and rose to fame in Wing Chun county during the Red Turban Rebellion.. Fok Bo Chun learned from Wong Wah Bo who passed on Wing Chun (Snake & Crane). Fung Siu Ching learned from Dai Fa Min Lam who passed on Hung Kuen (5 Animal). This coincides with the oral legends surrounding Wing Chun history and accounts for the differences in the branches coming from Wong Wah Bo and Dai Fa Min Lam, and the whole reason for the Wing Chun vs. Weng Chun debate. That is what I was told, any research I've done hasn't been able to dispute it, take it with a grain of salt. For me the explanation is good enough, others are free to dispute and believe what they want.

 

[Poppity]

What is saam tou kuen?

The three fist forms, most likely.

 

[Jicjeung]

Jic Jeung,

Jim's article is from 2007...

And this means it is no longer vaild? Leung Jan didn't retire to Gu lao village and teach (what is now called slant body wing chun) until he died? Well for what its worth, Here is another entry in English. Gary has visited Gu lao many times Wing Chun in China - Dr. Leung Jan King of Wing Chun

Regards

 

[jlq]

Jicjeung,

if you go to Dongbin Village today and read the historical information there - and check the dates of Leung Jan's statue, you will some other information.

Mr. Baniecki's information is also out of date, yes.

What many in the West are not aware about is that Wing Chun has been quite thoroughly reseaerched by local researchers for many years, it is just that their findings never trickled through to the West. Also, what information Westerners visiting China got might be anything from complete and just from one source...

As far as Leung Jan's death and other information, a couple of years ago a researcher of a museum in Fatsaan was presented with the original genealogy of Leung Jan's descendants and other family documents by Leung.Bik's grandson. This is now on display in the Yip Man Tong in Luochun (built in 2015). Seems like not too many Westerners go there and even of they do, just parts of the documents are translated.

So, the information of your sources are not up to date... If you want to know more about the state of the art information about Leung Jan, O suggest you contact Jim Roselando Sifu, who has been an avid researcher of the subject for many years. He is probably the Westerner who knows most about this matter.

 

[jlq]

Also, it is not only the dates which are outdated and inaccurate...

 

[Jicjeung]

PARDON THE CAPITALS, I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!

REMEMBER, IT IS NOT JUST SUM NUNG, WHO PUT OUT THIS STORY OR TIMELINE. ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER, IF WE GO INTO NITPICKING, FSC IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAUGHT THE YUEN BRO.S FOR TWO YEARS, SO CA. 1935-1936 OR 1934-1936, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT DATES HE WAS HIRED TO TEACH AND DIED. SO YES, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN YKS WAS IN HIS MID TO LATE 40S, YCW EVEN OLDER. NOW, THE BROTHERS DID NOT, AS YOU SAY, LEARN FROM FOK BO CHUEN FOR A LONG TIME, BUT A FEW YEARS WHEN YKS WAS YOUNG. FBC WAS NOT A WING CHUN EXPONENT, BUT A (FIVE PATTERN) HONG KUEN PRACTICIONER FROM YAMCHOW IN GONGSAI, SPECIALIZING IN THE SNAKE STYLE. SO THE STORY ABOUT HIM LEARNING FROM EITHER LAW MAN GONG OR EVEN DAI FA MIN GAM AND (AS SOME GROUPS PUT IN THEIR LINEAGE TREE) WONG WAH BOU, IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. UNLESS... BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY... HAHA
FONG SIU CHING IS A MYSTERY, EVEN TO REAL NATIVE, FATSAAN MARTIAL ARTS RESEARCHERS, AS IT SUPPOSEDLY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUT ANY TANGIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HIM. GIVEN THE DATES OF THE OFFICIAL YUEN KEI SAAN ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR LAW BENG JEUNG (THE VICEROY OF SEICHUEN) AS THE LATTER DIED WHEN THE FORMER WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 YEARS OLDS OR SO. BUT GIVEN THAT HE IS NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME, HE SURELY EXISTED, BUT YKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT ...LIBERAL... WHEN IT CAME TO EXTOLL HIM. ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES YUEN CHAI WAN AND YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T GROW UP TOGETHER, YUEN CHAI WAN CAME TO FATSAAN MUCH LATER AND STAYED THERE FOR A FEW YEARS (IT WAS DURING THIS PERIOD HE TAUGHT YIU CHOI) UNTIL HE WENT TO VIETNAM. IIRC SOME SN/YKS GUYS SAY THAT HE MOVED TO VIETNAM IN 1939, BUT - AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD - ACCORDING TO YCW'S SON (WHO IS STILL ALIVE) IT WAS IN 1936. GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, BOTH YUEN KEI SAAN AND HIS OLDER BROTHER HAVE QUITE LEARNT WING CHUN (FROM WHOEVER... ) IN FATSAAN, AND ALSO FROM FONG SIU CHING. ACCORDING TO YKS FAMILY LORE, HE JUST TAUGHT THEM SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS, NOT THE SAAM TOU KUEN.

>>>>I understand, the only other sources I am aware of were simply recounting what Sum Nung wrote in his manuscript. My information stated earlier was in regard to the writings of a man claiming to be a sum nung disciple name Yun Hoi and what he said Sum told him Fok same system and trained many years then Fung etc....As to Fok Bo Chun, YES, I agree and some in Foshan held this theory as well further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing/Weng Chun kuen.


IT IS VERY STRANGE INDEED THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHERE FONG SIU CHING IS BURIED, GIVEN THE YUENS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OFFICIATED, ETC. BUT WHO KNOWS IF THAT PART IS ACTUALLY TRUE. ALSO, GIVEN THE DIFFULTY FINDING THE GRAVES OF PEOPLE IN CHINA - THEY TEND TO MOVE THE GRAVES AROUND AND THE NAMES OF LOCATIONS GET LOST, AS IS THE CASE FOR LEUNG JAN'S GRAVE IN FATSAAN - THAT MAY VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THAT. LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT.

>>>Yes, I agree. Leung may have been under a street or parking garage now! LOL

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME COMMENTS RELATING TO THIS. AS FAR AS CHAN WAH SHUN GOES, HE DIDN'T START LEARNING FROM LEUNG JAN UNTIL HE WAS 39 YEARS OLD (ACCORDING TO HIS FAMILY) THIS WAS CA. LATE 188OS, GIVEN THAT LEUNG JAN RETURNED TO GULAO - AND THEN TO FATSAAN AGAIN, WHERE HE DIED IN 1894 (ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGY OF HIS FAMILY), HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEARN TOO LONG UNDER LEUNG JAN.

>>>>Well as for a friend who travels and trans with Chan Gouji he speculated he was in his 30's I did not hear 39 specifically but it seems about right. I did not bring up the age of the Yuen brothers training under Fung siu ching to imply they were too old to learn but rather Fung's Weng Chun seems to stem from the older patterns when wing chun was not yet structured (if you will) and later evolved in the three sets.

IF YOU REFER TO THE SERIES OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MR. HOI (FOR THE HK NEWSPAPER) MANY MOONS AGO, YOU NEED TO APPLY A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING. IF YOU STUDY TANG YIK WENG CHUN, YOU WILL KNOW SOME OF THE PARTS I AM REFERRING TO IN PARTICULAR. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, THAT IT IS A MIX OF STORIES MR. HOI (HIMSELF A STUDENT OF NG CHUN SO) HAD HEARD IN FATSAAN AND THEN CREATED A VERY INTERESTING STORY OFF. SO SOME OF IT IS TRUE, OTHERS FICTICIOUS - CAVEAT EMPTOR...

>>>Of Course, take everything with a grain of salt but that doesn't not mean to throw the baby out with the bath water! Inaccuracies, Bias and preference are all around in any story, we seek to corroborate as best we can to make sense of the history ourselves.

NOW, IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY FONG SIU CHING DIDN'T TEACH SAAM TOU KUEN - HE WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY. ACCORDING TO TANG YIK - AND OTHER SOURCES - HE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO TEACH, ACTUALLY. SO HIS EARLY STUDENTS LEARNT A WOODEN DUMMY FORM, A SORT OF "HONG JONG" CALLED "CHONG KUEN" AND MAYBE SOME SAN SAU. YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T LEARNE ANY OF THESE BUT RATHER SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS.

>>>Yes, the Weng Chun Kuen set came from Tang Suen and as is a big debate now with them about Saam pai fut however they did not deny his wing chun training under Sun Gum for allegedly 6 years.

THEY DIDN'T, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. FOK BO CHUEN WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY EITHER... SO THE GREAT MYSTERY IS: WHERE DID YKS GET THE SAAM TOU KUEN FROM? AND HIS BROTHER, TOO... THEY CAN ONLY HAVE GOTTEN THOSE FROM A VERY LIMITED GROUP OF PEOPLE EITHER FORMALLY, OR INFORMALLY (CURRENTLY, I AM OF THE OPPINION THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMAL LEARNING AND EXCHANGING GOING ON BETWEEN VARIOUS PEOPLE)

>>>Here we both agree (though we may come to different conclusions in regard to Ng Chun so etc...)...But that is fine. We can only speculate.



INSULT? HOW DO YOU GET THAT IDEA? NOTHING INSULTING IN ANYTHING YOU WROTE - NOT TO ME, AT LEAST. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY PROUD ABOUT HIS LINEAGE AND TAKES THE HISTORY AS GOSPEL TRUTH WILL OBVIOUSLY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT I AM NOT IN THAT CATEGORY. [/QUOTE]

>>>I am glad to hear that, some people claim to be open minded and yet get very insulted when they look at their own lineages. I have trained with many people in different lineages over the years. Many have different stories (they can't all be right! Thank you for the discussion!

 

[KPM]

I understand, the only other sources I am aware of were simply recounting what Sum Nung wrote in his manuscript. My information stated earlier was in regard to the writings of a man claiming to be a sum nung disciple name Yun Hoi and what he said Sum told him Fok same system and trained many years then Fung etc....As to Fok Bo Chun, YES, I agree and some in Foshan held this theory as well further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing/Weng Chun kuen.

---Just to clarify...... Yun Hoi is a white guy in Australia. He also goes by the Buddhist name of Zopa Gyatso. In the past he told me that he did travel to China and spend some time with Sum Nung, but he never lived there. I would not call him a "disciple". I also doubt that he is fluent in Cantonese. So his knowledge of the subject is likely no better than any other visitor to China that spent some time there on holiday.

 

[Nobody Important]

When it comes to the Yuen brothers, Yip Man and Yiu Choi, and whom they learned from and what they learned is all speculative. All their stories are filled with gaping holes when it comes to what training is attributed to what ancestor. There is a common link though, and that is Ng Chung So. Ng was senior to all of them but he was, for some reason, not very popular or well known. Perhaps the Yuen brothers and Yip Man decided it looked better to align themselves with more popular individuals (Fung Siu Ching & Leung Bik) for alterations they made to the art or marketing reasons, or perhaps, Ng Chung So didn't want the publicity and be known as their teacher. I find it interesting that Ng Chung So is comparable to Aragaki Seisho in that both were respected and sought after instructors of their perspective arts (Wing Chun & Shuri Te) yet no one claims either as their primary teacher. Is this because they looked at Ng as a big brother more than Sifu? Technically speaking, each began their studies under Fok Bo Chun (Yuen brothers), Chan Wah Shun (Yip Man) & Yuen Chai Wan (Yiu Choi), but how much did they learn? Most of Yip Man's training came at the hands of Ng Chung So, so did Yiu Choi's. I'd speculate that The Yuen brothers didn't learn much from Fok Bo Chun, seeing how Yuen Chai Wan never passed on Chum Kiu or Biu Jee, most likely because he never learned them. In my lineage these forms come from my Dai Sigung also learning from Ng Chung So. Yet lineage is claimed from Yuen Chai Wan even though Ng was his first teacher. This brings up the question, why is Ng Chung So not considered a lineage head when he obviously was responsible for instructing the 3 kings of Wing Chun? Was he extremely modest, was he an a55hole, or does custom dictate that their first teachers receive credit even though they taught very little?

 

[jlq]

Jicjeung,

a few interesting points:

1. Weng Chun Kuen is unique to the Tang family, it was passed on to Tang Bun at Fei Loi Ji near Zengyuen and thus was not from Tang Suen. Tang Suen brought in other stuff, though...

2. There is actually only limited information available in English in comparison what you can actually learn if you speak to people face to face in Gongjaau and Fatsaan, etc. You cited some (one rather bad) examples a your sources... The problem is that when such articles written by people with best intentions but exposed to limited sources and views are accepted as the baseline truth, the more accurate information is happily dismissed or seem as to be just as speculative as the information put forth in certain articles (see below).

3. I just happened to have lunch with Chan Gok Gei Sifu, his brother and another very Senior CYM Siulam Weng Chun student just yesterday. Chan Sifu is an extremely busy man and doesn't teach, unfortunately. We were very lucky to have this opportunity to spend a few hours with him. He was very happy to explain and demonstrate concepts of his style - he has really great Gung Fu! - but rejected to answer any questions about the history of his style. He was in fact very upset with journalists and reporters whom he had granted interviews to in the past because they didn't present the information he gave them accurately, even some of his grandstudents are guilty of this. So next year he is going to release all the original and correct information about his lineage next year at the grand opening of the "Chan Wah Shun Memorial Hall" which will be a major event in Seundak.
I could mention some other examples, where information in an article is wrong but people use this as some authoritative piece of evidence. For example and old article about Tang Yik in New Martial Hero... If you don't really train in the style and know the background of the article, you would never know the information is not correct...
The point is - one should be careful trusting information in articles and from people too far removed from the source. This is why, when I have the chance, I always try to ask the most senior guys available.

4. There is a discussion going on in Weng Chun circles - but the issue is not the Saam Bai Fut form, this is a "sub issue" amongst a certain group of people. The issue amongst the Weng Chun Community is what he taught, not how long he learnt and such.

 

[jlq]

This Yuenhoi's claims cannot be verified - as I have heard, according to both of Sum Nung's sons and Sum Nung's wife, Sum Nung never had any Western "disciple". If Yuenhoi had indeed been to China at the time he would have, a foreigner learning Wing Chun would have been a huge thing and someone would have bound to know. He seems to avoid answering questions about exact details pertaining to his stay in China... No doubt there would be pictures too... but none have turned up thus far...

 

[Poppity]

This thread has been very interesting for me as a couple of us in the Shing Lee lineage have noticed certain similar nuances in our wing chin and that of some videos of yks wing chun. As Shing Lee had (so I am told) extensively studied Hung kuen before learning wing chun, the hung kuen reference in the yks history, was of particular interest.

I don't know if it has any bearing on how Ng Chung So may have viewed himself, but after our sifu passed a number of SiHings are continuing to teach their master's art, but the really experienced and knowledgeable ones teach us as SiHings, I guess classing themselves as conduits of our sifus teachings. It may be that Ng Chung So adopted a similar modest approach.

 

[Jicjeung]

Jicjeung,

a few interesting points:

1. Weng Chun Kuen is unique to the Tang family, it was passed on to Tang Bun at Fei Loi Ji near Zengyuen and thus was not from Tang Suen. Tang Suen brought in other stuff, though...

>>>This may well be true there is debate amongst them about this as I know of some rather heated arguments about how much Tang Bun learned at Fei Loi. As you know Tang Yik did an interview new martial hero and favored Tang Family history they use on website. later he wrote a manuscript which attributed to Tang Family arts and what was passed on by Tang bun that was not the same as in earlier interviews. I believe Sunny and maybe Michael have this. There is an argument as well (I am sure you know about Saam pai fut) between Michael and others (apollo I think) anyway. Originally I heard it was created by Tang Suen from what he learned from Fung siu ching (and the feel of the Kuen feels like old Weng Chun kuen). Just FYI.

2. There is actually only limited information available in English in comparison what you can actually learn if you speak to people face to face in Gongjaau and Fatsaan, etc. You cited some (one rather bad) examples a your sources... The problem is that when such articles written by people with best intentions but exposed to limited sources and views are accepted as the baseline truth, the more accurate information is happily dismissed or seem as to be just as speculative as the information put forth in certain articles (see below).

>>>Yes, I know this. It is also hard for people if they do not speak Guandong hua going through a translator things aren't always correctly translated. What are bad sources versus good are often subjective.

3. I just happened to have lunch with Chan Gok Gei Sifu, his brother and another very Senior CYM Siulam Weng Chun student just yesterday. Chan Sifu is an extremely busy man and doesn't teach, unfortunately. We were very lucky to have this opportunity to spend a few hours with him. He was very happy to explain and demonstrate concepts of his style - he has really great Gung Fu! - but rejected to answer any questions about the history of his style. He was in fact very upset with journalists and reporters whom he had granted interviews to in the past because they didn't present the information he gave them accurately, even some of his grandstudents are guilty of this. So next year he is going to release all the original and correct information about his lineage next year at the grand opening of the "Chan Wah Shun Memorial Hall" which will be a major event in Seundak.

>>>I look forward to this! Well friend who told me is from Russian group of students of Chan Gouji I have seen his video's training with him and instruction so he is not lying about training with him. What he was told about history is how he understood it. I take nothing as gospel.

I could mention some other examples, where information in an article is wrong but people use this as some authoritative piece of evidence. For example and old article about Tang Yik in New Martial Hero... If you don't really train in the style and know the background of the article, you would never know the information is not correct...

>>>As I have said before we should take everything with a grain of salt. Some parts accurate others not likely. I am not a Tang Yik student but know and have trained with many of them over the years Victoria park and other places.

The point is - one should be careful trusting information in articles and from people too far removed from the source. This is why, when I have the chance, I always try to ask the most senior guys available.
>>As do like anything sometimes people tell you what they think you want to hear, other times when you know them well they are more candid about their thoughts.

Regards

 

[Jicjeung]

I understand, the only other sources I am aware of were simply recounting what Sum Nung wrote in his manuscript. My information stated earlier was in regard to the writings of a man claiming to be a sum nung disciple name Yun Hoi and what he said Sum told him Fok same system and trained many years then Fung etc....As to Fok Bo Chun, YES, I agree and some in Foshan held this theory as well further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing/Weng Chun kuen.

---Just to clarify...... Yun Hoi is a white guy in Australia. He also goes by the Buddhist name of Zopa Gyatso. In the past he told me that he did travel to China and spend some time with Sum Nung, but he never lived there. I would not call him a "disciple". I also doubt that he is fluent in Cantonese. So his knowledge of the subject is likely no better than any other visitor to China that spent some time there on holiday.

>>>>Ah this makes sense. In some of the articles (which a Student brought to my attention) he claimed to be a disciple of Sum since 1960's. This sounded strange. He also quoted Sum in his personal interviews with him as well.

Thank you and regards

 

[jlq]

Snark, Yuen Kei Saan's Wing Chun is more like YM and Yiu Choi Wing Chun than anything else. I think looking for more Hong Kuen in his Wing Chun than that of the other Wing Chun practicioners I mentioned to piece some puzzle together is seeing too much, IMHO of course.