Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[Eric_H]

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.

All good, as I've said before (and will say again) all of these are just legends anyways. Every WC origin/ancestor myth should be taken with enough grains of salt for 100+ bowls of soup.

The interesting thing about Li Wen/Man Mao is that I've never really found much that points to him being a martial artist, though some people have claimed he knew one of the 7 or so versions of white crane that would have been available around that time. For me, I find it plausible that there was a separate cell under the same rebellion of which someone of some (but not the highest) status knew wing chun (Hung Gun Biu). As Li Wen Mao was a pretty big figurehead, I think it probably would have been more well known if he was a wing chun expert/creator. That even the white crane thing isn't 100% certain makes me doubt the connection, as most of what my line has about Hung Gun Biu talks about his fighting ability and what he contributed to our system, as well as his role as a Hung Gwan of that particular revolutionary cell.

Also, this is the same time that Wong Wa Bo was learning/had learnt Wing Chun, isn't it strange we'd be certain that some random actor knew wing chun but not someone who was a leader of a famous uprising?

 

[Nobody Important]

All good, as I've said before (and will say again) all of these are just legends anyways. Every WC origin/ancestor myth should be taken with enough grains of salt for 100+ bowls of soup.

The interesting thing about Li Wen/Man Mao is that I've never really found much that points to him being a martial artist, though some people have claimed he knew one of the 7 or so versions of white crane that would have been available around that time. For me, I find it plausible that there was a separate cell under the same rebellion of which someone of some (but not the highest) status knew wing chun (Hung Gun Biu). As Li Wen Mao was a pretty big figurehead, I think it probably would have been more well known if he was a wing chun expert/creator. That even the white crane thing isn't 100% certain makes me doubt the connection, as most of what my line has about Hung Gun Biu talks about his fighting ability and what he contributed to our system, as well as his role as a Hung Gwan of that particular revolutionary cell.

Also, this is the same time that Wong Wa Bo was learning/had learnt Wing Chun, isn't it strange we'd be certain that some random actor knew wing chun but not someone who was a leader of a famous uprising?

I agree, hell, a lot of these characters in these legends were reputed to be salt merchants at one time, lol. Like I said earlier, it's quite plausible that Hung Gun Biu was a nickname of some fellow named Biu who was a member of the Red Turban Army who practiced Wing Chun. It's also quite plausible that Lee Man Mao gets credit simply because he was the figure head of the Rebellion, or, on the flip side, that he isn't recognized because he lost the Rebellion and was killed. Who knows and ultimately it doesn't matter. FWIW there is a lineage of White Crane that has him listed as a practitioner, but I honestly don't remember which one, plus I dont put a lot of faith into lineage charts. Someone had written an article that touched base on it in regards to the Rebellion as well but that was years ago. There is information floating around out there, but as with most things Wing Chun, it's unsubstantiated. Personally, I like the White Crane narrative just because I have experience there and have witnessed the similarities, but that doesn't make me right by any stretch of the imagination. Youve got a well rounded system, with soild theory and faithful leadership, who can ask for anything more?

 

[jlq]

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.

What does it say exactly? How does Sum Nung mentioning Jeung Bo make what he claimed about the origins of the style more substantial than what others say? You have to remember, these others are his Sifus students and even his own (!) students. You keep saying things weren't propagated as today? How do you know? But there are many around today who were when Sum Nung was alive and teaching, who can tell you about the situation. I know quite a few people who have been training Wing Chun since the 1960 personally, from different lineages, and what they say paints a different pictures than what you believe was the case. Now, you can choose to keep insisting that all of these local people who were actually there don't know what they are talking about and you as someone who wasn't there knows better because you have read some articles and books in the West and some snippets of information you have heard from people who travelled there.


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.


You see, the problem with people who.have been there is that they will at best hear something from one perspective and don't have the time and connections to check, verify and compare information. Just like the articles Jicjeung quoted as evidence. He tried to bolster the strength of this evidence by pointing out that Mr. Baniecki had been to Gulao many times - but the information he shared in the article is very wrong. And yet, people in the West think that his article is bona fide information and just as valid as what the Fung family elders say. People are of course free to believe, but personally I find it way more rational to give credence to the people who are as close to the source as possible.


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.


Which story am I presenting?

That Law Man Gung was the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not my story, it is the story of various YKS and SN students and the Yiu Choi family. I don't know why you go off on this - I just mentioned this to contrast what was passed on to you to point out that what you have been told is not a "standard" version of the story.

I am not saying one thing is more true than the other as you seem to think - in fact, I believe that most of the names of people in the past were made up or certain people didn't exist, whoever's version we are talking about.


Correct, I hadn't heard that until a few years ago. How does it make them superior?


Why do you talk about "superior"? I think you might be projecting sth into my words because you couple Law Man Gung with a certain group of people who abused his name for nefarious purposes. I am not into one style being "superior" or the "original" one and such. I was simply relaying the fact to you that Yuen Kei Saan descendants and SN students claim Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen and - whether you can accept this or not - it IS a fact, since you are reluctant to accept it because I am informing you, I suggest you go to Gongjaau and Fatsaan yourself if you really want to find out the facts.



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?


Who said SN never claimed Law Man Gung was a part of his lineage? Again, I have been trying to tell you that (many of) his students in Gongjaau are saying he did! Why would they change this? How would that make them more "superior" to the other Sum Nung students who didn't change this? Your quarrel with this - as I understand it - makes no sense. Again, the problem seems to arise from the fact that you have never actually been to Gongjaau to experience the Wing Chun community there and you base your opinion on the information available in books and articles disseminated in the West. It is kind of like someone reading a very superficial travelling guide about a place and forming and opinion based on that, but when told by natives or people who have been living there for a long time that what he believes is inaccurate, he insists that he knows better because the travel guide said so...

As far as Yuen Kei Saans writings go, who has actually seen them? Have you? Do you know anyone who actually has? Until then, bringing up these writings as evidence is not very scientific...

Oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage... Well, Yiu Choi was Yuen Chai Wan lineage, and he claimed Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok (Kwok) Bo Chuen. According to his family and students, he even went to learn more from Fok Bo Chuen after Yuen Chai Wan left.




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.



You are absolutely correct, this is a very common ploy - and always has been, even back in the days of the Gong Fu ancestors - but I have explained why this does not apply to the thing we are discussing. Again, why would YKS and SN people replace Dai Fa Min Gam with Law Man Gung as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen to make them more "authentic"? The still all claim Fok Bo Chuen in their lineage, so how does changing his teacher make anyone more superior?



Correct, Yuen Chai Wan learned several arts, this doesn't mean he didn't learn Wing Chun early on.


I am not drawing that conclusion, I am just saying that it is not implausible - as you seem to think - that the Yuen brothers learnt Wing Chun late in life. But given the mess of the history of their lineages, it is impossible to say and all one can do is speculate.





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.


Hm... I don't think so. You focus to much on Law Man Gung, but the concern should be Fok Bo Chuen. Now, the oral histories of certain lineages say he was a "Snake style boxer" from Yamchow in Gongsai or even a "Five Animal Hong Kuen practicioner". But then the very same lineages have Fok Bo Chuen learning from Law Man Gong who according to the source learnt directly from Yim Wing Chun herself or Leung Bok Cho.

You see the mess, no doubt...



Hence, as I said, looking back to far leads nowhere - and as I said, I just mentioned Law Man Gung For the reasons explained above. There is no reason for wasting any energy discussing the veracity of things which were undoubtedly just made up to create a nice history.





If the Yuen brothers never learned Wing Chun until Ng Chung So, they would have claimed Ng Chung So as their Wing Chun Sifu.


No, they wouldn't. Now you are trying to apply contemporary Western logic to understand a different time and a different culture. At that time, unless you did a Baisi, you would not formally learn from a Master and call him sifu - unless you were a relative, perhaps. Remember, there weren't any commercial Wing Chun Mo Goons such as today.




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.



Again, not entirely correct. Yuen Kei Saan never claimed Fok Bo Chuen as his formal Sifu, he claimed Fong Siu Ching - according to the people who actually knew Yuen Kei Saan in Fatsaan.
But yes, as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise.
According to the YKS/SN lineage, Yuen Kei Saan learnt from FBC when he was rather young, and supposedly he learnt Saam To Kuen, pole, weapons, Fei Biu, etc. Supposedly, he and his brother learnt together... So why is it then, that YCW, as you said, just knew one SLT form? Wouldn't it make much more sense If the Yuen brothers learnt those forms in the 1930s, and YCW just picked up one form because he had to go to Vietnam (in 1936 according to his son) whereas YKS never left Fatsaan and thus could learn all of them? This is pure speculation on my part, of course, but seen in context it is not an unlikely scenario.
But you said as much yourself earlier.
If - as you said - the bulk of what the Yuen brothers learnt came from Ng Chun So, why must they have learnt "Wing Chun" from this Fok Bo Chuen?

All we can say is a huge mess - hence better to look at the techniques and skills to determine where things come from.



Who's Wing Chun ancestry isn't plagued by controversy, many branches have gapping holes, not just Yuen family.


It is universal to Chinese martial arts, I am not singling out the Yuen family in particular, they just came up because you said Fok Bo Chuen learnt from Wong Wah Bou. The problem for the Yuen family tradition is that neither Fok Bo Chuen nor Fung Siu Ching can be verified, i.e. there are no records about them and what oral tradition there is contradicts historical facts. In comparison, Leung Jan who is of the same generation of teachers can be tracked and historically verified and what was transmitted is very clear.



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.


Well of course, if you look at that form it is just a collection of basic Wing Chun moves that every Wing Chun style has, nothing special about it... So of course Yiu Choi would have learnt those techniques, just like others learning from Ng Chun 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.



To be accurate, it is called "Che Chin Kuen" - the "Shooting Arrow Fist". You said something about this "Sin" referring to heart or sth, according to the form you have learnt, but it doesn't mean that. So what you are saying is that Fohk Chiu is lying about having learnt this particular form as it is because you have heard differently? You have no reason to believe you have been lied to, but with all information and all sources of information it has be considered that it is inaccurate not because of willful distortion or twisting of facts, but simply because it is what this particular source understands and knows. So, you surely have not been lied to - just like Jim and Mr. Baniecki ha not been lied to when they shared information from China in the past. So, why do you believe Fohk Chiu would be lying about having learnt this form instead of having created it itself? Do you know the story behind this form? And if Che Chin Kuen is Fohk Chiu's creation, why did you claim earlier that Ng Chun So taught four forms?


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.


Again, you might not like it because it contradicts your beliefs, but again - according to the seniors alive today - he was.


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.



I have explained this before, but you won't accept it because you cannot reconcile it with your logic. Again, applying 21st century Western logic, to Chinese 19th/early 20th century culture will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. If you understand this, things add upp perfectly.



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.


You got that a bit wrong, I was stating some facts you apparently were not aware of, such as

Ng Chun So being well known and respected in the martial community

Sum Nung not being the sole "disciple" of YKS

That alternative accounts about the lineage etc. have been public while SN was still alive and well

That Ng Chun So didn't teach four forms

That Law Man Gung wasn't introduced as anyones teacher because of Sergio, Hendrik Santo and co.

That listing Fok Bo Chuen as a student of Wong Wah Bo seems to be rather rare in YKS/SN circles.

apo

These are all easily verifiable facts, If you bother to come here and check them.

I am not claiming at all that what I have been told in terms of oral history is more truthful than what you have heard. Remember, most cannot be verified in any way. What I am saying is that a lot of what you say, call them oral traditions, are not told be the people in Fatsaan. If we consider them stories, many of the stories you are telling are not the stories told in Fatsaan. So then, given that each story contains a kernel of truth, which stories are more "reliable"? The ones told by the local people or the ones which only exist outside? If you use stories which were never told locally to understand a local phenomenon, the picture you will draw will be inaccurate. Now, this doesn't change the fact that I think you are telling very interesting stories, and would like to hear more.


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.


See, you have been told this - but how does it match up with other sources? Ng Chun So had several students and many went to discuss Wing Chun at his place. The only one to mention Che Ching Kuen - your rendition "Chuan Sin Jeung" - is Fohk Chiu. Yiu Choi never practiced this, nor did Yiu Kay. But his sons adopted this form - just as they adopted a few other things. So, if your Tai Sigong put together a form based on techniques/maybe Saan Sau applications he learnt from Ng Chun so, it cannot be said that Ng Chun So taught four forms. If you claim that, it is plain wrong. It would be like Yip Ching students claiming YM taught four forms because YC (I presume ) created a fourth form (for competion), I could give other examples.



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.



What is the source of that legend? No one here I have ever spoken to seems to have heard about Leung Jan passing on a set called what you stated... But I am always open to learn more.

Chan Yu Min lineage's "Sei Mun" is the second part of their "SLT"...

 

[jlq]

Haha... sorry... That quote thing didn't work out very well for me... :/

 

[Nobody Important]

What does it say exactly? How does Sum Nung mentioning Jeung Bo make what he claimed about the origins of the style more substantial than what others say? You have to remember, these others are his Sifus students and even his own (!) students. You keep saying things weren't propagated as today? How do you know? But there are many around today who were when Sum Nung was alive and teaching, who can tell you about the situation. I know quite a few people who have been training Wing Chun since the 1960 personally, from different lineages, and what they say paints a different pictures than what you believe was the case. Now, you can choose to keep insisting that all of these local people who were actually there don't know what they are talking about and you as someone who wasn't there knows better because you have read some articles and books in the West and some snippets of information you have heard from people who travelled there.

No, this isn't what I'm saying at all.
The fact that Sum Nung gives just as much credit to Chung Bo as he does to Yuen Kay San, in a time as you so adamantly pointed out, when it wasn't "proper" to do so, lends credibility to his rendition of Yuen Kay San history. You've already had a member or two from his line say that you're mistaken. Now if you are, I don't
know as I really don't care about Yuen Kay San's lineage. It has little bearing on mine.

You see, the problem with people who.have been there is that they will at best hear something from one perspective and don't have the time and connections to check, verify and compare information. Just like the articles Jicjeung quoted as evidence. He tried to bolster the strength of this evidence by pointing out that Mr. Baniecki had been to Gulao many times - but the information he shared in the article is very wrong. And yet, people in the West think that his article is bona fide information and just as valid as what the Fung family elders say. People are of course free to believe, but personally I find it way more rational to give credence to the people who are as close to the source as possible.

Basically what I'm hearing from you here is that what I've been told are lies and should be dismissed because they don't support the narrative you believe.

Which story am I presenting?

That Law Man Gung was the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen? That is not my story, it is the story of various YKS and SN students and the Yiu Choi family. I don't know why you go off on this - I just mentioned this to contrast what was passed on to you to point out that what you have been told is not a "standard" version of the story.

I am not saying one thing is more true than the other as you seem to think - in fact, I believe that most of the names of people in the past were made up or certain people didn't exist, whoever's version we are talking about.

I'm beginning to wonder what you're trying to say. I've already stated it doesn't matter who taught Fok Bo Chun, if it was Law Man Gung or Wong Wah Bo, both were Wing Chun practitioners. This means what Fok Bo Chun was taught and passed on was Wing Chun. I don't see how that can be construed to to say that Fok Bo Chun never learned Wing Chun and was instead a Hung Kuen practitioner as YOU keep stating.

Why do you talk about "superior"? I think you might be projecting sth into my words because you couple Law Man Gung with a certain group of people who abused his name for nefarious purposes. I am not into one style being "superior" or the "original" one and such. I was simply relaying the fact to you that Yuen Kei Saan descendants and SN students claim Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen and - whether you can accept this or not - it IS a fact, since you are reluctant to accept it because I am informing you, I suggest you go to Gongjaau and Fatsaan yourself if you really want to find out the facts.

I believe you first implied that, never the less, it doesn't change the narrative. Regardless of who Fok Bo Chun studied from, both were considered Wing Chun practitioners. So if some of Sum Nung's "disciples" state that Fok learned from Law instead of Wong, the only thing that changes is the ancestry, not the art.

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? (me)


Who said SN never claimed Law Man Gung was a part of his lineage? Again, I have been trying to tell you that (many of) his students in Gongjaau are saying he did! Why would they change this? How would that make them more "superior" to the other Sum Nung students who didn't change this? Your quarrel with this - as I understand it - makes no sense. Again, the problem seems to arise from the fact that you have never actually been to Gongjaau to experience the Wing Chun community there and you base your opinion on the information available in books and articles disseminated in the West. It is kind of like someone reading a very superficial travelling guide about a place and forming and opinion based on that, but when told by natives or people who have been living there for a long time that what he believes is inaccurate, he insists that he knows better because the travel guide said so...

I'll concede on the notion that Sum Nung never said that Law Man Gung wasn't a part of his lineage, fine, it doesn't make a difference, because he's not part of my lineage. You're under the assumption that I should accept the stories of others over my own lineage, simply because you believe them. Law Man Gung is not a part of Yuen Chai Wan's ancestry, it is clearly stated that Wong Wah Bo was Fok Bo Chun's teacher. Now, it very well may be that this is true and the information I have is incorrect, but you have nothing to offer as proof other than stories of Sum Nung students in Faatsan. You seem to want me to dismiss the accounts I've been told from people who were there, simply because they are now over here. I don't see the logic in that. To ask you, have those natives of Faatsan been to Hanoi and Saigon to ask the locals there what they think? It's a two way street, both sides of the story are needed to find the truth.

Oral transmissions of Yuen Chai Wan lineage... Well, Yiu Choi was Yuen Chai Wan lineage, and he claimed Law Man Gong as the teacher of Fok (Kwok) Bo Chuen. According to his family and students, he even went to learn more from Fok Bo Chuen after Yuen Chai Wan left.

I find it highly unlikely that Yiu Choi went to study with Fok Bo Chun after Yuen Chai Wan left for Vietnam, from my understanding Fok Bo Chun passed before Yiu Choi began his studies with Yuen Chai Wan, but Fok Chiu passed this story on so it must be true ('-'), and once again I'm supposed to dismiss my lineages narrative of the story because it isn't in the consensus, smh.

Again, not entirely correct. Yuen Kei Saan never claimed Fok Bo Chuen as his formal Sifu, he claimed Fong Siu Ching - according to the people who actually knew Yuen Kei Saan in Fatsaan.
But yes, as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise.
According to the YKS/SN lineage, Yuen Kei Saan learnt from FBC when he was rather young, and supposedly he learnt Saam To Kuen, pole, weapons, Fei Biu, etc. Supposedly, he and his brother learnt together... So why is it then, that YCW, as you said, just knew one SLT form? Wouldn't it make much more sense If the Yuen brothers learnt those forms in the 1930s, and YCW just picked up one form because he had to go to Vietnam (in 1936 according to his son) whereas YKS never left Fatsaan and thus could learn all of them? This is pure speculation on my part, of course, but seen in context it is not an unlikely scenario.
But you said as much yourself earlier.
If - as you said - the bulk of what the Yuen brothers learnt came from Ng Chun So, why must they have learnt "Wing Chun" from this Fok Bo Chuen?

All we can say is a huge mess - hence better to look at the techniques and skills to determine where things come from.

From my understanding, as limited as it is because I'm not Chinese and couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of Chinese bullshitting sessions ('-'), Yuen Kay San and Yuen Chai Wan claimed both Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching as their instructors. Here, and I quote you, "as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise". Exactly as I've been saying, and what you contradicted yourself on earlier, what Fok Bo Chun learned was Wing Chun, regardless of who taught him. So What the Yuen brothers learned from Fok Bo Chun was in fact Wing Chun. I don't see why you are arguing this point with me, we are obviously in agreement here. If there is any contention, its with what Fung Siu Ching taught the Yuen brothers, and as I've stated a couple of times, it was most like Village Hung Kuen.

Well of course, if you look at that form it is just a collection of basic Wing Chun moves that every Wing Chun style has, nothing special about it... So of course Yiu Choi would have learnt those techniques, just like others learning from Ng Chun 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. (me)



To be accurate, it is called "Che Chin Kuen" - the "Shooting Arrow Fist". You said something about this "Sin" referring to heart or sth, according to the form you have learnt, but it doesn't mean that. So what you are saying is that Fohk Chiu is lying about having learnt this particular form as it is because you have heard differently? You have no reason to believe you have been lied to, but with all information and all sources of information it has be considered that it is inaccurate not because of willful distortion or twisting of facts, but simply because it is what this particular source understands and knows. So, you surely have not been lied to - just like Jim and Mr. Baniecki ha not been lied to when they shared information from China in the past. So, why do you believe Fohk Chiu would be lying about having learnt this form instead of having created it itself? Do you know the story behind this form? And if Che Chin Kuen is Fohk Chiu's creation, why did you claim earlier that Ng Chun So taught four forms?

To be accurate I never stated that their form was called Chuan Sin Jeung (Heart Penetrating Palm), mine is. Theirs is called Che Sin Kuen (This is how Kwok spells it on his website), as you stated, Shooting Arrow Fist. You made the presumption I was referring to Heart because of his Romanization. I stated earlier, and will repeat here, Chong Kuen is the informal term for the form, it has proper names like Chuan Sin Jeung (Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & Pak Hok), Jin Kuen (Hung Kuen), La Jin Choi (Wing Chun) etc.

Fok Chiu choreographed the form based on the loose techniques taught to him by Leung and Yiu, that the story I got from my student as told by Kwok. This doesn't mean that Fok Chiu created the method, in fact, many of the legends surrounding the fourth form state that it was a collection of loose techniques, and we can see evidence of this in several Wing Chun branches descending from Wong Wah Bo. Some created forms out of the material, others used it to bolster the weapons and dummy forms, some used it as San Sik training. I think you're hung up on the use of the term "form" as to mean a choreographed pattern of linked movement. I'm not referring to that and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. Now to answer you last question, why do I feel Ng Chung So passed this on? Because that is what I was told when I learned it, and I've already stated I believe that my Dai Sigung choreographed the set, but the material came from Ng Chung So. Now I understand you want me to outright dismiss this claim as false because it contradicts what you've been told, but I'm not going to do that without absolute proof just because "So and so from Faatsan said its not true". I'll believe the tradition from my own lineage over someone else's until that burden of absolute proof is met.

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. (me)


Again, you might not like it because it contradicts your beliefs, but again - according to the seniors alive today - he was.


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. (me)



I have explained this before, but you won't accept it because you cannot reconcile it with your logic. Again, applying 21st century Western logic, to Chinese 19th/early 20th century culture will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. If you understand this, things add upp perfectly.

Logic is logic. Who other than Yiu Choi claims Ng Chung So as their sifu? I'll concede and accept he was popular, since you seem to be so adamant that he was, but if this is the case why isn't anyone claiming him as the driving force behind the propagation of the Wing Chun style as you so fervently believe? And in any case what the hell does it matter, unless you are suggesting that he was the "real" sifu of the Three Kings of Wing Chun (Yip Man, Yiu Choi & Yuen Kay San). If that is the case, spare me the ancestral worship crap of "one sifu per pai" mentality, and plainly state what YOU believe. Our discussion will be much more fruitful without all the supposition.

You got that a bit wrong, I was stating some facts you apparently were not aware of, such as

Ng Chun So being well known and respected in the martial community

Sum Nung not being the sole "disciple" of YKS

That alternative accounts about the lineage etc. have been public while SN was still alive and well

That Ng Chun So didn't teach four forms

That Law Man Gung wasn't introduced as anyones teacher because of Sergio, Hendrik Santo and co.

That listing Fok Bo Chuen as a student of Wong Wah Bo seems to be rather rare in YKS/SN circles.

apo

These are all easily verifiable facts, If you bother to come here and check them.

What you're calling facts is nothing more than other peoples stories, not documented, verifiable truths, but simply another lineages renditions. I'm sure they are all very unbiased individuals with no ulterior motives other than seeking the truth ('-')

I am not claiming at all that what I have been told in terms of oral history is more truthful than what you have heard. Remember, most cannot be verified in any way. What I am saying is that a lot of what you say, call them oral traditions, are not told be the people in Fatsaan. If we consider them stories, many of the stories you are telling are not the stories told in Fatsaan. So then, given that each story contains a kernel of truth, which stories are more "reliable"? The ones told by the local people or the ones which only exist outside? If you use stories which were never told locally to understand a local phenomenon, the picture you will draw will be inaccurate. Now, this doesn't change the fact that I think you are telling very interesting stories, and would like to hear more

You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel the same in regards to that statement. I've told you my "stories" and you have been very dismissive because they don't match exactly the "stories" told to you by a few in Faatsan. This is the tradition that was handed down to me, however many holes may be in it, I'm not going to toss it all away because you feel yours are more "reliable". There isn't any reason we can't come to a mutual understanding, but you need to have a more open mind and give a little more credibility to the "stories" now told outside Faatsan, especially since the people I've trained with and spoken to once had ties there as well. Not everything everyone tells is the truth, no matter how much we want to believe them.

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. (me)


See, you have been told this - but how does it match up with other sources? Ng Chun So had several students and many went to discuss Wing Chun at his place. The only one to mention Che Ching Kuen - your rendition "Chuan Sin Jeung" - is Fohk Chiu. Yiu Choi never practiced this, nor did Yiu Kay. But his sons adopted this form - just as they adopted a few other things. So, if your Tai Sigong put together a form based on techniques/maybe Saan Sau applications he learnt from Ng Chun so, it cannot be said that Ng Chun So taught four forms. If you claim that, it is plain wrong. It would be like Yip Ching students claiming YM taught four forms because YC (I presume ) created a fourth form (for competion), I could give other examples.



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. (me)



What is the source of that legend? No one here I have ever spoken to seems to have heard about Leung Jan passing on a set called what you stated... But I am always open to learn more.

Honestly, I feel it matches pretty well. As I stated before I was told by my sifu that Ng Chung So passed this material on to his sifu. Kwok stated to my student that Ng passed this same material on to Yiu Choi, and it was incorporated into the Che Sin Kuen. Personally I don't know of any one else that studied under Ng Chung So than the few that I've mentioned. If you know of any, I'd like to hear what exactly they learned from him, perhaps I'll increase my understanding. As far as this same "4th Form" material being passed on to the Chan family, ask them for yourself. They claim Leung Jan passed on Sei Mun (4 Gates), La Jin Choi (Stretching Arrow Fist) and Lin Wan Kau Da (Continuous Capture and Hit), that corresponds to 3 of the four sections of Chuan Sin Jeung.

Now, as far as I'm concerned I've explained my position in detail. You can accept it or reject it. Take from it what you will, at this point we seem to be talking past each other so I think this is a good ending point to our discussion.

 

[Poppity]

Soooo... In an attempted nonchalant voice... Any place someone could get to see the four sections of chuan sin jeung?

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

to make something very simple which became very complicated simple again (or maybe not) :

People are free to choose to believe what they want - and most like to hang on to what their hear first, expecially if told by someone who is perceive as an authority figure.

Now, I will repeat - your stories do not match the local stories in Fatsaan, fwiw. That is, there is not much to discuss.

You seem so desperately, hang on to every little thing that supports your belief, mentioning some person here did not agree with me. You just conveniently ignore the fact that this person - like you - is not aware of the situation in China. Now, you - and certain others - might not know this, but even Sum Nung guys themselves say that Fok Bo Chuen taught "Snake Hand/Fist" and learned Wing Chun from Fong Siu Ching... So understand you have a problem with me pointing out that out?

You seem to think I am pushing some agenda, but I am not at all.

I think all versions of Wing Chun from the early generations is great and I have absolutely no interest in promoting one branch on the expense of another. Whatever the true history, whenever and from whomever they learnt it, YKS and YCW learnt Wing Chun. The proof is in the pudding.

So.

Again, just presentating information from Fatsaan and the Wing Chun Pai there. Because a lot of what is believed by people in the West and presented - see the articles Jicjeung linked to - and some of what you are saying is either wrong, inaccurate or not what is told in China.

That is all, am I saying that I believe everything? I don't think so...

Now.

How are what I call facts not facts?

Considering what you yourself believe, you question the veracity of something every senior alive today in the Fatsaan Wing Chun community I have spoken to confirms - and local researchers of the art, too. So when a bunch of people who knew Ng Chun So and people who are from different styles all say he was well known, personally I find this much more credible than claiming that he wasn't because neither YM nor YKS/YCW called him "Sifu", for which their are obvious reasons. In spit of what you think, that is not strange at all, if you know the culture of the time.

How is people using Law Man Gong in their lineage Tree way before you became aware of the name not a fact? So, everybody is lying then? How do you explain that Yiu Kay mentioned Law Man Gong to Leung Ting already in the 80s? Leung Ting published articles about his findings in a HK Newspaper...

How is it not a fact that Wong Wah Bo is not mentioned as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen by any school here (I have seen)? Usually, it is Dai Fa Min Gam or Law Man Gong.

And so forth.

All this is not as easily dismissed as you are doing it - if so, nothing historical can be proven at all. It is all something someone said at some point, even if it was written down. Then nothing we know is true if said by someone.



Now, you seem to have misunderstood something - my purpose for writing I have already stated earlier, it is not my intention to make you change your mind about anything...

You can believe whatever you want, the point is - as I have said before - that your stories do not correlate with the stories nor the situation in Fatsaan. That is all, you and everybody else can make of it what they want...



You talk about "Chong Kuen" - Vincent Kwok calls it "Che Tsin Kuen" on his site, if you want to be precise - "material"... If there was no form, just "material" how can one then say that there was a 4th form? Seems very illogical... Where did the legend that Leung Jan taught a form by the name you mention come from? You talk about Chan Yu Min lineage instead... I will ask Chan Gok Gei Sifu next time I see him. As far as I know now, the Sei Muhn is - as I said - what they call the second part of their SLT - and That looks nothing like what Fohk Chiu and the Yiu brothers do in their Che Chin/Tsin Kuen... In fact, the "material" of the Sei Muhn part of the SLT set is quite unlike "Fatsaan Wing Chun". If you have such "material" in your set, tracing this to Ng Chun So is... well... quite a stretch. The other two forms you mention, I don't know. I have seen a lot of Chan Yu Min Siulam Weng Chun at various celebrations, many forms, but many of them don't look anything like Wing Chun and I don't know their names. I will try to find out more.

Thank you for the discussion, I am serious and sincere about learning more about your stories and such, so... As promised, you will hear from me.

 

[jlq]

Oh... forgot something, I feel these points are interesting and need to be adressed:

From my understanding, as limited as it is because I'm not Chinese and couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of Chinese bullshitting sessions ('-'), Yuen Kay San and Yuen Chai Wan claimed both Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching as their instructors. Here, and I quote you, "as I said above, whoever the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen was, whatever Fok Bo Chuen taught was still was - Wing Chun or otherwise". Exactly as I've been saying, and what you contradicted yourself on earlier, what Fok Bo Chun learned was Wing Chun, regardless of who taught him. So What the Yuen brothers learned from Fok Bo Chun was in fact Wing Chun. I don't see why you are arguing this point with me, we are obviously in agreement here. If there is any contention, its with what Fung Siu Ching taught the Yuen brothers, and as I've stated a couple of times, it was most like Village Hung Kuen.

Even though it rubs you the wrong way, it is a common mistake in historical research that findings are interpreted out of time and out of culture. Even when it comes to contemporary culture people are making an awful lot of assumptions about China because they don't know or understand it - you can't, unless you actually come here and become a part of the culture and society. Anyone who has been living hear for a longer period will confirm this - I can hook you up with a few friends of mine who can tell you all about it. It has nothing to do with any "Bullshitting" session as you call it.

If you think I am contradicting myself, either I don't present my point very well, or you just don't understand for some reason.

I explained this in my post prior to this one, but again - to be clear: Whatever YKS and YKS learnt from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Ching and others, what they (the Yuens) taught later (to some people) was Wing Chun. Is my point more clear now?

I am not arguing with you about what Fok Bo Chuen taught or not, I was not there. I am just telling you that in Fatsaan Wing Chun circles, he is either a student of Law Man Gung or Dai Fa Mien Gam - and it is said he was a Snake Style boxer from Yamchow, other sources claim that he was a Hong Kuen boxer, as I have been telling you. According to a written document by SN, YKS learnt "a little" Wing Chun from Fok Bo Chuen when he was very young... Note: A little.. How can that be all forms, dummy, weapons, Fei Biu, Red Sand palm,etc as was later claimed he learnt from FBC? Just something to think about...

To be accurate I never stated that their form was called Chuan Sin Jeung (Heart Penetrating Palm), mine is. Theirs is called Che Sin Kuen (This is how Kwok spells it on his website), as you stated, Shooting Arrow Fist. You made the presumption I was referring to Heart because of his Romanization. I stated earlier, and will repeat here, Chong Kuen is the informal term for the form, it has proper names like Chuan Sin Jeung (Wing Chun, Hung Kuen & Pak Hok), Jin Kuen (Hung Kuen), La Jin Choi (Wing Chun) etc.

I know, I never stated I thought you called your form Che Ching/Tsin Kuen... I was referring specifically to the name you gave for your form, Chuan Sin Jeung. I pointed out "Sin" is a wrong romanization of "heart" - should be "sum", that was all. Now we are at it, "Chuan" is not a very good romanization either, normally "Chuen" is used for a more accurate rendition of the sound, fwiw. Also, if you want to romanize the Cantonese sound of the character for arrow, "sin" is a rather bad choice... Tsin or Chin (for my native language) is much more accurate.

in fact, many of the legends surrounding the fourth form state that it was a collection of loose techniques, and we can see evidence of this in several Wing Chun branches descending from Wong Wah Bo. Some created forms out of the material,

What are those legends exactly? The only ones who have a fourth empty hand form was Fohk Chiu and now the Yiu brothers. So, where would those legends about a fourth form (which is not a form?!) come from? And which several Branchesfrom Wong Wah Bou can we see this in and what forms did they create?

but if this is the case why isn't anyone claiming him as the driving force behind the propagation of the Wing Chun style as you so fervently believe? And in any case what the hell does it matter,

I have already explained to you on multiple occasions why. I am not sure what you mean by "driving force behind the propagation of Wing Chun... Yuen Kei Saan, Yip Man and Yiu Choi never intended to propagate Wing Chun en masse. Whether Ng Chun So was famous or not matters because you claimed he wasn't... My whole point of writing this is to show how a lot of what is considered fact by people outside of China is not, that many of the stories floating around in the West do not exist in China. Why it matters should be clear then.

Whether he was well known or not, personally, I couldn't care less...

Faatsan, especially since the people I've trained with and spoken to once had ties there as well. Not everything everyone tells is the truth, no matter how much we want to believe them.

Have ties? What exactly does that mean? Who have you trained with from what lineages?

Absolutely! And what you are told very often depends on the relationship with the person answering the questions. But you seem to forget - or don't understand - that given the nature of Gung Fu culture in China (at that time) the truth is well-nigh Impossible to ascertain. The best one can do is provide an educated guess based on multiple data points, I am not arguing what anyone REALLY learnt or from whom - the TRUTH, if you will. I am merely presenting (some of) the common stories in Fatsaan so people can see how they differ from stories from other sources.

What people choose to believe and what the truth is to them, what do I care?

 

[APL76]

haven't had time (not the inclination really either) to read through all if this in its entirety however I have noticed the talk of Fok Bo Chun learning from Law Man Gung. I have to give half of an apology to KPM here as in a previous thread I insisted that Fok Bo Chun learned from Dai Fa Min Kam; it seems I was mistaken and that Fok Bo Chun did not learn from Dai Fa Min Kam (so sorry KPM, I was mistaken).

For 22 years that's what my sifu told me (my sifu is a disciple of Sum Nung). However, obijuanslami is a bit of a wing chun genealogist and asked sifu to have a look at a wing chun family tree he had drawn up. Sifu checked it against material he had from Sum Nung and found that according to Sum Nung Fok Bo Chun did indeed learn from Law Man Gung.

Regarding leung ngau as a disciple of Yeun Kay San, if that's the old guy making that claim. I had a look at him doing Sui Lim Tao. If he is a disciple of Yuen Kay San I'm the king of England. If one knows what they are looking at there are tell tail signs of where the wing chun came from, and I suspect I know exactly where that sui lim tao came from. As I said earlier, the wing chun speaks for itself.

 

[jlq]

haven't had time (not the inclination really either) to read through all if this in its entirety however I have noticed the talk of Fok Bo Chun learning from Law Man Gung. I have to give half of an apology to KPM here as in a previous thread I insisted that Fok Bo Chun learned from Dai Fa Min Kam; it seems I was mistaken and that Fok Bo Chun did not learn from Dai Fa Min Kam (so sorry KPM, I was mistaken).

For 22 years that's what my sifu told me (my sifu is a disciple of Sum Nung). However, obijuanslami is a bit of a wing chun genealogist and asked sifu to have a look at a wing chun family tree he had drawn up. Sifu checked it against material he had from Sum Nung and found that according to Sum Nung Fok Bo Chun did indeed learn from Law Man Gung.

Regarding leung ngau as a disciple of Yeun Kay San, if that's the old guy making that claim. I had a look at him doing Sui Lim Tao. If he is a disciple of Yuen Kay San I'm the king of England. If one knows what they are looking at there are tell tail signs of where the wing chun came from, and I suspect I know exactly where that sui lim tao came from. As I said earlier, the wing chun speaks for itself.

APL, I will give you the executive version.



In Gongjaau SN Wing Chun guys claim FBC learnt from Dai Fa Min Kam, while others say it is Law Man Gong.

Leung Ngau is - and whether your Sifu says so or not - a disciple of Yuen Kei Saan, who was his Gujeung. Unless you have been to Fatsaan and talked to the people here, you are limited to know the story your Sifu tells you. A question for you... Who in Gongjaau is doing the "real" YKS Wing Chun?

 

[jlq]

Also, I would be very interested in hearing where you suspect his SLT came from, if you care to share. Maybe privately?

 

[KPM]

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.

Not to throw another wrench in the works, but...............running with the idea that one should take into account the physical aspects of the art as far as tracing sources.....how do you guys see the Hakka arts relating to Wing Chun? To me, there is just as many or more physical commonalities between Wing Chun and something like Southern Mantis as there is between Wing Chun and Hung Kuen.

 

[Poppity]

Is it possible that around 1640s onwards, that a number of different southern martial artists amongst the Han civilian population who did not defect to become Bannermen for the Qing, and were not allowed the same legal privileges of carrying weapons began to develop a short bridge close quarter martial arts by focusing on those techniques which fell within that definition. It would explain why most people's lineages fall into conflicting speculation before and around this time, why the style was mainly practiced by wealthy Han civilian merchant families, why there are similarities and variations between southern styles including Wing chun, the anti Qing sentiments maybe even the reason it is called spring poem eternal spring, because the art was blossoming from the old.. And maybe because of the Chinese obsession with tradition and history lots of nonsense about southern shaolin temples and elder monks began to surface.

 

[Nobody Important]

Nobody Important,

to make something very simple which became very complicated simple again (or maybe not) :

People are free to choose to believe what they want - and most like to hang on to what their hear first, expecially if told by someone who is perceive as an authority figure.

Now, I will repeat - your stories do not match the local stories in Fatsaan, fwiw. That is, there is not much to discuss.

You seem so desperately, hang on to every little thing that supports your belief, mentioning some person here did not agree with me. You just conveniently ignore the fact that this person - like you - is not aware of the situation in China. Now, you - and certain others - might not know this, but even Sum Nung guys themselves say that Fok Bo Chuen taught "Snake Hand/Fist" and learned Wing Chun from Fong Siu Ching... So understand you have a problem with me pointing out that out?

You seem to think I am pushing some agenda, but I am not at all.

I think all versions of Wing Chun from the early generations is great and I have absolutely no interest in promoting one branch on the expense of another. Whatever the true history, whenever and from whomever they learnt it, YKS and YCW learnt Wing Chun. The proof is in the pudding.

So.

Again, just presentating information from Fatsaan and the Wing Chun Pai there. Because a lot of what is believed by people in the West and presented - see the articles Jicjeung linked to - and some of what you are saying is either wrong, inaccurate or not what is told in China.

That is all, am I saying that I believe everything? I don't think so...

Now.

How are what I call facts not facts?

Considering what you yourself believe, you question the veracity of something every senior alive today in the Fatsaan Wing Chun community I have spoken to confirms - and local researchers of the art, too. So when a bunch of people who knew Ng Chun So and people who are from different styles all say he was well known, personally I find this much more credible than claiming that he wasn't because neither YM nor YKS/YCW called him "Sifu", for which their are obvious reasons. In spit of what you think, that is not strange at all, if you know the culture of the time.

How is people using Law Man Gong in their lineage Tree way before you became aware of the name not a fact? So, everybody is lying then? How do you explain that Yiu Kay mentioned Law Man Gong to Leung Ting already in the 80s? Leung Ting published articles about his findings in a HK Newspaper...

How is it not a fact that Wong Wah Bo is not mentioned as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen by any school here (I have seen)? Usually, it is Dai Fa Min Gam or Law Man Gong.

And so forth.

All this is not as easily dismissed as you are doing it - if so, nothing historical can be proven at all. It is all something someone said at some point, even if it was written down. Then nothing we know is true if said by someone.



Now, you seem to have misunderstood something - my purpose for writing I have already stated earlier, it is not my intention to make you change your mind about anything...

You can believe whatever you want, the point is - as I have said before - that your stories do not correlate with the stories nor the situation in Fatsaan. That is all, you and everybody else can make of it what they want...



You talk about "Chong Kuen" - Vincent Kwok calls it "Che Tsin Kuen" on his site, if you want to be precise - "material"... If there was no form, just "material" how can one then say that there was a 4th form? Seems very illogical... Where did the legend that Leung Jan taught a form by the name you mention come from? You talk about Chan Yu Min lineage instead... I will ask Chan Gok Gei Sifu next time I see him. As far as I know now, the Sei Muhn is - as I said - what they call the second part of their SLT - and That looks nothing like what Fohk Chiu and the Yiu brothers do in their Che Chin/Tsin Kuen... In fact, the "material" of the Sei Muhn part of the SLT set is quite unlike "Fatsaan Wing Chun". If you have such "material" in your set, tracing this to Ng Chun So is... well... quite a stretch. The other two forms you mention, I don't know. I have seen a lot of Chan Yu Min Siulam Weng Chun at various celebrations, many forms, but many of them don't look anything like Wing Chun and I don't know their names. I will try to find out more.

Thank you for the discussion, I am serious and sincere about learning more about your stories and such, so... As promised, you will hear from me.

Listen you can try and spin this a thousand ways via your "sources" in Faatsan to discredit the oral legends of my lineage, whatever floats your boat buddy. The only problem I have is with an arrogant, pompous internet troll that keeps creating fake accounts to harass people online that don't agree with him.

WELCOME BACK GUY!

 

[Nobody Important]

Oh... forgot something, I feel these points are interesting and need to be adressed:Even though it rubs you the wrong way, it is a common mistake in historical research that findings are interpreted out of time and out of culture. Even when it comes to contemporary culture people are making an awful lot of assumptions about China because they don't know or understand it - you can't, unless you actually come here and become a part of the culture and society. Anyone who has been living hear for a longer period will confirm this - I can hook you up with a few friends of mine who can tell you all about it. It has nothing to do with any "Bullshitting" session as you call it.

Yes, context is everything, and you've made it clear that you believe the information you have is more credible than what I have. You refuse to accept another point of view for the exact same reasons you charge me with, that's ironic.

If you think I am contradicting myself, either I don't present my point very well, or you just don't understand for some reason.

No you don't, but I have a suspicion that wasn't your intention anyways

I explained this in my post prior to this one, but again - to be clear: Whatever YKS and YKS learnt from Fok Bo Chuen and Fong Ching and others, what they (the Yuens) taught later (to some people) was Wing Chun. Is my point more clear now?

It's filled with innuendo, but yes quite clear. I get it, you feel that what the Yuen brothers taught is watered down and broken Wing Chun that they probably learned from Ng Chung So and mixed with Snake style or Hung Kuen boxing. And that they don't have the full grasp of the Wing Chun system and pure transmission like Yip Man did.

It's sad really, me living rent free in your head Guy, find a new obsession.

I am not arguing with you about what Fok Bo Chuen taught or not, I was not there. I am just telling you that in Fatsaan Wing Chun circles, he is either a student of Law Man Gung or Dai Fa Mien Gam - and it is said he was a Snake Style boxer from Yamchow, other sources claim that he was a Hong Kuen boxer, as I have been telling you. According to a written document by SN, YKS learnt "a little" Wing Chun from Fok Bo Chuen when he was very young... Note: A little.. How can that be all forms, dummy, weapons, Fei Biu, Red Sand palm,etc as was later claimed he learnt from FBC? Just something to think about...

Written document, what written document, who's seen this document, who's in possession of it, LOLOLOLOL!! Wow, you're something. A few lines ago didn't you ask me to produce the individuals who possess the Sum Nung documents and now yourself are stating that according to the "Sum Nung document..." All this is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what the Yuen family taught so that you can claim Yip Man was the sole inheritor of the Wing Chun system. You're transparent Guy, you always have been.

I know, I never stated I thought you called your form Che Ching/Tsin Kuen... I was referring specifically to the name you gave for your form, Chuan Sin Jeung. I pointed out "Sin" is a wrong romanization of "heart" - should be "sum", that was all. Now we are at it, "Chuan" is not a very good romanization either, normally "Chuen" is used for a more accurate rendition of the sound, fwiw. Also, if you want to romanize the Cantonese sound of the character for arrow, "sin" is a rather bad choice... Tsin or Chin (for my native language) is much more accurate.

Cherry picking, good to see that you still favor that tactic Guy B.

What are those legends exactly? The only ones who have a fourth empty hand form was Fohk Chiu and now the Yiu brothers. So, where would those legends about a fourth form (which is not a form?!) come from? And which several Branchesfrom Wong Wah Bou can we see this in and what forms did they create?

You're the self proclaimed expert on everything Wing Chun, why don't you tell me

My whole point of writing this is to show how a lot of what is considered fact by people outside of China is not, that many of the stories floating around in the West do not exist in China. Why it matters should be clear then.

Basically what I'm hearing here is that if it differs from the viewpoint currently held in China today, its a lie, especially if its coming from the West. Take no heed to the fact that the information presented is coming from people that once lived in China, smh.

Have ties? What exactly does that mean? Who have you trained with from what lineages?

Absolutely! And what you are told very often depends on the relationship with the person answering the questions. But you seem to forget - or don't understand - that given the nature of Gung Fu culture in China (at that time) the truth is well-nigh Impossible to ascertain. The best one can do is provide an educated guess based on multiple data points, I am not arguing what anyone REALLY learnt or from whom - the TRUTH, if you will. I am merely presenting (some of) the common stories in Fatsaan so people can see how they differ from stories from other sources.

What people choose to believe and what the truth is to them, what do I care?

I've relayed the information numerous times Guy, to you and LFJ, it's not my fault you can't seem to retain information.

You said, and I quote: "Absolutely! And what you are told very often depends on the relationship with the person answering the questions. But you seem to forget - or don't understand - that given the nature of Gung Fu culture in China (at that time) the truth is well-nigh Impossible to ascertain". Hmm, that says it all doesn't it. An insinuation that I didn't have a close relationship with the individuals whom imparted information to me, so I can't possibly know the truth, neither can they because it doesn't fit a narrative you've built up inside your head. Ridiculous.

I'm not interested in your narrative Guy, we've had this discussion numerous times before. Our discussion is over, please stop targeting me, you're obviously very mentally unstable and I've no desire to interact with you.

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

what has gotten into you?



Guy B.?

Your insights don't serve you very well - and you seem to get a bit emotional about this matter which makes you loose perspective and getting carried away.

Everything you wrote above couldn't be more wrong.



Now, Guy B... Hm... I am not British, I don't practice Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun and I do not write here with the express purpose to antagonize you.

I gave you my real name, and it is not Guy B., is it?

KPM can verify that your imagination is on overdrive now...



You should be quite embarrassed about the nonsense you are spouting now:

SN was awesome and so is his Wing Chun, I prefer this over any HK Wing Chun style any day.

Would Guy B. say that?



And then this one:

"Written document, what written document, who's seen this document, who's in possession of it, LOLOLOLOL!! Wow, you're something. A few lines ago didn't you ask me to produce the individuals who possess the Sum Nung documents and now yourself are stating that according to the "Sum Nung document..." All this is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what the Yuen family taught so that you can claim Yip Man was the sole inheritor of the Wing Chun system. You're transparent Guy, you always have been."

You have no.idea how much you are embarrassing yourself right now!

It is quite funny how a person can be so wrong... Hilarious, actually.



I don't mean any offense, but you need to calm down and be less emotional when you read what I write, as you will misinterpret my words and my intentions - as you have so grotesquely demonstrated.

I aske you to do it because I wanted you to provide evidence to support your claim. I didn't say anything about whether or not I could produce such a thing or not, nor did you ask...

The fact is, I can, I have a picture of a handwritten document by Sum Nung and I know some people who have some more, authentic documents from Sum Nung. APL76 whom you mentioned to support your view about me being wrong about certain things in the SN lineage (about Law Man Gung) shared with us that his Sifu (who is a bona fide disciple of Sum Nung) confirmed that FBC did indeed learn from Law Man Gong. Considering how fervently you contested what I said about this matter was not a fact, you should not be laughing at anyone but yourself.



As you can see, just because you don't know something doesn't make it speculation...

Now, considering that I am not a YM lineage practicioner, why would I extol his style over YKS or YCWs? And how is saying FBC being a "Snake Hand" or Hung Kuen boxer diminishing the two when I clearly said that whatever they had learnt whenever from whomever, they both taught their students (some of them at least in YCW's case apparently) Wing Chun.

You are not making much sense...


Then this:

"Cherry picking, good to see that you still favor that tactic Guy B."

Cherry picking? I was just pointing out where you got something a bit wrong... But it seems this is not something you really appreciate, is it?

And it keeps coming:

"You're the self proclaimed expert on everything Wing Chun, why don't you tell me"

It seems like you are projecting things now, I never claimed to be an expert on anything - more of a messenger. So what is your issue? You don't like being presses for detail, is it that? Again, I have no agenda or nefarious plan - KPM knows me personally and can attest to the fact that I do not play games - so there is no need for this attitide from your side. I am really genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. I hope you can understand this.


"Basically what I'm hearing here is that if it differs from the viewpoint currently held in China today, its a lie, especially if its coming from the West. Take no heed to the fact that the information presented is coming from people that once lived in China, smh."

The problem here is that you are hearing something which is not being said and take offense. Nobody said anything about any lies... I think you need to clear your mind, calm down a bit and read again what my message is. I know at least one person here understood perfectly what the point was...

"I've relayed the information numerous times Guy, to you and LFJ, it's not my fault you can't seem to retain information."

Since I am still not this Guy B. or LFJ or anyone but myself, I am sorry, I never received that information...


"Hmm, that says it all doesn't it. An insinuation that I didn't have a close relationship with the individuals whom imparted information to me, so I can't possibly know the truth, neither can they because it doesn't fit a narrative you've built up inside your head. Ridiculous."

What to say other than:

...

I have no idea what narrative I am supposed to have, what I mean to say is right there in the words. Forget anything about narratives and hidden agendas, just read the words and take them as they were written.

Mentally unstable...

Now, now... Where is your civility?

it seems someone here is emotionally unstable and has lost the ability to see things clearly. I suggest being more careful about throwing such blut and unwarranted insults at people when emotionally perturbed, some might take offense...

Personally, I am just greatly intertained about how it is possible to be so wrong.

 

[Nobody Important]

Nobody Important,

what has gotten into you?



Guy B.?

Your insights don't serve you very well - and you seem to get a bit emotional about this matter which makes you loose perspective and getting carried away.

Everything you wrote above couldn't be more wrong.



Now, Guy B... Hm... I am not British, I don't practice Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun and I do not write here with the express purpose to antagonize you.

I gave you my real name, and it is not Guy B., is it?

KPM can verify that your imagination is on overdrive now...



You should be quite embarrassed about the nonsense you are spouting now:

SN was awesome and so is his Wing Chun, I prefer this over any HK Wing Chun style any day.

Would Guy B. say that?



And then this one:

"Written document, what written document, who's seen this document, who's in possession of it, LOLOLOLOL!! Wow, you're something. A few lines ago didn't you ask me to produce the individuals who possess the Sum Nung documents and now yourself are stating that according to the "Sum Nung document..." All this is nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what the Yuen family taught so that you can claim Yip Man was the sole inheritor of the Wing Chun system. You're transparent Guy, you always have been."

You have no.idea how much you are embarrassing yourself right now!

It is quite funny how a person can be so wrong... Hilarious, actually.



I don't mean any offense, but you need to calm down and be less emotional when you read what I write, as you will misinterpret my words and my intentions - as you have so grotesquely demonstrated.

I aske you to do it because I wanted you to provide evidence to support your claim. I didn't say anything about whether or not I could produce such a thing or not, nor did you ask...

The fact is, I can, I have a picture of a handwritten document by Sum Nung and I know some people who have some more, authentic documents from Sum Nung. APL76 whom you mentioned to support your view about me being wrong about certain things in the SN lineage (about Law Man Gung) shared with us that his Sifu (who is a bona fide disciple of Sum Nung) confirmed that FBC did indeed learn from Law Man Gong. Considering how fervently you contested what I said about this matter was not a fact, you should not be laughing at anyone but yourself.



As you can see, just because you don't know something doesn't make it speculation...

Now, considering that I am not a YM lineage practicioner, why would I extol his style over YKS or YCWs? And how is saying FBC being a "Snake Hand" or Hung Kuen boxer diminishing the two when I clearly said that whatever they had learnt whenever from whomever, they both taught their students (some of them at least in YCW's case apparently) Wing Chun.

You are not making much sense...


Then this:

"Cherry picking, good to see that you still favor that tactic Guy B."

Cherry picking? I was just pointing out where you got something a bit wrong... But it seems this is not something you really appreciate, is it?

And it keeps coming:

"You're the self proclaimed expert on everything Wing Chun, why don't you tell me"

It seems like you are projecting things now, I never claimed to be an expert on anything - more of a messenger. So what is your issue? You don't like being presses for detail, is it that? Again, I have no agenda or nefarious plan - KPM knows me personally and can attest to the fact that I do not play games - so there is no need for this attitide from your side. I am really genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. I hope you can understand this.


"Basically what I'm hearing here is that if it differs from the viewpoint currently held in China today, its a lie, especially if its coming from the West. Take no heed to the fact that the information presented is coming from people that once lived in China, smh."

The problem here is that you are hearing something which is not being said and take offense. Nobody said anything about any lies... I think you need to clear your mind, calm down a bit and read again what my message is. I know at least one person here understood perfectly what the point was...

"I've relayed the information numerous times Guy, to you and LFJ, it's not my fault you can't seem to retain information."

Since I am still not this Guy B. or LFJ or anyone but myself, I am sorry, I never received that information...


"Hmm, that says it all doesn't it. An insinuation that I didn't have a close relationship with the individuals whom imparted information to me, so I can't possibly know the truth, neither can they because it doesn't fit a narrative you've built up inside your head. Ridiculous."

What to say other than:

...

I have no idea what narrative I am supposed to have, what I mean to say is right there in the words. Forget anything about narratives and hidden agendas, just read the words and take them as they were written.

Mentally unstable...

Now, now... Where is your civility?

it seems someone here is emotionally unstable and has lost the ability to see things clearly. I suggest being more careful about throwing such blut and unwarranted insults at people when emotionally perturbed, some might take offense...

Personally, I am just greatly intertained about how it is possible to be so wrong.

Jesper,

This is why I'm "Over Reacting".

If you're not Guy B. you sure are acting like him. I gave you honest answers to every question you asked. You are the one who is being disingenuous and acting like a pompous *** by telling me everything I say is wrong, based on nothing more than hearsay. How am I supposed to respond to that?

I would love nothing more than to have a serious and fruitful discussion with you but that can't happen when you aren't being receptive to information that is shared with you, because you are being biased and have already made up your mind before you hear it.

You've discounted everything I've told you about the history of my lineage as a lie and you expect me to take no offense.

You have offered absolutely ZERO proof that overturns what I've been told about the history of my lineage, all the while touting what you supposedly heard from a few individuals in Faatsan as the truth.

I am all for sorting out the mess that is associated with any discrepancies, but you really need to learn how to give and take in a discussion and not just say WRONG, WRONG, WRONG without a shred of real supporting evidence. Everything you've presented is nothing more than hearsay, hardly proof in and of itself. You have been acting hypocritical in every response, yet you want me to sit back and accept it without question. Sorry, I can't do that.

You keep touting that what you've heard from people in Faatsan as truth, without question, yet when you hear from others outside Faatsan you assume their lying because it differs. That's gullible!

You stated above: "I aske you to do it because I wanted you to provide evidence to support your claim. I didn't say anything about whether or not I could produce such a thing or not, nor did you ask..." I provided the exact same form of evidence that you did to counter it, you outright dismissed it. And, I did ask if you could produce such a thing, you only responded with "I heard it from someone in Faatsan" as your evidence. Do you see the issue there?

Personally your whole passive aggressive and dismissive attitude has been quite off putting. You came to me, I didn't seek you out. You asked the questions and I answered you as honestly as I could. You didn't seem to like my responses because they differed from what you have been told. Do you see the problem there? Can you understand why I think you've been arrogant and pompous?

It is what it is. It's the truth that I know. It is what was passed on to me. For all I know it could be 100% true or 100% false, but what I've told you is what was passed on. You can believe it as true, plausible or outright false. I really don't care.

You thought that I could help you on your quest to better understand what you've learned by answering questions, I was more than happy to share what I've learned. You've been disrespectful towards me and insinuated that everything I told you is a lie. Put yourself in my place and tell me honestly if your perspective doesn't change.

It appears as if you have already made up your mind a long time ago and have your own "truths" about the questions you have. That being said I don't think there is anything I can offer you. Goodbye, I wish you well in your endeavors and hope you find the answers you seek.

 

[APL76]

APL, I will give you the executive version.



In Gongjaau SN Wing Chun guys claim FBC learnt from Dai Fa Min Kam, while others say it is Law Man Gong.

Leung Ngau is - and whether your Sifu says so or not - a disciple of Yuen Kei Saan, who was his Gujeung. Unless you have been to Fatsaan and talked to the people here, you are limited to know the story your Sifu tells you. A question for you... Who in Gongjaau is doing the "real" YKS Wing Chun?

My sifu has never told me a thing about Leung Ngau, he (that is my sifu) stays right out of stuff like this as its all too political for him. I don't need anyone to tell me that that guy isn't a disciple of Yuen Kay San, I can see it in his sui lim tao.

 

[Nobody Important]

Before I bow out of this conversation, I wanted to clarify a few things. Jesper your statements are in bold, mine are not, just so its easier to follow along. If you have any questions after this please feel free to PM me. I hate conversing over the computer and don’t want to feed this monster of a discussion any more.

(Jlq) 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.

This contradicts what I’ve been told, as I’ve stated several times my lineage has Fok Bo Chun learning from Wong Wah Bo. My Dai Sigung is of the same generation as Sum Nung and was a direct disciple of Yuen Chai Wan. I can’t discount for the discrepancies between what Sum Nung and Yiu Choi relate about Fok Bo Chun. My lineage chart has Wong Wah Bo, you want to say this isn’t accurate because it doesn’t correspond to what Sum Nung and Yiu Choi relate.

What you say about Law Man Gung has merit, I never said it didn’t, but that isn’t what my lineage relates. I am open to the fact that Law Man Gung taught Fok Bo Chun and as I’ve already stated, it doesn’t change the art, only the ancestry, Snake Style Boxer could very well be a reference to Wing Chun, and since Law Man Gung is listed alongside other Wing Chun ancestors he probably was one as well.

Here’s another interesting tidbit you might want to investigate. Leung Tien Chiu, the Fut Gar master learned a system of snake boxing from Leung Sil Jong called Sae Ying Diu Sao (Snake Form Artful Hand). Leung Sil Jong was purported to be from in and around the Yam Chow area. Leung Tien Chiu has one descendant that was still teaching this rare art in Hong Kong. I have studied the Fut Gar method of Leung Tien Chiu and have had the privilege to learn a tiny little bit of the Sae Ying Diu Sau. There may be a connection with Law Man Gung, in the past some of those that trained under Leung Tien Chiu claimed they were taught a form of Wing Chun.

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

Your comments here are in regards to Law Man Gung and his being a figure in Yiu Choi lineage, this can be viewed as suspect. This was a time when many were scrambling to clean up their oral traditions and lineage charts because of all the stories being told in the Wuxia novels, the popularity of Wing Chun being on the rise, etc. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying he was planted into the lineage to fill a gap, but, you have to take into consideration that the Yiu family had ongoing contact with Sum Nung whereas the majority of Yuen Chai Wan’s descendant’s didn’t, and it’s quite possible that Law Man Gung was added simply because Sum Nung had him listed. I’m not saying that is the case, but it’s a plausible explanation.

I stated this based on your belief that Law Man Gung was indeed Fok Bo Chun’s teacher:

“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”.

You seemed to dismiss this and state

(Jlq)Now, you - and certain others - might not know this, but even Sum Nung guys themselves say that Fok Bo Chuen taught "Snake Hand/Fist" and learned Wing Chun from Fong Siu Ching... So understand you have a problem with me pointing out that out? 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.

What is suspect to me is that the story keeps twisting about with whom learned what from whom. You’ve obviously questioned the history presented to you by some, accepted what was told by some, yet can’t seem to pin down a direction. It seems to me that even the folks in Faatsan can’t get their story straight. You go onto make this next statement.

(Jlq) 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

I’ll start with the last few sentences in this statement “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”. There are those that won’t object, because I got the information from them. The Vietnamese legend states that Yuen Chai Wan passed down the 5 Animals to only one person, not sure who that was at the moment, I’d have to look it up. I don’t have the 5 Animals in my line, we have a version of Chong Kuen that supposedly came from Ng Chung So via my Dai Sigung, not Yuen Chai Wan. As you pointed out, and I am fully aware, very few people claim that Ng Chung So passed on a 4th form, then again, his pool of descendants is continually shrinking, so it’s pretty tough to ask around, but it is at least partially supported from the information that was received from Kwok about Fok Chiu developing Che Chin Kuen out of the material passed onto him by Yiu and Leung. Take that information for what it’s worth.


You also made this statement:

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

This speaks volumes. If Yuen Kay San was “Liberal” as you put it about his history of Fung Siu Ching, isn’t it possible that what he passed on about Fok Bo Chun, what he taught and who he learned from was embellished as well? Cherry picking bits of information coming from Sum Nung and Yuen Kay San disciples only to support their own information while disregarding what other may have to say about it is disingenuous IMO. Again it seem that everyone who has a supposed connection to Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching seem to have different stories about what they taught and whom they learned form.


(Jlq)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 problem I have with this centers around Yiu Choi. It was related to me that Fok Bo Chun passed prior to Yuen Chai Wan teaching Yiu Choi. So if Yiu Choi did in fact learn from Fok Bo Chun as Yiu family states, it had to be prior to Yuen teaching Yiu. Why then learn from Yuen Chai Wan and list him as Sifu and not Fok? That doesn’t make sense. A lot of what you present is taking Yiu family at face value while dismissing what Yuen Chai Wan’s lineage has to say. Seems more logical to me that since Yiu Choi was separated from his Sifu Yuen Chai Wan, that he would go to his friend and Sifu's younger brother Yuan Kay San for answers to things he was lacking. Discrepancies ensue.

Now as far as I’m aware, Yiu Choi lineage doesn’t dispute the fact that Yuen Chai Wan taught Yiu Choi at least Siu Lim Tau and Bamboo Dummy. If Yuen Chai Wan didn’t learn Wing Chun from Fok Bo Chun or Fung Siu Ching, but instead learned it from Ng Chung So, why claim Yuen Chai Wan as an ancestor at all? It would mean that all of the Wing Chun Yiu Choi learned came from Ng Chung So only, yet they don’t make this claim.

It’s obvious the Yuen’s learned Wing Chun prior to any contact with Ng Chung So. I don’t believe it came from Fung Siu Ching. From my understanding Fung passed on “Chong Kuen”, a set of San Sik most likely from Village Hung Kuen. If Fok Bo Chun didn’t pass on Wing Chun, but some Snake Fist style as some people suggest, doesn’t it make sense that Yuen Chai Wan (who some claim to have learned very little Wing Chun) would have passed on Snake Fist instead of Wing Chun? This isn’t the case, as seeing how no one in Vietnam was taught the Snake Fist of Fok Bo Chun, and Yiu Choi lineage doesn’t pass on a Snake Fist style coming from him, they all practice Wing Chun. If there are any descendants of Fok Bo Chun teaching Snake Fist and not Wing Chun, I'd like to know who they are. Now, the Vietnames Wing Chun 5 Animal material is an all together different issue, unrelated to my lineage.

(Jlq) 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.

Were you there when Sum Nung was alive, and did you witness these conversations? Again, oral legend only contains a kernel of truth. Do you believe that zealots only exist outside Faatsan? I have no doubt that some people contested what Sum Nung or others were saying, but you seem to have a bias towards them when I present anything that contradicts them. You stated: “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...” So, if you believe that Sum Nung may have fabricated some things, why can’t you consider what I tell you as a plausible alternate explanation?

A lot of the information you have presented to me to refute my claims is filled with just as many holes, as I’ve been pointing out. I’ve no doubt that the truth, or a close proximity of it, is somewhere in between.

(Jlq)People are free to choose to believe what they want - and most like to hang on to what their hear first, expecially if told by someone who is perceive as an authority figure. Now, I will repeat - your stories do not match the local stories in Fatsaan, fwiw. That is, there is not much to discuss

It appears as if the stories coming out of Faatsan are quite varied as well, I see no unification. There has been an effort in China and the USA in recent years for some individuals to “research” their Wing Chun ancestry, and because of their “new found” information, popular figure heads are aligning themselves with various individuals to put this information out there to make money off of books, videos, lessons etc. You cannot deny that this hasn’t been a driving force for some to re-evaluate their lineages in the hopes of cashing in. I have personally witnessed it. I’m not accusing your informants of this by any means, but it is a prevalent thing in CMA that no one is going to admit to willingly. Some of us hang on to what we’ve been taught and told because we are honoring our ancestors, and re-writing the history we were taught can easily be viewed as an insult and trying to make oneself superior to another.

How are what I call facts not facts? Considering what you yourself believe, you question the veracity of something every senior alive today in the Fatsaan Wing Chun community I have spoken to confirms - and local researchers of the art, too. So when a bunch of people who knew Ng Chun So and people who are from different styles all say he was well known, personally I find this much more credible than claiming that he wasn't because neither YM nor YKS/YCW called him "Sifu", for which their are obvious reasons. In spit of what you think, that is not strange at all, if you know the culture of the time.

How is people using Law Man Gong in their lineage Tree way before you became aware of the name not a fact? So, everybody is lying then? How do you explain that Yiu Kay mentioned Law Man Gong to Leung Ting already in the 80s? Leung Ting published articles about his findings in a HK Newspaper...

How is it not a fact that Wong Wah Bo is not mentioned as the teacher of Fok Bo Chuen by any school here (I have seen)? Usually, it is Dai Fa Min Gam or Law Man Gong.

Jesper you’ve missed my point on this and fail to see that this information was passed on by ONE individual to all those who are regurgitating it now. Yuen Kay San told the story, and his descendants regurgitate it as gospel. It’s a different story than what his brother told. You’re looking at only one side for validation. You accept his version of events without question while dismissing another’s account, because those that descend from his line back it up. Yuen Kay San and Sum Nung have over the years been questioned as to the validity of some of their stories. Some of their tradition is suspected to be embellished (see above). Yuen Chai Wan has another version to tell of those past events, while filled with just as many holes, embellishments and inconsistencies, it is still a legitimate tradition of Yuen family Wing Chun, even if Yuen Kay San’s descendants don’t agree with it. You also fail to take into consideration that Yuen Chai Wan’s descendants have been isolated from Faatsan society. I’ve no doubt that over the years different lineages of Wing Chun in Faatsan met and exchanged with each other. I’m certain that a few “borrowed” from one another resulting in changes in both lineage and art. Chan family is a perfect example of this.

(Jlq)Again, just presentating information from Fatsaan and the Wing Chun Pai there. Because a lot of what is believed by people in the West and presented - see the articles Jicjeung linked to - and some of what you are saying is either wrong, inaccurate or not what is told in China.

The italicized section is what I’ve been focusing on throughout this entire thread. Personally. I don’t care what those in China are currently saying, because a lot of what they are saying isn’t unified in any manner. They all seem to have a different spin and opinion on the matter just like everyone outside of China. I have already pointed that out, even you yourself have stated it. So if saying something different than a few people in China, who themselves can’t seem to come to an agreement, makes me wrong or inaccurate, then I guess I’m wrong and inaccurate, lol.

 

[APL76]

Probably a good thing to keep in mind here is the old saying "follow the money". What I mean is, to think about 1) what it is people are claiming, and 2) in that context, that they are gaining from such associations, be it money, prestige, power etc.

So all these people in Guangdong (and or elsewhere) who are running big wing chun schools, what do they gain by deciding they learned from, say, Yip Man, instead of me for instance (a somewhat ridiculous example, but it should convey my point), or Yuen Kay San instead of someone further down in that lineage.... like me for instance (I do know both systems, it could happen [there should be a facetious font]). Its not like people have never tried to jump up a level or two, or three or more in their lineage in order to get above their competitors in the past. And its not like this stuff only happens in the "west" or indeed only in Wing Chun. I know of four who have done it in Yen Kay San style, and that's only the ones I actually know of, I do know that it is happening to a silly level in China, I just don't know the names of all of them.

Then take the Leung Ting stuff from that book he wrote. One of my students has a copy of it and I had a look, I read the Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung section. It reeked of political BS and one-upmanship to me, not to mention irony. I think, (and sorry to any Leung Ting people here, you can say and think what you want it makes no difference to me) that given his somewhat questionable past and credibility (that is his own wing chun history let alone his musings on someone else's), especially in light of revelations in a recent court case, that that stuff needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

Then there is the Ng Chun So teaching YKS and YCW, this again seems to be political BS and in light of the wing chun represented by people with a known and accepted connection to Ng Chun So and the wing chun in the YKS and YCW lines I personally think this is probably impossible. Indeed wing chun going in the opposite direction from YKS to Yip Man is much more plausible; besides its pretty common knowledge that YKS taught Yip Man sticky hands. I have been lucky enough to learn both, and there is no way I can see that you could learn wing chun like Yip Man style (I am assuming this is kinda what he learned from Ng Chun So, after all YM people accept the connection) and somehow come up with anything like Yuen Kay San wing chun. I could totally see it going in the other direction though. If this offends some YM people, sorry, not my intention, I know and mainly teach YM wing chun, its a beautiful system for a wing chun school in a way that YKS wing chun isn't. But there's no way as far as I can see that YKS wing chun could have been developed from the same stuff as YM wing chun at that close a separation (so in one generation).

Then there's the wing chun weng chun problem. I think its highly likely that they are mixed and often its a matter of what people decided they were doing at the time. For example, and this might surprise some people, did you know that Pan Nam figured what he did was weng chun, not wing chun? I have seen it, my sifu went to Pan Nam before he met Sum Nung and PN gave him a book he wrote. On the cover it says weng chun (in Chinese of course). now however PN descendants are calling it wing chun. So, given that it seems the PN bunch can just decide one day they are doing wing chun instead of weng chun, are what all of us doing wing chun or weng chun? could it be that we are all on a spectrum between two points somewhere?

In the end, as I keep saying, and I agree with Nobodyimportant, its the wing chun that counts (or is it the weng chun????) the kung fu speaks for itself.