Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[Nobody Important]

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.

Well stated and thank you for elaborating on some of the same points I have been trying to stress. At the end of the day it's all about your Kung Fu and not trying to decorate your family tree like it's Christmas.

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

I have explaines time and time again, that I don't believe anything beyond Leung Jan.

I have said time and time again that I am relaying what people claim, not what is the truth or what isn't.

I have said time and time again that when it comes to these old stories, it is only possible to make an educated guess by considering and evaluating all information from multiple data points.

I have said time and time again that to find out likely scenarios, one should look at the concepts and the techniques of the styles.

Contrast these points with your arguments in your posts - makes most of it moot, doesn't it?

The way you react and argue here seems very much like you somehow feel threatened by someone telling you that things are not as you think. Maybe this is not the case, but it sure looks that way...

You are naive to think that I do not know how commercialism works in China, considering that I have been travelling to China almost every year, staying between 1 to 3 months everytime since 2004 and been living here for 7 years.

People are indeed quick to change things and modify the truth when it comes to promoting what they are doing. The no. of commercial schools in Gongjaau went from a very few to well over fourty in a flash after the YM movies, and some SN people now call their knife set "Baat Cham Dou" because it is a popular term...

It is also naive to believe that I do not know about how Chinese Gong Fu people make up stories or embellish certain things for "face" - hence as I said - again - none of the information beyond what people alive have experienced and seen can be considered with any degree of seriousness.

Since you didn't get it before - I am talking about stories not facts (other than the ones I gave you), many of the ones you are telling do not seem to exist in Fatsaan. I am not saying you are lying or anyone in your lineage was, just stating that fact - people can make of this what they will.

Now, lets take the example of "the legends surrounding the fourth form" - I have never heard anyone in Fatsaan or Gongjaau talk about such legends. Now, I would never profess or imagine that I have talked to all, but I did have the opportunity to meet quite a few over the years. Does it mean that such legends don't exist? No, and that is why I am asking you about them.

 

[Nobody Important]

The way you react and argue here seems very much like you somehow feel threatened by someone telling you that things are not as you think. Maybe this is not the case, but it sure looks that way...

Do I feel threatened, no, insulted yes.

You are naive to think that I do not know how commercialism works in China, considering that I have been travelling to China almost every year, staying between 1 to 3 months everytime since 2004 and been living here for 7 years.

People are indeed quick to change things and modify the truth when it comes to promoting what they are doing. The no. of commercial schools in Gongjaau went from a very few to well over fourty in a flash after the YM movies, and some SN people now call their knife set "Baat Cham Dou" because it is a popular term...

It is also naive to believe that I do not know about how Chinese Gong Fu people make up stories or embellish certain things for "face" - hence as I said - again - none of the information beyond what people alive have experienced and seen can be considered with any degree of seriousness.

Good, now that we are on the same page perhaps you can actually listen to what I’ve been telling you without injecting a biased view.

Since you didn't get it before - I am talking about stories not facts (other than the ones I gave you), many of the ones you are telling do not seem to exist in Fatsaan. I am not saying you are lying or anyone in your lineage was, just stating that fact - people can make of this what they will.

Now, let’s take the example of "the legends surrounding the fourth form" - I have never heard anyone in Fatsaan or Gongjaau talk about such legends. Now, I would never profess or imagine that I have talked to all, but I did have the opportunity to meet quite a few over the years. Does it mean that such legends don't exist? No, and that is why I am asking you about them.

I’d hardly call what you gave as facts, stories yes, facts no. I have conceded on a few points you’ve mentioned because they are plausible, this doesn’t make it fact.

Now the 4th form, lets get into some “facts” here. The Che Chin Kuen that is passed down by Fok Chiu is said to have been taught to Fok Chiu by Leung Fook Cho. I stated that in my lineage that we also have a 4th form called Chuan Sin Jeung that was handed down by Ng Chung So. You were adamant that no one in Faatsan had heard of Ng Chung So passing on a 4th form. Well, Leung Fook Cho was one of Ng Chung So’s students. I’ll let you put 2 and 2 together there.

There are stories floating around out there that state Ng Chung So passed on some White Crane, one source you can look into for that is with Chan Yiu Min’s line. Depending on the style and or lineage, this form has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc. I’ve already stated that I believe that this was a set of San Sik passed on from Leung Jan. There is evidence for this in the movements as they correlate well with the known San Sik set passed on by Leung Jan, namely La Jin Choi, Lin Wan Kau Da, Pien San Choi etc. The unfortunate thing about Ng Chung So, is that most of what he taught and whom he taught were eradicated during the Cultural Revolution. We have very few known sources that can rebuild a picture of what this man passed on. This is why I said he wasn’t really well known, in his day perhaps he was, but today his legacy has been all but wiped from this earth.

Take what I tell you with a grain of salt and for what it’s worth, it’s just another data point, but don’t outright dismiss it because it doesn’t jive with what’s being propagated in Faatsan. I think we’ve already established that their stories aren’t any more “truthful” than anyone else’s. Hopefully I’ve given you enough to go back with and ask more questions.

 

[KPM]

Some of my impressions from this discussion so far:

1. Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches" book can hardly be considered history now. Multiple people have pointed out LOTS of inconsistencies and errors in this book over the years. Robert Chu's "Complete Wing Chun" was an attempt to improve on that. But now even he would tell you that it needs a pretty drastic update to be accurate. When they wrote that book they relied primarily on the lineage stories that people submitted to them and not actual independent research. There is very little actual Wing Chun history that can be solidly stated prior to Leung Jan's day. Even a lot of Wing Chun history since Leung Jan's day is questionable.

2. Given the above, one thing to go on would be when said lineage stories actually overlap. If you have multiple independent sources in China saying essentially the same thing, compared to one source outside of China saying something different, I would tend to give more credence to the China version. That doesn't mean it is true, just more likely to be true since more than one source is stating the same thing. Now, admittedly, that could be because they have all accepted a single source from a prior generation as true and are all repeating the same source. But again, it still is something to take seriously when trying to decide who may be telling the most accurate story. Since we don't have a time machine and very little of this was documented, that's about all we can do!

3. For a long time I was under the impression that Sum Nun was the sole student of Yeun Kay Shan and that only his students represent YKS's Wing Chun. But then you have Wong Nim Yi teaching what his father learned from YKS, although admittedly with some of his own changes and modifications. But then I discovered that there is quite a number of people doing "Guangzu Wing Chun" in China. I wondered what this was and discovered that it is YKS Wing Chun! Granted, there is a difference between being a "disciple" and being a regular student, but YKS clearly passed on his Wing Chun to more than one person. So it is entirely possible that when looking at someone's Wing Chun and stating that they couldn't be doing YKS Wing Chun because it differs from what Sum Nun taught.....this could be because Sum Nun himself changed things.

4. I have always been skeptical of the idea that Fung Siu Ching taught anything of significance to YKS. This was solidified when I had the opportunity to study Tang Yik Weng Chun. Tang Yik Weng Chun has a solid connection to FSC, but is nothing like Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun. In fact, they probably couldn't be more different!

5. I have also always been skeptical of any Wing Chun "4th form." Candidates for this I have seen have always looked primarily like Hung Kuen and not Wing Chun. This is another problem with Wing Chun history. It seems lots of people in the past have had no problem with mixing things in and then claiming it came from a prior generation. It would be considered impolite to claim an innovation as your own, so it was attributed to a past Master. This is also what has created so much confusion in Weng Chun circles. Chu Chong Man added all kinds of Hung Kuen things to the Weng Chun he learned but referred to it all as "Weng Chun." Chan Yiu Min added all kinds of things to his father's Wing Chun. And I have studied the Chong Kuen form from Weng Chun. To me, even it had a "Hung Kuen" flavor.

6. Which leads me to the whole "Wing Chun" vs. "Weng Chun" debate. This is pronounced the same in Chinese. Different Sifu's over the years have used one version or the other on a whim depending upon whether they liked the connotation of "praise" more than "everlasting" at the time, or vice versa. So whether Chan Yiu Min or Pan Nam used "Wing" or "Weng" is really irrelevant. But Tang Yik Weng Chun is a lineage of martial arts that likely comes from a common source but is completely independent of the various Wing Chun lineages. They have used the "Weng Chun" designation from the beginning, and to me are the only ones to which the term really applies. Nowadays people seem to want to point out that CYM or PN or someone else at some point chose to use the "Weng" term as an indication that they were doing something older or more original, etc. That's just not right. Just because you've mixed some Hung Kuen into your curriculum doesn't turn it into "Weng Chun" or something more original or more special than anyone's else's Wing Chun. In fact, the examples I have seen display an entirely different body mechanics and so would possibly be confusing to students.....like trying to learn two completely different arts at the same time.

7. I absolutely believe that looking at the physical aspects of the various arts for common structures and concepts is just as important as looking at any lineage stories. I can see Wing Chun, Tang Yik Wing Chun, and White Crane coming from a common source or sources and then evolving in their own directions. To me, Weng Chun is even more like "ancestral" White Crane than is Wing Chun! So I could see this proto-typical art at some point combining with a "snake" art to produce what we think of today as Wing Chun. From what I've seen and experienced, Wing Chun definitely has a more "snakey" aspect than Weng Chun, while both have a "craney" aspect. But if we are going to take seriously this analysis of form and concept, then we have to account for the Hakka arts and why some of them are so similar to Wing Chun. As I stated before, to me there is a lot more physical and conceptual commonalities between Wing Chun and Southern Mantis than there are between Wing Chun and Hung Kuen. Yet everyone seems to just accept Hung Kuen as a Wing Chun predecessor. Disclaimer here......Sifu Michael Tang does not agree with the idea that Weng Chun came from a "White Crane" ancestor. I told him my theory as just stated above and he disagreed with me. He holds to the story of Chi Sim taught a distillation of Shaolin systems and that this was the root of Weng Chun.

8. For a long time now after seeing various lineages' version of history I have wondered about Ng Chung So and why he wasn't given more attention and more importance. He seemed like the key link between several things! he was senior to Ip Man and Yuen Kay Shan and all the other major players. For a long time people have said that Ip Man learned more from him than from Chan Wah Shun because CWS died when Ip Man was young. But poor old Ng Chung So seldom seems to get much credit!

 

[jlq]

A short update as promised:

Today I had a meeting with Yiu Chung Keung Sifu, the grandson of Yiu Choi. Yiu Sifu is a genuinely humble and extremly pleasant person, one of the most generous persons when it comes to sharing his Gong Fu knowledge and experience. We asked him many questions and since we were so interested, he gave us a book he wrote containing the historical information passed on in his tradition and invited us to send him any questions we might have or visit him at his school anytime.

He talked shortly about a few issues pertaining to this thread.

Ng Chun So taught his grandfather three forms, Yiu Sifu was very emphatic that Wing Chun just has three forms, not four. I have seen him do the Che Tsin Kuen a few times over the years and asked him what this was if not a fourth form. He said that it was just some San Sao done back to back.

Yiu Choi apparently didn't learn any fourth form or special extra system from Ng Chun So.

More later.

 

[jlq]

KPM,

just a quick comment.

Wong Nim Yi Sifu learnt from his father, who in turn learnt from Wong Jing and just for a very short while. He also learnt some stuff from Pan Chao, SN's senior student alive today. Pan Sifu started learning from SN in the late 1940s!

The interesting thing in this context is that Pan Sifu still preserves what he learnt all those years back and it is somewhat different than later generations of SN students.

There is a very interesting story about this, why he first changed things, but this is not for a public forum. The ones who know, will know what I mean...

The point here is that SN did not pass on a pristine version of YKS Wing Chun, and even changed stuff over the years he taught.

How can I say that? Well, Sum Nung didn't teach Sup Yee Sik to the earliest students (according to what I have been told by Yup Sup Dai Gee of his family Gong Fu) and when he did, he was teaching Jeung Bo material which is quite different from YKS stuff.

There are also some technical differences.

So dismissing anyone as a disciple based on some technical criterions doesn't make much sense given the situation described above. Also, another thing to consider... Are all disciples equally technically proficient? Some are definitely better than others... Does That mean that the "bad" ones are not disciples?

Back to Mai Gei Wong... Wong Nim Yi Sifu's style is his personal mix of his Gong Fu experience, quite different from SN Wing Chun. However, I have met some of his fathers senior students, Wong Sifu's sihings, and they all move and look like "typical" Gongjaau Wing Chun guys.

 

[Nobody Important]

A short update as promised:

Today I had a meeting with Yiu Chung Keung Sifu, the grandson of Yiu Choi. Yiu Sifu is a genuinely humble and extremly pleasant person, one of the most generous persons when it comes to sharing his Gong Fu knowledge and experience. We asked him many questions and since we were so interested, he gave us a book he wrote containing the historical information passed on in his tradition and invited us to send him any questions we might have or visit him at his school anytime.

He talked shortly about a few issues pertaining to this thread.

Ng Chun So taught his grandfather three forms, Yiu Sifu was very emphatic that Wing Chun just has three forms, not four. I have seen him do the Che Tsin Kuen a few times over the years and asked him what this was if not a fourth form. He said that it was just some San Sao done back to back.

Yiu Choi apparently didn't learn any fourth form or special extra system from Ng Chun So.

More later.

Interesting, thank you for the update.

I find it interesting that they state it's a set of San Sik as this aligns with my belief as well. I also find it interesting that they give it a name, but don't acknowledge it as a "form". Aren't all forms just linked San Sik?

Anyways, I feel vindicated to an extent. For years people have told me I was full of crap and that my "form" was just made up. Others with overlap in lineage also have this "form". Now, people can argue semantics about whether it is linked San Sik or a form, it doesnt matter, because both stem from the same root.

 

[jlq]

I will ask him more specifically about this - but the thing is that seems to be just some basic technique combinations strung together - as I said in an earlier post, that cannot be called a "fourth" form taught by Ng Chun So or anyone else. That would be like saying that Jeung Bo taught SN a fourth form (he he didn't have any) because SN started teaching his Sup Yee Sik based on the moves he learnt from Jeung Bo.

You wrote that I had said no one had heard of Che Tsin Kuen in Fatsaan and then mentioned that Fohk Chiu had - but hadn't I clearly said no one but him (and now the Yiu bros.) teach this type of thing earlier? Should be obvious that when I say no one, this excludes Yiu Choi lineage...

But, as I said, I will ask him about details next week.

 

[jlq]

A good question, actually, about all forms being linked San Sik.

I would say some more so than others...

The more "complicated" and more moves a set contains the more of an application set it is, it seems.

Kind of like the original Kata progression in Pangainoon/Uechi Ryu - Sanchin - Seisan - Sanseru (IIRC).

 

[KPM]

A good question, actually, about all forms being linked San Sik.

I would say some more so than others...

The more "complicated" and more moves a set contains the more of an application set it is, it seems.

Kind of like the original Kata progression in Pangainoon/Uechi Ryu - Sanchin - Seisan - Sanseru (IIRC).

The "Weng Chun Kuen" form from Tang Yik Weng Chun certainly has always seemed like a set of linked San Sik to me!

 

[Nobody Important]

I will ask him more specifically about this - but the thing is that seems to be just some basic technique combinations strung together - as I said in an earlier post, that cannot be called a "fourth" form taught by Ng Chun So or anyone else. That would be like saying that Jeung Bo taught SN a fourth form (he he didn't have any) because SN started teaching his Sup Yee Sik based on the moves he learnt from Jeung Bo.

You wrote that I had said no one had heard of Che Tsin Kuen in Fatsaan and then mentioned that Fohk Chiu had - but hadn't I clearly said no one but him (and now the Yiu bros.) teach this type of thing earlier? Should be obvious that when I say no one, this excludes Yiu Choi lineage...

But, as I said, I will ask him about details next week.

I too, as referring to anyone outside Fok & Yiu brothers in Faatsan. Thats why i brought up my tradition having a similar story to say that others (outside) Faatsan and independent of Fok/Yiu also mention this material. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been when I was ranting, my apologies for the confusion.

I can definately see where you are coming from in regards to a 4th "Form", but personally to me its just semantics. Especially since in my case those loose techniques were codified into an actual form by my Dai Sigung. I've also seen how they perform the Che Chin Kuen, and to me it looks a lot like they are performing a form, since there is no deviation in arraignment. Its also a lot of material IMO to be dismissed solely as just "San Sik", but that's just my opinion on it. Anyways, you are correct it isn't anything new technique or theory wise from the standard 3 forms, just choreography. To me it's just a sprinkling of moves from the 3 forms, san sik and dummy. A synopsis of Wing Chun in one set, so nothing new to learn. Good to practice when you don't have time to focus on practicing all 3 sets and dummy form.

 

[APL76]

no one should disregard san sik as simply some extra techniques to train at as though they are of less value than forms 'propper'. When Sum Nung came to Australia and taught my Sifu's students for a couple of months, one of the things he continually told them is that (and I'm paraphrasing here): if you all you knew was sup yi sik, and had good foundations and knew how to use it (the sup yi sik) that is all you would ever need. My sifu reiterates the same and sees the 3 forms as icing on the cake. The cake being sup yi sik. They are incredibly valuble.

 

[jlq]

APL76,

no one is dismissing anything as "just" San Sik!

The ability to apply some techniques is obviously more useful than the ability to just do a form.

Wong Nim Yi Sifu also teaches Sup Yee Sik but they are in certain places quite different from SN stuff - in his system the Sup Yee Lou as he calls it is a digest version of the system, encompassing techniques from the entire system (SLT, CK, BZ, MYC). According to him, if you can master this, you have all the skills you need to defend yourself effecticely. However, it is just a crash course and to really learn and understand the system, you need to learn and master the Saam Tou Kuen and the dummy techniques.

Incredibly valuable, you say...

Actually, SN Sup Yee Sik/the training method is just simple basic training done in any Wing Chun school. Repetition of basic techniques in Deui Chaak is kind of a normal thing to do in any school to functionalize the techniques.

So, Incredibly invaluable... no more than foundation training is in general...



Only training forms, without any idea of the purpose and application of the moves, without any Deui Chaak and application is useless... But so much should be obvious to everybody.



Anyway...

The point is that the Sup Yee Sik are not considered an "extra form" by any SN guy I know of, do you count them a "fourth form"?

 

[APL76]

APL76,

no one is dismissing anything as "just" San Sik!

The ability to apply some techniques is obviously more useful than the ability to just do a form.

Wong Nim Yi Sifu also teaches Sup Yee Sik but they are in certain places quite different from SN stuff - in his system the Sup Yee Lou as he calls it is a digest version of the system, encompassing techniques from the entire system (SLT, CK, BZ, MYC). According to him, if you can master this, you have all the skills you need to defend yourself effecticely. However, it is just a crash course and to really learn and understand the system, you need to learn and master the Saam Tou Kuen and the dummy techniques.

Incredibly valuable, you say...

Actually, SN Sup Yee Sik/the training method is just simple basic training done in any Wing Chun school. Repetition of basic techniques in Deui Chaak is kind of a normal thing to do in any school to functionalize the techniques.

So, Incredibly invaluable... no more than foundation training is in general...



Only training forms, without any idea of the purpose and application of the moves, without any Deui Chaak and application is useless... But so much should be obvious to everybody.



Anyway...

The point is that the Sup Yee Sik are not considered an "extra form" by any SN guy I know of, do you count them a "fourth form"?

No, they are a distiliation of various elements of the forms and done in isolation so as to develop speed, power, strength, footwork, various techniques and coordination, and things like develop and refine centreline, focus, pcision and so on. They are not a "fourth form", fourth form for us is the wooden dummy form.

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

semantics or not...

You will surely be misunderstood if you claim Ng Chun So taught a "fourth form" called Chuen Sum Jeung...

If you say "form", people will think of it as a "Tou Lou" like SLT, CK, BZ... But according to all descendants of Ng Chun So he just taught Saam Tou Kuen, like everybody else - even you yourself said that your Taisigong created the choreography himself, i.e. creating a form based on what he learnt from Ng. So it is incorrect to say that Ng Chun So had a curriculum of four forms.

As I wrote above, Wong Nim Yi created a form called "Sup Yee Lou" (which is basically just a back to back performance of San Sik without a partner) based on techniques andapplications he learnt - this is kind of what your Taisigong did. But Wong Sifu and his students cannot say that this form was taught by Wong Jing or SN. That would be wrong, as they didn't.

As I wrote to APL79, Wong Sifu's Sup Yee Lou form is a digest of his Wing Chun system and contains the most readily applicable and efficient techniques and concepts of his style, so it is very useful as a crash course on his Wing Chun. Your Sitaigong's form is probably similar.

And agreed, it is very useful for the reasons you stated.

In this context it is interesting to note that Fohk Chiu initially got bored with Wing Chun and thought it was for girls because Leung Fuhk Chor had him practice SLT the traditional way and wanted to give up Wing Chun. So to keep Fohk Chiu motivated, he taught him "Che Tsin Kuen" instead - which, as Vincent Kwok told your student, was a simple series of San Sao.

Given that Fohk Chiu is the only one to mention this name, and no information other than that coming from Fohk Chiu is available about Leung Fuhk Chor and what he taught, it would be very interesting to look into where this name came from: Did Leung or Fohk coin it? Or something totally different?

 

[jlq]

APL76,

Thanks.



Another question, if you don't mind.

Who in the Gongjaau Wing Chun community is/was an authentic disciple of SN and is qualified to represent his teachings in your opinion?

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

There are stories floating around out there that state Ng Chung So passed on some White Crane, one source you can look into for that is with Chan Yiu Min’s line. Depending on the style and or lineage, this form has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc. I’ve already stated that I believe that this was a set of San Sik passed on from Leung Jan. There is evidence for this in the movements as they correlate well with the known San Sik set passed on by Leung Jan, namely La Jin Choi, Lin Wan Kau Da, Pien San Choi etc. The unfortunate thing about Ng Chung So, is that most of what he taught and whom he taught were eradicated during the Cultural Revolution. We have very few known sources that can rebuild a picture of what this man passed on. This is why I said he wasn’t really well known, in his day perhaps he was, but today his legacy has been all but wiped from this earth.

The ChaN Yu Min lineage in Seundak passes on a lot of things which are very much at odds with the Wing Chun Pai in Fatsaan.

Are you familiar with the CYM lineage tree and history?

From the perspective of Fatsaan Wing Chun only about 25 percent of what the Chan Yu Min people do is Wing Chun.

Legends and stories aside - and the fact that Seundak Siulam Weng Chun is excellent Gong Fu, IMHO - if we make a technical comparison between Fatsaan Wing Chun and Seundak Weng Chun, it is clear that there are some blatant and massive differences.

You mentioned a form called Sei Muhn - and I said that the only form having that name in CYM style is the "Siu Lim Tao Sei Muhn".

For the people who don't know what it looks like:

People can make up their own minds what is what...

Looking at the second part - the Sei Muhn - it doesn't really look like anything found in the Che Tsin Kuen form by Fohk Chiu.

As far as the other forms you mention (Lin Wan Kau Da, La Jin Kuen, Pin San Choi), unless they have other "official" names, there are no such forms amongst the 12 in the curriculum of Seundak Weng Chun - at least according to what information is publically available in China. But given that Chan Gok Gei sifu said there was a lot of misinformation out there, I will ask him next time I have the chance.

Anyway, if these forms are like the Sei Muhn part of the Seundak Weng Chun equivalent of SLT it is rather dubious to call these "known Sansik sets passed on by Leung Jan".

I presume you have seen these forms since you said they look like sections of your Cheung Sum Jeung?

Now, this is confusing... You said, your Taisigong came with the form based on some San Sik he had learnt and now you are talking about some form form supposedly from Leung Jan which "has several names ranging from Che Chin Kuen, Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Seung Kuang Chong, Chong Kuen etc."

So which schools exactly have those forms you just mentioned? It sounds like you are talking about Sheung Gung Kuen and the Chong Kuen of Tang family Weng Chun. If so, your conclusion about these being some San Sik forms from Leung Jan be proven wrong for the following reasons:

1. Sheung Gung Kuen is from Yeung Tim, no relation or connection to Leung Jan

2. Chong Kuen was created by Fung Siu Ching because his students wondered why just taught them a dummy form... It is essentially an empty dummy form with lots of footwork added. From the information available, it can be extrapolated that this Chong Kuen was created ca. 1890 which is after Leung Jan taught his sons and Chan Wah Shun in Fatsaan, and around the time he moved to Dongbin, Gulao Seui Heung.

But maybe you are referring to other forms?

If not, how can all these different forms from different unrelated sources be different expressions of one form passed on by Leung Jan?

What is this Pin Sun San Sik you mention, and where is it from?

 

[jlq]

1. Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches" book can hardly be considered history now. Multiple people have pointed out LOTS of inconsistencies and errors in this book over the years. Robert Chu's "Complete Wing Chun" was an attempt to improve on that. But now even he would tell you that it needs a pretty drastic update to be accurate. When they wrote that book they relied primarily on the lineage stories that people submitted to them and not actual independent research. There is very little actual Wing Chun history that can be solidly stated prior to Leung Jan's day. Even a lot of Wing Chun history since Leung Jan's day is questionable.

Leung Ting's book is by far the best when it comes to documenting and recording the stories told by the Wing Chun people in Mainland China at that. It is by far a better ressorce than Rene Ritchie, Robert Chu, etc's book. It doesn't get the respect and recognition it deserves because of dislike and negativity towards Leung Ting - whether this is warranted or not.
The fact is, Leung Ting recorded the stories he was told and is very clear about what is his speculation and what is the words of others. He is no more political in this book than any other standing up for themselves and their lineage.
The ones complaining about political nefariousness are the ones who don't appreciate him pointing out the inconsistencies of their stories. Sum Nung being the most prominent case - Leung Ting produces a text, written by Sum Nung himself! to point out the problems. He is not at all making up stuff, as people accuse him of. One cannot blame Leung Ting For Sum Nung writing something That everybody else in the community knows is not true...
The only problem with this book is that Leung Ting is limited by his sources, i.e. what they told him, if they gave him wrong information, etc. But this is the problem of any book of such nature - "Complete Wing Chun" is plagued by this even more...

 

[jlq]

4. I have always been skeptical of the idea that Fung Siu Ching taught anything of significance to YKS. This was solidified when I had the opportunity to study Tang Yik Weng Chun. Tang Yik Weng Chun has a solid connection to FSC, but is nothing like Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun. In fact, they probably couldn't be more different!

Yuen Kei Saan and others learnt something from Fung Siu Ching for sure... Whether or not this is significant, one can only say if.one has learnt the complete style. As an outsider, this is Impossible to pass judgement on.

Comparing what Fong Siu Ching taught to his.early students with what he taught to the last students (YKS and co.) and drawing conclusions is not sound. Between teaching the first and last students there are about 50 years of experience, development and learning. So why would what FSC taught YKS have to be the same as what he taught to the Dong brothers, the Laws and Tang Suen?

 

[jlq]

6. Which leads me to the whole "Wing Chun" vs. "Weng Chun" debate. This is pronounced the same in Chinese. Different Sifu's over the years have used one version or the other on a whim depending upon whether they liked the connotation of "praise" more than "everlasting" at the time, or vice versa. So whether Chan Yiu Min or Pan Nam used "Wing" or "Weng" is really irrelevant. But Tang Yik Weng Chun is a lineage of martial arts that likely comes from a common source but is completely independent of the various Wing Chun lineages. They have used the "Weng Chun" designation from the beginning, and to me are the only ones to which the term really applies. Nowadays people seem to want to point out that CYM or PN or someone else at some point chose to use the "Weng" term as an indication that they were doing something older or more original, etc. That's just not right. Just because you've mixed some Hung Kuen into your curriculum doesn't turn it into "Weng Chun" or something more original or more special than anyone's else's Wing Chun. In fact, the examples I have seen display an entirely different body mechanics and so would possibly be confusing to students.....like trying to learn two completely different arts at the same time.

詠 and 永 are not homophones. The tone is different.
However, local dialects and pronunciations are indeed the cause of much misunderstanding.
One thing people in the West don't understand is that the Chinese language is based on sound. So often a Chinese person just chooses a character to represent a sound. The character as such has a formal meaning, but this meaning is irrelevant, because the focus is on the sound. For example, the characters the Chinese use to approximate my family name is Lung Yek Seng, which means "Dragon Bright Honest", but this meaning is irrelevant. Some would also use other characters which have the same sound but a totally different meaning. Given that the pronunciation is close and might easily get confused through local dialects, it doesn't matter whether it was called 永 or 詠 or 泳 etc. if the focus was on the sound rather than the meaning... Obviously all of this is very confusing haha