Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[Jicjeung]

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 Baniecki's information is also out of date, yes.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

>>>>I posted Mr, Baniecki (who trains Pin sun and makes many trips there with his wife) as you seemed to want a newer source then 2007. His was Jan 2017 if memory serves.

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.

>>>The original post I believe was Written by Jim Roselando and I believe his is webmaster of the site, Maybe he will update it soon?

Thank you for your thoughts,
Regards

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,
it is pretty clear who YM actually learnt from and who he exchanged with - there are a few stories which are wildly exaggerated, such ha him "learning" from the Weng Chun people, Yuen Kei Saan, and some even claim that he learnt some from the wife of a former superior officer in his KMT unit... Stories abound... Knowing what I do about the Chinese Gong Fu community showing/explaining sth to someone at Yam Cha suddenly becomes "teaching"..
The real mystery is Fok Bo Chuen and even more so, Fong Siu Ching. Because the stories about them are totally inconsistent and there is nothing but oral tradition which defies actual historical events.
Ng Chun So was - according to Leung Ngau Sifu (one of the most senior practicioners of Wing Chun alive today both in terms of age and generation - 95 years old and a direct disciple of Yuen Kei Saan), among others, and local martial arts reseaerchers - very famous and respected in the Fatsaan Mo Lam. While he didn't have an actual school, he was teaching out of Yiu Choi's Opium Hall and had quite a few wealthy students. It was a kind of social club for rich guys and most of the affluent Wing Chun people came there to discuss martial arts. There were plenty of students who called Ng Sifu, but not any more. Unfortunately, the only active descendants of Ng Chun So are Fohk Chiu and the Yiu Choi Lineage. These are quite proud to be descendants of Ng and always point this out when asked about their lineage. One also has to remember that unknown or little known outside of Fatsaan doesn't really reflect the situation locally.
As you say, who is called Sifu depends very much on tradition - there is an old saying, "one Sifu in one Pai", so while you can have only one Sifu, you can have many Gong Fu uncles, who might teach you much more than your Sifu. This is/was rather the norm. So, Yip Man could not call Ng Chun So Sifu, f.ex. Yuen Kei Saan would not call Ng Chun So sifu if he was not a formal student, as far as how Yiu Choi referred to Ng, that is an interesting question. I will ask around and let you guys know.

 

[jlq]

>>>The original post I believe was Written by Jim Roselando and I believe his is webmaster of the site, Maybe he will update it soon?

Thank you for your thoughts,
Regards

Who knows?

But why does he need to update it, now I told you the information?



It seems like you are not willing to accept what I told you?

 

[jlq]

further some theorize that Snake and crane set combined were source of original of Wing

Who exactly theorizes this?

 

[Nobody Important]

Nobody Important,
it is pretty clear who YM actually learnt from and who he exchanged with - there are a few stories which are wildly exaggerated, such ha him "learning" from the Weng Chun people, Yuen Kei Saan, and some even claim that he learnt some from the wife of a former superior officer in his KMT unit... Stories abound... Knowing what I do about the Chinese Gong Fu community showing/explaining sth to someone at Yam Cha suddenly becomes "teaching"..
The real mystery is Fok Bo Chuen and even more so, Fong Siu Ching. Because the stories about them are totally inconsistent and there is nothing but oral tradition which defies actual historical events.
Ng Chun So was - according to Leung Ngau Sifu (one of the most senior practicioners of Wing Chun alive today both in terms of age and generation - 95 years old and a direct disciple of Yuen Kei Saan), among others, and local martial arts reseaerchers - very famous and respected in the Fatsaan Mo Lam. While he didn't have an actual school, he was teaching out of Yiu Choi's Opium Hall and had quite a few wealthy students. It was a kind of social club for rich guys and most of the affluent Wing Chun people came there to discuss martial arts. There were plenty of students who called Ng Sifu, but not any more. Unfortunately, the only active descendants of Ng Chun So are Fohk Chiu and the Yiu Choi Lineage. These are quite proud to be descendants of Ng and always point this out when asked about their lineage. One also has to remember that unknown or little known outside of Fatsaan doesn't really reflect the situation locally.
As you say, who is called Sifu depends very much on tradition - there is an old saying, "one Sifu in one Pai", so while you can have only one Sifu, you can have many Gong Fu uncles, who might teach you much more than your Sifu. This is/was rather the norm. So, Yip Man could not call Ng Chun So Sifu, f.ex. Yuen Kei Saan would not call Ng Chun So sifu if he was not a formal student, as far as how Yiu Choi referred to Ng, that is an interesting question. I will ask around and let you guys know.

I can't find anything here to dispute and find myself in general agreement with your assumptions. Though many of the stories I've heard are filled with holes, I still find that they do contain kernels of truth, though exaggerated over time. One interesting one I've heard is that Fok Bo Chun was a White Crane practitioner and and possible student of Lee Man Mao, to me this would still be Wing Chun. Though I've found nothing to substantiate this claim, I do find it very interesting that Wing Chun Pak Hok has a form called Baat Sao Sam Chien (8 Hands 3 Battles) of which the main section is identical to the Flower Fist section of Yuen Chai Wan's Siu Lim Tau I learned. Its all speculation, but i think it most plausible that the Yuen's recieved the most training from Ng Chung So, especially as someone else pointed out, why send Yiu Choi to him and not to his brother Kay San if he (Ng Chung So) wasn't important to him (Yuen Chai Wan). The 3 forms either came from Fok Bo Chun who really was a student of Wong Wah Bo or, more likely, from Ng Chung So with stylizations coming from the teaching of Fok Bo Chun & Fung Siu Ching who learned "Old Wing Chun". One thing we have to take into consideration is that the term Wing Chun, as used to describe the art today, didn't come into use until after Leung Jan. I suspect that the terms Wing Chun, Hung Kuen and Pak Hok were quite interchangeable until methods and lineages were more formally codified. Wing Chun certainly didn't come out of the box looking like it does today, it has gone through numerous changes.

 

[jlq]

I can't find anything here to dispute and find myself in general agreement with your assumptions. Though many of the stories I've heard are filled with holes, I still find that they do contain kernels of truth, though exaggerated over time. One interesting one I've heard is that Fok Bo Chun was a White Crane practitioner and and possible student of Lee Man Mao, to me this would still be Wing Chun. Though I've found nothing to substantiate this claim, I do find it very interesting that Wing Chun Pak Hok has a form called Baat Sao Sam Chien (8 Hands 3 Battles) of which the main section is identical to the Flower Fist section of Yuen Chai Wan's Siu Lim Tau I learned. Its all speculation, but i think it most plausible that the Yuen's recieved the most training from Ng Chung So, especially as someone else pointed out, why send Yiu Choi to him and not to his brother Kay San if he (Ng Chung So) wasn't important to him (Yuen Chai Wan). The 3 forms either came from Fok Bo Chun who really was a student of Wong Wah Bo or, more likely, from Ng Chung So with stylizations coming from the teaching of Fok Bo Chun & Fung Siu Ching who learned "Old Wing Chun". One thing we have to take into consideration is that the term Wing Chun, as used to describe the art today, didn't come into use until after Leung Jan. I suspect that the terms Wing Chun, Hung Kuen and Pak Hok were quite interchangeable until methods and lineages were more formally codified. Wing Chun certainly didn't come out of the box looking like it does today, it has gone through numerous changes.

There is no evidence that Fok Bo Chuen was a student of Wong Wah Saam, in fact, very few - if any - of the many Sum Nung/YKS schools have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Wong Wah Bou (if I am not mistaken, that might come from Rene Ritchie's book). I have many pictures from various Mo Goons' lineage charts. And what you will find is that most of the lineage charts have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong - just like the Yiu Choi guys - and a few Dai Fa Mien Gam... Fok Bo Chuen was from Yamchow, just like Law Man Gong, and Yiu Choi actually also learnt from him, according to his descendants. It makes little sense that he would have learnt from Wong Wah Bo, if he was indeed from Yamchow and given the nature of the actual opera "lifestyle". If Fok Bo Chuen had learnt from Wong Wah Bo, he would have had to learn it in Fatsaan, but then he wouldn't have been a "Snake style boxer" as the stories claim - he would have been a gong fu brother of Leung Jan, which he by all accounts wasn't... So, Fok Bo Chuen being a student of Wong Wah Bo... Doesn't sound very plausible at all. And thus does the claim that the three forms came from him... Ng Chun So - and the other Gong Fu friends seem a much more plausible source.
The term Wing Chun did definitely exist with Leung Jan, not after him - his students called it Wing Chun (lets leave out Chan Yu Min's Siulam Weng Chun) in Fatsaan and Gulao Seui Heung. In Gulao the students were taught "Wing Chun" by him not "Weng Chun" or sth else. This applies both to Wong Wah Saam and the Gus, Leis, etc. Also, as proven by the Leung family documents, Leung Jan taught his sons Wing Chun quite early on.
Who said that YC was "sent" to Ng? The exact wording would be interesting... Another interesting question... Anyway, there is a much better and plausible reason, given the situation: YKS was extremely reluctant to take students, he didn't even want to teach his own sons!
Lei Man Mao was - according to researchers in Fatsaan a Hong Kuen practicioner, not a Baak Hok stylist. And according to historical documents from the Ching dynasty, he was notes as an actor/singer, not a boxer or someone who was known for his great fighting skills...
If you leave out the Baak Hok, I think your idea has quite a bit of merit.

 

[Nobody Important]

There is no evidence that Fok Bo Chuen was a student of Wong Wah Saam, in fact, very few - if any - of the many Sum Nung/YKS schools have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Wong Wah Bou (if I am not mistaken, that might come from Rene Ritchie's book). I have many pictures from various Mo Goons' lineage charts. And what you will find is that most of the lineage charts have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong - just like the Yiu Choi guys - and a few Dai Fa Mien Gam... Fok Bo Chuen was from Yamchow, just like Law Man Gong, and Yiu Choi actually also learnt from him, according to his descendants. It makes little sense that he would have learnt from Wong Wah Bo, if he was indeed from Yamchow and given the nature of the actual opera "lifestyle". If Fok Bo Chuen had learnt from Wong Wah Bo, he would have had to learn it in Fatsaan, but then he wouldn't have been a "Snake style boxer" as the stories claim - he would have been a gong fu brother of Leung Jan, which he by all accounts wasn't... So, Fok Bo Chuen being a student of Wong Wah Bo... Doesn't sound very plausible at all. And thus does the claim that the three forms came from him... Ng Chun So - and the other Gong Fu friends seem a much more plausible source.
The term Wing Chun did definitely exist with Leung Jan, not after him - his students called it Wing Chun (lets leave out Chan Yu Min's Siulam Weng Chun) in Fatsaan and Gulao Seui Heung. In Gulao the students were taught "Wing Chun" by him not "Weng Chun" or sth else. This applies both to Wong Wah Saam and the Gus, Leis, etc. Also, as proven by the Leung family documents, Leung Jan taught his sons Wing Chun quite early on.
Who said that YC was "sent" to Ng? The exact wording would be interesting... Another interesting question... Anyway, there is a much better and plausible reason, given the situation: YKS was extremely reluctant to take students, he didn't even want to teach his own sons!
Lei Man Mao was - according to researchers in Fatsaan a Hong Kuen practicioner, not a Baak Hok stylist. And according to historical documents from the Ching dynasty, he was notes as an actor/singer, not a boxer or someone who was known for his great fighting skills...
If you leave out the Baak Hok, I think your idea has quite a bit of merit.

The problem I have with this is that Law Man Gung is a relatively newly "discovered" ancestor who wasn't originally in the Sei Hok Wing Chun lineage of the Law family from my understanding, he is the one in essence that has replaced Fok Bo Chun, or in some cases was Fok's teacher. Personally I find this curious and can't help but think this is just a case of seniority hopping to prop up a lineage. Law family is the one who first made this claim and it was originally propagated by Hendrik Santos to support his narrative, others latched on because it cleaned things up for them. All legends and written accounts I have heard & seen suggest Lee Man Mao was a Wing Chun White Crane practitioner. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that Lee Man Mao and Law Man Gung aren't the same person. Lee was a leader of the uprising, lead the Red Turban Army and was most likely the inspiration for the Hung Gun Biu legend. There is so much intermingling of the creation legends surrounding Wing Chun, White Crane and Hung Kuen with shared forms, technique & theory its hard to dismiss the notion that they all sprang from the same source, yet went on to evolve differently. With the physical intermingling, it's not a big leap to assume the characters involved were "borrowed" along with everything else. All in all, nothing will ever be substantiated, it's all speculation and all this new "research" is nothing more than an attempt to clean up inaccuracies and gaps in lineage legends in an attempt to make them more cohesive. I have no issue with this as long as it makes logical sense and doesn't outright erase oral legends simply for the purpose of seniority hopping that makes it look like a system is older and purer than it really is. Unfortunely, IMO, this is more often than not the case. A lot of these stories we hear today weren't even whispered rumors 30 years ago. Since researching the roots of Wing Chun has become a popular pastime with the various lineages, all sorts of claims are being made with sketchy or no supporting evidence. Just lots of assumption based on narrative and educated guessing.

 

[jlq]

No, that is not correct! Law Man Gong is not at all a new character inserted, a you think.

The schools I am talking about are all in Fatsaan, all YKS/SN lineage and have nothing to do with Snake and Crane Wing Chun whatsoever - most definitely they didn't change their history because of, say Hendrik Santo, or other modern day people's machinations.They never even heard of such people.

He has also been a figure of the YC lineage at least since the story was passed on to his students such as Yiu Kay, Fohk Chiu, Lam Soi Man, Gor Bing, etc.


So, what written legends have you heard about Lei Man Mao? What are the sources?

The information I have is from my own looking into things here in China and what I have learnt from a local, expert researcher of Wing Chun here in Fatsaan who actually spent a lot effort looking into the matter.

And as I said, Ching records don't say anything about his boxing and fighting skills - but do list other members of the TPTG specifically as boxers.

As far as the rest of your post, about people's motivations, etc. I think you are spot on.

 

[Nobody Important]

No, that is not correct! Law Man Gong is not at all a new character inserted, a you think.

The schools I am talking about are all in Fatsaan, all YKS/SN lineage and have nothing to do with Snake and Crane Wing Chun whatsoever - most definitely they didn't change their history because of, say Hendrik Santo, or other modern day people's machinations.They never even heard of such people.

He has also been a figure of the YC lineage at least since the story was passed on to his students such as Yiu Kay, Fohk Chiu, Lam Soi Man, Gor Bing, etc.


So, what written legends have you heard about Lei Man Mao? What are the sources?

The information I have is from my own looking into things here in China and what I have learnt from a local, expert researcher of Wing Chun here in Fatsaan who actually spent a lot effort looking into the matter.

And as I said, Ching records don't say anything about his boxing and fighting skills - but do list other members of the TPTG specifically as boxers.

As far as the rest of your post, about people's motivations, etc. I think you are spot on.

Ok, so let's say Law Man Gung is an ancestor of Yuen Family instead of Wong Wah Bo, it changes nothing, it simply replaces one ancestor for another. Now, according to you, you now have an uncontested verified Wing Chun ancestor who apparently didn't teach Wing Chun to Fok Bo Chun who in turn didn't teach Wing Chun to the Yuen family, leaving them to learn Wing Chun solely from Ng Chung So.

I've already stated my assumptions that Ng Chung So probably did teach the Yuen's a fair amount, but I don't for one minute believe that they learned absolutely no Wing Chun prior to learning from Ng. That presumption smells very fishy to me and sounds a lot like bolstering one lineage above another in a legitamacy claim. Ive seen abosolutely no proof of this and would very much like to see any supporting documentation.

I've no doubt Yuen Kay San taught others, but he had only one confirmed disciple, Sum Nung. Kay San was a prolific writer and and the majority of any information about Yuen family as far as Wing Chun is concerned comes to us from Sum Nung. None of this new information was floating around when he was still alive, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there were contradictions and inconsistencies, however what I'm seeing is now that he's gone there is no authority and this has left a void. One that information, because information is power, can fill.

I am all for knowing the truth, no matter how much it differs from my own understanding, I am not omnipresent. But it has to be supported with verifiable facts and supporting evidence. The scientific method must be used. Using plausibility and assumption based on "because it makes sense" is not good enough, this only creates a different yet equal outcome and does nothing to further the search for truth.

You have made a lot of claims, some I view as very plausible, yet you have offered no difinative proof that would sway me from my opinion, which I state as my opinion and do not present as fact. I say this because your scenario has an outcome that differs very little from my own, with the exception that I'm not trampling on years of passed on tradition to get there.

Quite honestly I put way more stock into what I can physically see and feel along with my own intuition than I do to blind faith in stories. I've personally seen the relationship between Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & White Crane, I've studied numerous branches of each and no one is going to sway my opinion that they didnt come from the same source. There is way too much overlap in form, technique and theory IMO. So even if one ancestor is swapped for another, it diesnt really change anything as far as the art is concerned, only the narrative. Thank you for your insights this has been an interesting discussion.

 

[Martial D]

Who exactly theorizes this?

This is what my Sifu taught me in the 90s,(WC is a synthesis of snake and crane styles) so someone was theorizing it at least a few decades back.

 

[Nobody Important]

No, that is not correct! Law Man Gong is not at all a new character inserted, a you think.

FWIW, I've never heard of Law Man Gung from anyone in Wing Chun prior to Santos, Chu, Iderola and Roselando doing their research. As far as I know Law Man Gung has only been thrown around in Wing Chun circles since around the year 2000 or so. Now, just because I havent heard of him diesnt mean that hes made up, I do find it suspicious though that the idea of him becoming a verifiable ancestor only gained popularity when Sei Hok Wing Chun claimed him as an ancestor with their unveiling of the unchanged 1860s Wing Chun. Let's not forget, that the lineages you speak of coming out of Faatsan aren't uncontested in their claims. I'm not saying you're wrong & I'm right by any means, but there are some things that "smell" suspicious to me. We all have our biases, buyer beware. If you have any documentation outside of a lineage chart and oral stories I'd love to see them. Until then I'll continue connecting dots in a manner that is logical to my experience and understanding.

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

the problem here is that you are assuming that all the information I am relating was not around when Sum Nung was alive, but it was! I have pointed out before that just because we in the West had very little information about the status quo in Fatsaan and Gongjaau - and apparently even do today - and the fact that one sided and even incorrect information is spread by zealous students means that this is fact. I can only encourage people to come to Fatsaan and examine things for themselves, talk to people here, and it will be clear that what is believed as "fact" is quite different. As long as one can just rely on stories and articles in English, one will have a very limited view on the Wing Chun scene in China, past and present.

Have you actually been to China to talk with the seniors here?

So what exactly is it you don't feel is verified?

That Sum Nung was YKS's only disciple? This is just his/his descendants words... This doesn't make it fact. SN's story was even questioned by Leung Ting more than 20 years ago when he found inconsistencies with his stories, because there were other accounts of certain things which matched up much better than what SN had claimed... So, it is not that everybody was quiet while SN was still around...

And no, all information about YKS does not come from SN, there is Leung Ngau, Yuen Jotong, Wong Jing, and (supposedly, Lam family) as well as others outside of the family, which told quite a different story than say SN... already ca. 1950 at least.

What exactly is it you have a problem with?

That Law Man Gong is listed as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not new at all, just you apparently didn't know... You can go to numerous schools and check their lineage charts - and it is YKS and SN people both, they didn't just change that after SN died. Think about it, they are all YKS/SN guys, so how would changing this make them superior to... YKS/SN lineage? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

According to Yuen Chai.Wan's son, his father learnt many different martial.arts, besides Wing Chun, which was perfectly normal for masters of that time. So mixing stuff and then calling all of it Wing Chun - as an example - was a normal thing to do. Chu Chung Man did the same, learning different stuff and then just calling everything Weng Chun. This is one reason there is such a mess... Given that why is it unreasonable if neither this mysterious FBC and FSC were not "Wing Chun" guys? And that the Yuen brothers learnt this style much later? Just like Chan Wah Shun also learnt it rather late.

But as I have said earlier, the YKS and Yuen Chai Wan lineage is a huge enigma and Lots of things said and claimed simply don't add up.

Far too many stories and no proof of anything



I do not make any claims, I am just relating what information is found in Fatsaan and Gongjaau, it is not to blame.on me that what people say here doesn't match what you think, believe or say...

Let me give you an example, you claimed Ng Chun So taught a fourth form. But here, no one, who heard about Ng Chun So or learnt from him ever heard or learnt anything relating to a fourth form. You mention the "Chong Kuen", but this is actually called "Che Ching Kuen" (normally) and is from Leung Fuk Chor, the first teacher of Fohk Chiu, not the source you claimed. Yiu Chung Keung and his brothers teach it today because they have a special relationship to Fohk Chiu.

You said Ng Chun So.was not famous, but he was - by all accounts here. So what source do you have to make you think you know better than the Wing Chun community in Fatsaan?

Now, quite a bit what you say is very different than what information is available here, so I am very curious as to what your sources are and what evidence you have to believe that you can dismiss what the local people say?

You talk about scientific method and documentation, where is yours?

The problem foe Gong Fu is obviously that everything is oral transmission and a lot of the events are lost in the mists of time...

So like you, I believe that whatever the ancestors supposedly were, it doesn't change our respective arts, and the only tangible thing we have is the physical expression of the art which can reveal much more than stories - although some history can help identify sources and influences.

 

[jlq]

Which lineages are not uncontested?

 

[jlq]

You mean Yuen Kei Saan and Sum Nung?

 

[jlq]

Wong Jing or Yiu Choi lineage?

Look, is it plausible to you that these lineages - all those schools - would change their lineage charts and histories because of Sergio, Hendrik and the Snake and Crane guys? Then you are assuming way too much about the power of their influence.



Is a mention of Law Man Gung prior to the aforementioned gentlemen promoting their story good enough for you to accept that they are not the ones to invent it?

 

[Eric_H]

All legends and written accounts I have heard & seen suggest Lee Man Mao was a Wing Chun White Crane practitioner. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that Lee Man Mao and Law Man Gung aren't the same person. Lee was a leader of the uprising, lead the Red Turban Army and was most likely the inspiration for the Hung Gun Biu legend.

Lee Wen Mao was in a different place at a different time. Though they were part of the same political struggle, it's unlikely they ever met or interacted, and I highly doubt they were the same person.

 

[Nobody Important]

Nobody Important,

the problem here is that you are assuming that all the information I am relating was not around when Sum Nung was alive, but it was! I have pointed out before that just because we in the West had very little information about the status quo in Fatsaan and Gongjaau - and apparently even do today - and the fact that one sided and even incorrect information is spread by zealous students means that this is fact. I can only encourage people to come to Fatsaan and examine things for themselves, talk to people here, and it will be clear that what is believed as "fact" is quite different. As long as one can just rely on stories and articles in English, one will have a very limited view on the Wing Chun scene in China, past and present.

No I"m not assuming that, I am simply saying it wasn't propagated like it is today. I've already stated I wasn't aware of it prior to the research of Santos, Chu, Iderola and Roselando. I've no doubt that Sum Nung embellished some aspects, but, his lineage gives just as much credit to Cheung Bo as to Yuen Kay San, and that says a lot.

Have you actually been to China to talk with the seniors here?

No, but I have spoken with people who have been there, I've no reason to doubt their intentions with what was imparted to me.

So what exactly is it you don't feel is verified?

That Sum Nung was YKS's only disciple? This is just his/his descendants words... This doesn't make it fact. SN's story was even questioned by Leung Ting more than 20 years ago when he found inconsistencies with his stories, because there were other accounts of certain things which matched up much better than what SN had claimed... So, it is not that everybody was quiet while SN was still around...

And no, all information about YKS does not come from SN, there is Leung Ngau, Yuen Jotong, Wong Jing, and (supposedly, Lam family) as well as others outside of the family, which told quite a different story than say SN... already ca. 1950 at least.

There is a lot that doesn't add up when looked at critically. I'm not saying that there isn't inconsistencies in Sum Nung's story, I'm saying that there is in the one you are presenting.

What exactly is it you have a problem with?

That Law Man Gong is listed as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not new at all, just you apparently didn't know... You can go to numerous schools and check their lineage charts - and it is YKS and SN people both, they didn't just change that after SN died. Think about it, they are all YKS/SN guys, so how would changing this make them superior to... YKS/SN lineage? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Correct, I hadn't heard that until a few years ago. How does it make them superior? If Sum Nung never claimed that Law Man Gung was a part of the lineage, if Yuen Kay San's writings and the oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage make no claims to Law Man Gung how can it be true? By putting Law Man Gung into the lineage, it says that particular line learned the "Real" stuff and everyone else got scraps. Its an old ploy used over and over again to claim true transmission and is prevalent throughout the martial arts world. It could be true, but without something more than a lineage chart that anyone can make up, more evidence is needed.

According to Yuen Chai.Wan's son, his father learnt many different martial.arts, besides Wing Chun, which was perfectly normal for masters of that time. So mixing stuff and then calling all of it Wing Chun - as an example - was a normal thing to do. Chu Chung Man did the same, learning different stuff and then just calling everything Weng Chun. This is one reason there is such a mess... Given that why is it unreasonable if neither this mysterious FBC and FSC were not "Wing Chun" guys? And that the Yuen brothers learnt this style much later? Just like Chan Wah Shun also learnt it rather late.

Correct, Yuen Chai Wan learned several arts, this doesn't mean he didn't learn Wing Chun early on. You directly contradict yourself by stating that Law Man Gung is a Wing Chun ancestor yet didn't pass on Wing Chun to Fok Bo Chun. If the Yuen brothers never learned Wing Chun until Ng Chung So, they would have claimed Ng Chung So as their Wing Chun Sifu. This isn't the case, they call Fok Bo Chun their Wing Chun Sifu, so regardless if Fok learned from Law Man Gung or Wong Wah Bo, he still learned Wing Chun and taught Wing Chun to the Yuen brothers.

But as I have said earlier, the YKS and Yuen Chai Wan lineage is a huge enigma and Lots of things said and claimed simply don't add up.

Far too many stories and no proof of anything



I do not make any claims, I am just relating what information is found in Fatsaan and Gongjaau, it is not to blame.on me that what people say here doesn't match what you think, believe or say...

Let me give you an example, you claimed Ng Chun So taught a fourth form. But here, no one, who heard about Ng Chun So or learnt from him ever heard or learnt anything relating to a fourth form. You mention the "Chong Kuen", but this is actually called "Che Ching Kuen" (normally) and is from Leung Fuk Chor, the first teacher of Fohk Chiu, not the source you claimed. Yiu Chung Keung and his brothers teach it today because they have a special relationship to Fohk Chiu.

You said Ng Chun So.was not famous, but he was - by all accounts here. So what source do you have to make you think you know better than the Wing Chun community in Fatsaan?

Who's Wing Chun ancestry isn't plagued by controversy, many branches have gapping holes, not just Yuen family. One of my students spoke directly to Kwok Yue Ming, he was told that Leung Fook Cho passed on the Che Sin Kuen (aka; Chong Kuen) to Fok Chiu, same story as you've been told, but he was also told something else, that what was passed on were loose techniques and that Yiu Choi knew similar material that was passed onto him from Ng Chung So. Che Sin Kuen, as they call it now, is Fok Chiu's creation based on his understanding of the Chong Kuen material taught to him by Leung Fook Cho and Yiu Choi. I have no reason to believe I was lied to. If Ng Chung So was so famous, why does no one outside of Yiu Choi lineage claim him as their Sifu? Yiu Choi is the only "mainstream" branch that gives equal credit to Ng Chung So as a teacher, as they do to Yuen Chai Wan. Does Yip Man branch give such credit to Ng Chung So? How about the Yuen brothers? They supposedly learned most of their material from him yet don't call him sifu or give credit to him for learning Wing Chun. It just doesn't add up. If he was the Yuen's only source of Wing Chun, they would venerate him as Sifu. They don't do this, this tells me that what they learned from Fok Bo Chun was Wing Chun and goes along with the custom of one Sifu per pai.

Now, quite a bit what you say is very different than what information is available here, so I am very curious as to what your sources are and what evidence you have to believe that you can dismiss what the local people say?

You talk about scientific method and documentation, where is yours?

My musings come from oral transmissions that have been imparted to me, I've never claimed them as fact. You on the other hand are adamant that what you've been told is more truthful that what I've been told, hardly scientific. I was taught the Chuan Sin Jeung (Chong Kuen), I was told it came from Ng Chung So. I learned this 30 years ago, before the internet, I have no reason to disbelieve it. Now, I will concede that my Dai Sigung probably choreographed the form from loose techniques, but the material came from Ng Chung So just as the Yiu Choi branch also states. Legend has it that Leung Jan passed this on, even Chan Yiu Min lineage relates a similar story, albeit, with a different form named Sei Mun.

The problem foe Gong Fu is obviously that everything is oral transmission and a lot of the events are lost in the mists of time...

So like you, I believe that whatever the ancestors supposedly were, it doesn't change our respective arts, and the only tangible thing we have is the physical expression of the art which can reveal much more than stories - although some history can help identify sources and influences.

On this we can agree. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, or even that what you say isn't plausible, but if you want to present what you say as FACT you need more than "So and so told me this and lineage charts". When you present information in this manner how is it any more credible than what I've been told or seen? You're simply stating that what you've been told is more credible than what I know simply because you believe what some elder told you. That isn't any more scientific than my argument. I will concede that there is merit in old stories, a kernel of truth, but without verifiable facts that support the presented evidence, it's just another story that has no more merit than another story.

 

[Nobody Important]

Lee Wen Mao was in a different place at a different time. Though they were part of the same political struggle, it's unlikely they ever met or interacted, and I highly doubt they were the same person.

Hi Eric,

I am respectfully going to disagree. I will relent and say that it is plausible that someone named Biu was a member of the Red Turban Army, was given the nickname "Hung Gun" and passed on a version of Wing Chun. I say this because there are other stories I've heard about lesser known branches of Wing Chun generically referred to as Hung Gun Wing Chun (much like Hung Kuen is used to describe various mixed southern arts). This lends credence to Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun being a legitimate branch of Wing Chun and not something new created by Garrett Gee (which by the way I've never took stock in, so please don't take what I say as an insult, it's not meant to be). However, the story of Hung Gun Biu is contested, not unlike ancestors for other lineages. Until further evidence is presented, none of us can claim anything as an absolute truth. For me the most plausible scenario is that Lee Man Mao was in some fashion responsible for the spread of Hung Gun / Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. How this comes together I don't know, and in truth doesn't really matter to me I don't have a dog in the fight. But I think it important that we all take a long look at the stories surrounding our perspective arts and promote what we feel to be true and call the bluff on what we find suspect. Carry on, always a pleasure to hear from you, you always have interesting input and perspective.

 

[lansao]

I’m grateful to this thread for keeping this discussion off of other threads.

 

[wckf92]

You mean Yuen Kei Saan and Sum Nung?

Jlq you really need to learn how to use the quote feature so others can keep up with your posts. Thanks man!