Who Did Yip Man Learn Stuff From?

[jlq]

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.

KPM, there is no need for any White Crane or even Hakka Boxing to explain Wing Chun
- go to the old villages in countryside in Guandong Province, take a look at the various Lo, Siu and Fa Hong Kuen styles they practice and ask them to explain some concepts to you.
It is true that styles like Naam Pai Tong Long have a lot of commonalities with Wing Chun, but one thing to consider... Traditionally, Hakka people would not teach their art to non-Hakka, which means that these styles would not have been widely available such as the various forms of Hong Kuen were.

 

[Nobody Important]

Nobody Important,



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?

I'm not at the computer right now so quoting individual sections to reply to isn't possible.

I'm afraid you have horribly misunderstood me here, most of what you're confused about is way out of context, so bear with me as I try to clear up for you.

1. I'm very aware of the history of Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun and the "origins" of their extra material. I was simply pointing out that according to them this was material passed on to Chan Wah Shun from Leung Jan and that they were saying Ng Chun So also passed on some White Crane. Personally I don't find any of this credible, I was just pointing out some of their narrative in the context of others saying Ng Chung So passed on extra material.

2. According to Chan family the Sei Muhn or Siu Lim Tau Sei Muhn was a form passed on by Leung Jan. Supposedly this was verified to be true by some others. I simply wanted to know your input into this, because it doesn't look like any 4 Gates San Sik that I'm familiar with.

3. Lin Wan Kau Da (Continuous Capture & Strike), La Jin Choi (Stretching Arrow Punch) & Pin San Choi (Side Body Punch) are sets of fundamental San Sik supposedly passed on by Leung Jan. These are mentioned in Complete Wing Chun and on Wingchunpedia, as coming from Leung Jan, for what that's worth. I've seen different version of these from a couple different lineages, Yip Man & Yuen Kay San. In my lineage we have Lin Wan Kau Da and La Jin Choi. I was pointing out that these movements are also found in my "4th Form". These are not forms in Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun, but supposedly San Sik that they practice and say came from Leung Jan. Other than that I cant verify that these San Sik came from Leung Jan only speculate that they did. Your thoughts?

4. This next part you have all mixed up, I'll try to sort it out for you. Supposedly the generic name of this "4th Form" is Chong Kuen (Post Fist). Now different branches of Wing/Weng Chun call it other names like Seung Chong Kuen, Jin Kuen, Che Chin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung etc. You'll find this naming convention present in Hung Kuen and White Crane as well, it is also prevalent in SEA Wing Chun. I was simply trying to establish that it's a common theme for the name of a form outside the canonical 3. I was also trying to convey, that having seen some of these Chong Kuen forms, that some of them contain very similar material to each other. If I stated that they all sprang from Leung Jan, which I don't think I did, it was in error. On that note, Lo Kwai Wing Chun and Fut Sau Wing Chun pass on a 4th Form called Baat Gwa Kuen/Siu Baat Gwa Kuen that they claim was passed on by Leung Jan. I was just trying to illustrate that there are several branches of Wing Chun that claim a "4th Form" and or a "Chong" set often viewed as a separate Wing Chun form outside the canonical 3.

5. I don't believe I mentioned anything about Pin Sun San Sik, I did mention Pin San Choi (Side Body Punch) as a San Sik Set.

I hope that clears things up for you. Perhaps we should keep the lines of questioning short so that we can focus on one thing at a time so that we aren't confusing each other.

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,

cool, thank you very much - and an excellent suggestion.

 

[jlq]

1. I'm very aware of the history of Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun and the "origins" of their extra material. I was simply pointing out that according to them this was material passed on to Chan Wah Shun from Leung Jan and that they were saying Ng Chun So also passed on some White Crane. Personally I don't find any of this credible, I was just pointing out some of their narrative in the context of others saying Ng Chung So passed on extra material.

Ok.

Actually, given that Leung Jan learnt many different kinds of Gong Fu himself, he might very well have passed on all sorts of other stuff to Chan Wah Shun - but then that stuff should not be lumped in with the Wing Chun.

Ng Chun So, according to the people and lineages who have connections to him don't say anything about this. Fohk Chiu, Yiu Choi and Yiu Kei definitely didn't. But does it mean that Ng didn't teach any White Crane or other stuff to others? No... But even if he did, this should not be mixed up with the Wing Chun. Let's say he taught three Wing Chun forms and a White Crane form, it shouldn't be claimed that he taught a fourth Wing Chun form.

Thus the story of him passing on White Crane is irrelevant when it comes to Wing Chun.

On an interesting side note, the reason Ng Chun So might be said to have taught White Crane could be because there was in fact a White Crane teacher with a very similar name in Fatsaan at that time. Ng's Gong Fu brother is known to have exchanged with this teacher... Who knows? Pure speculation on my part...

 

[jlq]

2. According to Chan family the Sei Muhn or Siu Lim Tau Sei Muhn was a form passed on by Leung Jan. Supposedly this was verified to be true by some others. I simply wanted to know your input into this, because it doesn't look like any 4 Gates San Sik that I'm familiar with.

So you see... There is no seperate Sei Muhn form in CYM Weng Chun, but it might as well be. In fact, the form demonstrated on the video I linked seems to be called "Siu Lien Kuen", actually.
It looks like to different forms just done back to back, each having a totally different flavour.
I am very curious about who verified this to be true...
Again, given what I said about Leung Jan's martial arts background above, he could very well have passed on this Sei Muhn, but again... definitely not as a part of his Wing Chun. It doesn't at all look like anything you can see in Fatsaan or Gulao Wing Chun, even.

FWIW one of my friends learnt this "Sei Muhn" part from a Sifu in Samjian and said it had some very useful applications, even though there is nothing Wing Chun about it.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ok.

Actually, given that Leung Jan learnt many different kinds of Gong Fu himself, he might very well have passed on all sorts of other stuff to Chan Wah Shun - but then that stuff should not be lumped in with the Wing Chun.

Ng Chun So, according to the people and lineages who have connections to him don't say anything about this. Fohk Chiu, Yiu Choi and Yiu Kei definitely didn't. But does it mean that Ng didn't teach any White Crane or other stuff to others? No... But even if he did, this should not be mixed up with the Wing Chun. Let's say he taught three Wing Chun forms and a White Crane form, it shouldn't be claimed that he taught a fourth Wing Chun form.

Thus the story of him passing on White Crane is irrelevant when it comes to Wing Chun.

On an interesting side note, the reason Ng Chun So might be said to have taught White Crane could be because there was in fact a White Crane teacher with a very similar name in Fatsaan at that time. Ng's Gong Fu brother is known to have exchanged with this teacher... Who knows? Pure speculation on my part...

I agree to an extent, don't get me wrong, I'm just stating what others have said. I personally don't have enough information to make an educated decision on the matter, all I can do is speculate.

I will say though that I don't think that in the past there was such a hard line as to what was and wasn't Wing Chun like it is today. I know quite a few schools of CMA that are quite liberal in what they've absorbed into their systems and pass off as original content. Also, after a form has been absorbed into a system from another style how long does it have to be before its considered a legitimate form of the adopting system? Is it 10 years? 20, 50, 70, 100 years? Many systems of CMA have built thier curriculum in this manner and should be viewed as legitimate, often because the absorbed form generally takes on the characteristics of the adopting system.

I would be very interested in learning more about this other Ng, what he taught and to whom.

 

[Nobody Important]

So you see... There is no seperate Sei Muhn form in CYM Weng Chun, but it might as well be. In fact, the form demonstrated on the video I linked seems to be called "Siu Lien Kuen", actually.
It looks like to different forms just done back to back, each having a totally different flavour.
I am very curious about who verified this to be true...
Again, given what I said about Leung Jan's martial arts background above, he could very well have passed on this Sei Muhn, but again... definitely not as a part of his Wing Chun. It doesn't at all look like anything you can see in Fatsaan or Gulao Wing Chun, even.

FWIW one of my friends learnt this "Sei Muhn" part from a Sifu in Samjian and said it had some very useful applications, even though there is nothing Wing Chun about it.

I remember reading some articles a while back (can't remember who wrote them) that after Chan Yiu Min passed that this material was added to the system. It was also said that Chan's wife did some research and suggested that Weng (Eternal) was the original character used to describe the art not Wing (praise). There was also mention of Chan's son or possibly Chan Yiu Min himself that learned some Hung Kuen from someone (I want to say one of Lam Sai Wing's students or Lam himself but dont know if thats correct). Anyways, one article stated that other students of Chan Yiu Min never learned this other material. I dont know enough about the lineage to have an opinion to it's validity, but its intetesting none the less. Personally I like the extra material on it's own, it looks solid.

 

[jlq]

3. Lin Wan Kau Da (Continuous Capture & Strike), La Jin Choi (Stretching Arrow Punch) & Pin San Choi (Side Body Punch) are sets of fundamental San Sik supposedly passed on by Leung Jan. These are mentioned in Complete Wing Chun and on Wingchunpedia, as coming from Leung Jan, for what that's worth. I've seen different version of these from a couple different lineages, Yip Man & Yuen Kay San. In my lineage we have Lin Wan Lau Da and La Jin Choi. I was pointing out that these movements are also found in my "4th Form". These are not forms in Chan Yiu Min Wing Chun, but supposedly San Sik that they practice and say came from Leung Jan. Other than that I cant verify that these San Sik came from Leung Jan only speculate that they did. Your thoughts?

Ah! I think, I finally get you!

You seem to be using the term "form" in the sense of what I understand as "technique" and "San Sik" - which to me is an application of a technique rather than just the technique itself.

Now, from a linguistic perspective it doesn't make sense to call something a San Sik form, because the term "san" (loose/seperate/free) is used to denote that the (jiu) sik is not a part of a form. Forms are termed "Tou Lou". Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do.

So:

Lin Wan Kau Da - is just a chained series of the Kau Da technique, like Lin Wan Choi or Lin Wan Laan Kiu or Lin Wan Gerk. It is not a Tou Lou like the "Lin Wan Kau Da" of Choi Li Fut.

La Jin Choi - this is a technique known as the Jin Choi, another basic jiu sik. Normally, there is no "La" to go with it, but I can see why it would make sense to put it in. It is not a Tou Lou like Hong Kuen's "Jin Jeung".

Pin San Choi is another basic technique and not a Tou Lou.

Is that correct?

If so, there is nothing to discuss, all Wing Chun and even other styles have this. There is no need to point out that Leung Jan passed on these techniques, he surely did - as others did as well.

And of course these techniques make up your fourth Tou Lou - would be very strange if they didn't...

 

[jlq]

I agree to an extent, don't get me wrong, I'm just stating what others have said. I personally don't have enough information to make an educated decision on the matter, all I can do is speculate.

I will say though that I don't think that in the past there was such a hard line as to what was and wasn't Wing Chun like it is today. I know quite a few schools of CMA that are quite liberal in what they've absorbed into their systems and pass off as original content. Also, after a form has been absorbed into a system from another style how long does it have to be before its considered a legitimate form of the adopting system? Is it 10 years? 20, 50, 70, 100 years? Many systems of CMA have built thier curriculum in this manner and should be viewed as legitimate, often because the absorbed form generally takes on the characteristics of the adopting system.

I would be very interested in learning more about this other Ng, what he taught and to whom.

This is a most excellent post and describes the situation in the past very accurately according to my understanding.



KPM mentioned the example of Chu Chung Man, but there are others. Some would point to the Pao Fa Lien style as an example of this. Still many more...

And not to forget - in the old days, people did not care about styles, just skills, whatever was useful and practical and mostly the "styles" didn't even have names.

An interesting story: A few months ago, a martial arts researcher here in Fatsaan stumbled on a video which showed an older gentleman from Gongjaau demonstrating som excellent skills uncannily similar to Tang family Weng Chun. So the researcher contacted him to ask what style he was doing and his Lineage. The gentleman replied that he didn't know the name of the style he was doing, or even If it was a specific style, he had just learnt it from his father. That was all he knew...

Personally, I.don't think what is known and clearly identifiable as Wing Chun is that old, but that is another story.

This other Ng was supposedly a White Crane teacher, practicioner, not related to any Wing Chun people per se othe than Lai Hip Ji (I got this information from a book written about him by his son, I think it was. I'd have to check) But it doesn't say any more than that. Since this was in the 50s probably, more could poasibly found out. But I don't know any Crane practicioners in either Fatsaan or.Gongjaau, just HK.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ah! I think, I finally get you!

You seem to be using the term "form" in the sense of what I understand as "technique" and "San Sik" - which to me is an application of a technique rather than just the technique itself.

Now, from a linguistic perspective it doesn't make sense to call something a San Sik form, because the term "san" (loose/seperate/free) is used to denote that the (jiu) sik is not a part of a form. Forms are termed "Tou Lou". Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do.

So:

Lin Wan Kau Da - is just a chained series of the Kau Da technique, like Lin Wan Choi or Lin Wan Laan Kiu or Lin Wan Gerk. It is not a Tou Lou like the "Lin Wan Kau Da" of Choi Li Fut.

La Jin Choi - this is a technique known as the Jin Choi, another basic jiu sik. Normally, there is no "La" to go with it, but I can see why it would make sense to put it in. It is not a Tou Lou like Hong Kuen's "Jin Jeung".

Pin San Choi is another basic technique and not a Tou Lou.

Is that correct?

If so, there is nothing to discuss, all Wing Chun and even other styles have this. There is no need to point out that Leung Jan passed on these techniques, he surely did - as others did as well.

And of course these techniques make up your fourth Tou Lou - would be very strange if they didn't...

Yes that is correct. I only stressed it in the context of the content found in the "4th Form".

You said, "Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do. "

Wouldn't that be a form then, or am I missing something? San Sik done as a form is exactly what I'm referring to with a lot of these branches and their "Chong Kuen" form. In my case these San Sik have evolved into a codified form we call Chuan Sin Jeung. When I see other branches performing San Sik in this manner without deviation of sequence and calling it things like Che Chin Kuen I can't help but to think form despite the label of Sik or Lou. Wouldn't it be proper to just call it a form since they are performing It like one, or is that a technicality?. That's why I stated I believe its just semantics despite terminology used. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm most likely going to call it a duck and not a cat. But that's just me, I'm sure others feel differently.

 

[Nobody Important]

Jesper,

I don't know about you, but I feel that the issue surrounding Ng Chung So passing on some extra empty hand material outside the 3 forms has been put to bed. Its fairly evident that he did and that, depending on the descendant, it was compiled into codified Sik or Lou. I also feel that it is extremely plausible that this material in question was passed down from Leung Jan. Now whether someone wants to call it a "4th Form" or not is debateable as being proper, but I feel like that is a minor issue in the context of everything and really more of an argument of semantics depending on your view. Do you agree?

If so I'd like to move on to Law Man Gung.

 

[jlq]

4. This next part you have all mixed up, I'll try to sort it out for you. Supposedly the generic name of this "4th Form" is Chong Kuen (Post Fist). Now different branches of Wing/Weng Chun call it other names like Seung Chong Kuen, Jin Kuen, Che Chin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung etc. You'll find this naming convention present in Hung Kuen and White Crane as well, it is also prevalent in SEA Wing Chun. I was simply trying to establish that it's a common theme for the name of a form outside the canonical 3. I was also trying to convey, that having seen some of these Chong Kuen forms, that some of them contain very similar material to each other. If I stated that they all sprang from Leung Jan, which I don't think I did, it was in error. On that note, Lo Kwai Wing Chun and Fut Sau Wing Chun pass on a 4th Form called Baat Gwa Kuen/Siu Baat Gwa Kuen that they claim was passed on by Leung Jan. I was just trying to illustrate that there are several branches of Wing Chun that claim a "4th Form" and or a "Chong" set often viewed as a separate Wing Chun form outside the canonical 3

No doubt!

So... No you are talking Tou Lou, I must presume.

But then there is a problem.

Because there is no such generic form in Wing Chun or even Weng Chun.

I already explained that Sheung Gung Kuen and Chong Kuen are Tang family things. They don't have equivalents in other Wing/Weng Chun.

But given how you spell it, you might not mean those? Do you or don't you?

If you do, you should know the romanization should be "Gung/Gong", not "Chong" as the character used is 工, not 樁.

If not, could you please point me to exactly which Wing/Weng Chun has a "Seung Chong Kuen"? And which ones have a "Chong Kuen" other than the Weng Chun styles from Fong Siu Ching and Fohk Chiu?

Pao Fa Lien has both a Jin Jeung and Jin Kuen Tou Lou - both those are not some generic "Chong Kuen" form, a fourth form of Wing Chun, they are two out of a dozen or so Tou Lou that compromise the PFL Wing Chun system.

SEA Wing Chun? WhIch branch exactly be that?

Yip Kin Wing Chun, I have met the Jeung Muhn Yan, Yip Fuhk Cho Sifu, of this style a few times when he was visting Gongjaau on a few occasions. Really great Gong Fu. An excellent, solid traditional Gong Fu style, but it has more than four forms and is a mixed art.

Ban Chung Cho Ga Wing Chun - has just one "original" form, but some ancestors developed some extra, forms which are mixed. Seui Da is an example of such a form.

Then there is a lot of "Opera Gong Fu" which is quite a mix. I learnt such a form - called Jin Kuen - from my Sigong.

Lo Kwai Wing Chun I cannot say anything about, as it doesn't have any descendants in Fatsaan anymore. But why do think this Baat Gwa Kuen they supposedly have is the same as some generic "Chong Kuen"? Have you even seen it?

As far as the Fut Sao Wing Chun system goes, this is a "modern" style...

The question - as I understand it - is not about whether there is a fourth form in many Wing Chun styles, it is about whether or not there was some "Mitochondrial fourth form", which then evolved into all the various Tou Lou practiced today.

To me it is obvious that there wasn't - people just have different forms because they learnt different things, added stuff, changed stuff according to their own experience.

The fact that all these forms feature the same techniques and even movement sequences doesn't at all indicate the existence of such a Tou Lou, just that each school/style has similar basic techniques - which is not really That strange...

 

[jlq]

Yes that is correct. I only stressed it in the context of the content found in the "4th Form".

You said, "Hence Wong Nim Yi Sifu called his twelwe done as a form "Sup Yee Lou" not "Sup Yee Sik" as the SN guys do. "

Wouldn't that be a form then, or am I missing something? San Sik done as a form is exactly what I'm referring to with a lot of these branches and their "Chong Kuen" form. In my case these San Sik have evolved into a codified form we call Chuan Sin Jeung. When I see other branches performing San Sik in this manner without deviation of sequence and calling it things like Che Chin Kuen I can't help but to think form despite the label of Sik or Lou. Wouldn't it be proper to just call it a form since they are performing It like one, or is that a technicality?. That's why I stated I believe its just semantics despite terminology used. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm most likely going to call it a duck and not a cat. But that's just me, I'm sure others feel differently.

Wong Sifu teaches four empty hand forms (one more to kids - he created a special form to catch their interest keep their attention):

Sup Yee Lou
Siu Lim Tao
Cham Kiu
Biu Zi

then of course Hong Jong, Muk Yan Chong, etc.

This Sup Yee Lou is a Tou Lou and practiced as such, but it just serves as the technical basis for application training. Personally, I think it would be better to just do it like the SN people, focusing on application instead of just adding another, granted interesting, but rather long form which is in certain places quite complex.

The problem is you called techniques forms...



But as long a we are on the same page now, everything else is water under the bridge.



If you refer specifically to what Yiu Chung Keung Sifu said about that, it is quite possible he was not clear about what I was referring to. I will show him a video of himself doing the Che Tsing Kuen next time. But again, I asked about a fourth form and he stated very clearly That Wing Chun just has three forms. Let's see what he says next time.

 

[Nobody Important]

No doubt!

So... No you are talking Tou Lou, I must presume.

But then there is a problem.

Because there is no such generic form in Wing Chun or even Weng Chun.

I already explained that Sheung Gung Kuen and Chong Kuen are Tang family things. They don't have equivalents in other Wing/Weng Chun.

But given how you spell it, you might not mean those? Do you or don't you?

If you do, you should know the romanization should be "Gung/Gong", not "Chong" as the character used is 工, not 樁.

If not, could you please point me to exactly which Wing/Weng Chun has a "Seung Chong Kuen"? And which ones have a "Chong Kuen" other than the Weng Chun styles from Fong Siu Ching and Fohk Chiu?

Pao Fa Lien has both a Jin Jeung and Jin Kuen Tou Lou - both those are not some generic "Chong Kuen" form, a fourth form of Wing Chun, they are two out of a dozen or so Tou Lou that compromise the PFL Wing Chun system.

SEA Wing Chun? WhIch branch exactly be that?

Yip Kin Wing Chun, I have met the Jeung Muhn Yan, Yip Fuhk Cho Sifu, of this style a few times when he was visting Gongjaau on a few occasions. Really great Gong Fu. An excellent, solid traditional Gong Fu style, but it has more than four forms and is a mixed art.

Ban Chung Cho Ga Wing Chun - has just one "original" form, but some ancestors developed some extra, forms which are mixed. Seui Da is an example of such a form.

Then there is a lot of "Opera Gong Fu" which is quite a mix. I learnt such a form - called Jin Kuen - from my Sigong.

Lo Kwai Wing Chun I cannot say anything about, as it doesn't have any descendants in Fatsaan anymore. But why do think this Baat Gwa Kuen they supposedly have is the same as some generic "Chong Kuen"? Have you even seen it?

As far as the Fut Sao Wing Chun system goes, this is a "modern" style...

The question - as I understand it - is not about whether there is a fourth form in many Wing Chun styles, it is about whether or not there was some "Mitochondrial fourth form", which then evolved into all the various Tou Lou practiced today.

To me it is obvious that there wasn't - people just have different forms because they learnt different things, added stuff, changed stuff according to their own experience.

The fact that all these forms feature the same techniques and even movement sequences doesn't at all indicate the existence of such a Tou Lou, just that each school/style has similar basic techniques - which is not really That strange...

Jesper,

You're last statement in this question pretty much sums it all up. I by no means was trying to insinuate that there is a mysterious mitochondrial "4th Form" that is the root of all Wing Chun. I was just simply trying to illustrate that there was left over material that was used as San Sik, and in some cases, used to create a "4th Form". In many cases, this material has been labeled as "Post Fist", generally as it is believed that this material may have been remnants or leftovers of the Wooden Man Post set, but undoubtedly Wing Chun material in most cases and not a foreign method.

I have heard many refer to it in this generic term, and as Ive stated before, many of these "Sets" or "Forms" have a proper name like Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Chin Jeung, Che Chin Kuen etc. And yes, I lump the Weng Chun form Seung Chong Kuen into the mix, mostly because of the shared relationship of Fung Siu Ching. It may not be accurate to do so but that set and Sup Yi Sau look like linked San Sik to me and have similarities to White Crane & Hung Kuen sets that use the Chong, Chin or Jeung naming convention, this could be coincidental, but with similar techniques being used I can't help but suspect there was some "borrowing" going on.. Also I find the repeated use of Chong, Chin & Jeung to describe these sets interesting, as similar forms in Hung Kuen and White Crane have very similar names and techniques, just as I've stated above. Which leads me to suspect that, as you said, the village Hung Kuen systems share a lot of commonalities with some of the Wing/Weng Chun systems, so it only makes sense that some of that material, along with naming conventions was potentially mixed in and over time accepted as original. As I mentioned before I have seen some of these sets and they have a lot of shared material, which only makes sense if it really was left over material not embedded in the system proper then mixed with something else to create new sets.

As far as Lo Kwai Wing Chun goes, I was told by one of its practitioners that they have a 4th form called Baat Gwa that came from Leung Jan. I realize that Fut Sau Wing Chun is a newer branch but thought that it was intetesting that their 4th form is called Siu Baat Gwa and claim it to be original to the system. I have never seen either version but would like to, I have lots of questions.

 

[jlq]

I have heard many refer to it in this generic term, and as Ive stated before, many of these "Sets" or "Forms" have a proper name like Jin Kuen, Chuan Sin Jeung, Chin Jeung, Che Chin Kuen etc. And yes, I lump the Weng Chun form Seung Chong Kuen into the mix, mostly because of the shared relationship of Fung Siu Ching. It may not be accurate to do so but that set and Sup Yi Sau look like linked San Sik to me and have similarities to White Crane & Hung Kuen sets that use the Chong, Chin or Jeung naming convention, this could be coincidental, but with similar techniques being used I can't help but suspect there was some "borrowing" going on.. Also I find the repeated use of Chong, Chin & Jeung to describe these sets interesting, as similar forms in Hung Kuen and White Crane have very similar names and techniques, just as I've stated above. Which leads me to suspect that, as you said, the village Hung Kuen systems share a lot of commonalities with some of the Wing/Weng Chun systems, so it only makes sense that some of that material, along with naming conventions was potentially mixed in and over time accepted as original. As I mentioned before I have seen some of these sets and they have a lot of shared material, which only makes sense if it really was left over material not embedded in the system proper then mixed with something else to create new sets.

In the Wing Chun circles here, as I said nobody except for the guys I mentioned speak about any "Post Fist" - the Hong Kuen and CLF I know don't do either. But I am only interested in Wing Chun... So which lineage are the people you have heard speak about some post fist from?

And exactly which styles do those Tou lou names you mention come from? Have you heard anyone from these particular lineages say that these are called "Chong Kuen"?

Well, Sheung Gung Kuen is not called "Chong Kuen" by anyone in the Tang family, so it is not a "Post" form - as I explained to you, your romanization is off and if you conclude what you do because of your rendition of the name, you are misleading yourself. Remember, what you spell "Chong" should be "Gung" - I gave you the characters in my earlier message.

Also, this form has nothing to do with Fung Siu Ching at all, it is from a totally different source and as such it is totally unrelated to Wing Chun.

The form Fong Siu Ching created was called "Chong Kuen" for a very simple reason: If was the Boxing form of the dummy (the Chong). Not because the name is supposed to relate to some "Chong Kuen from other styles.

Speaking of which, exactly which "Chong" forms are you referring to in White Crane and Hong Kuen?

I am sure you know what "chin" and "jin" or "tsin" means: "arrow" or with a different character "battle". Given this meaning, it is not too difficult to imagine why Tou Lou with no relation would be called the same thing... "Jeung" simply means palm. Baat Gwa Jeung has no relation to Fat Jeung which ha no relation Jing Jeung, the name just means they all focus on the palm...

Sup Yi Sau? A Tou Lou or (Jiu) Sik?

The reason there are all these similarities is obvious. The different styles all come from some generic type martial art, and because of biomechanics there are overlaps with totally unrelated styles.

So, yes... Everything is a huge mix of different stuff.



It is all Siulam Gong Fu.

 

[jlq]

As far as Lo Kwai Wing Chun goes, I was told by one of its practitioners that they have a 4th form called Baat Gwa that came from Leung Jan. I realize that Fut Sau Wing Chun is a newer branch but thought that it was intetesting that their 4th form is called Siu Baat Gwa and claim it to be original to the system. I

The problem is Leung Jan might very well have taught something like this... But it is odd that Leung Jan didn't teach his sons or other students such a form.

Again, one should be careful drawing inferences from same or similar names. The term Baat Gwa is a normal term used by Chinese people to express many things. In the old days, before Western science found its way into China, BG was used to refer to/describe directions or angles. F.ex. YM's students in Fatsaan have sth calles Baat Gwa Jeung, but it is not at all related to the Noi Ga art of the same name.

Siu Baat Gwa might very well be original to Henry Leung's system, but no such set exists elsewhere - to my knowledge.

 

[KPM]

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?

Well....unless FSC drastically changed his martial art over the ensuing years! The body structure and mechanics behind Tang Yik Weng Chun and YSK Wing Chun are very different! So perhaps in his old age FSC taught YKS some "odds and ends" to round out his knowledge....but that would not seem very "significant" to me compared to what core biomechanics are being used.

 

[Nobody Important]

In the Wing Chun circles here, as I said nobody except for the guys I mentioned speak about any "Post Fist" - the Hong Kuen and CLF I know don't do either. But I am only interested in Wing Chun... So which lineage are the people you have heard speak about some post fist from?

And exactly which styles do those Tou lou names you mention come from? Have you heard anyone from these particular lineages say that these are called "Chong Kuen"?

Well, Sheung Gung Kuen is not called "Chong Kuen" by anyone in the Tang family, so it is not a "Post" form - as I explained to you, your romanization is off and if you conclude what you do because of your rendition of the name, you are misleading yourself. Remember, what you spell "Chong" should be "Gung" - I gave you the characters in my earlier message.

Also, this form has nothing to do with Fung Siu Ching at all, it is from a totally different source and as such it is totally unrelated to Wing Chun.

The form Fong Siu Ching created was called "Chong Kuen" for a very simple reason: If was the Boxing form of the dummy (the Chong). Not because the name is supposed to relate to some "Chong Kuen from other styles.

Speaking of which, exactly which "Chong" forms are you referring to in White Crane and Hong Kuen?

I am sure you know what "chin" and "jin" or "tsin" means: "arrow" or with a different character "battle". Given this meaning, it is not too difficult to imagine why Tou Lou with no relation would be called the same thing... "Jeung" simply means palm. Baat Gwa Jeung has no relation to Fat Jeung which ha no relation Jing Jeung, the name just means they all focus on the palm...

Sup Yi Sau? A Tou Lou or (Jiu) Sik?

The reason there are all these similarities is obvious. The different styles all come from some generic type martial art, and because of biomechanics there are overlaps with totally unrelated styles.

So, yes... Everything is a huge mix of different stuff.



It is all Siulam Gong Fu.

Personally I was only interested in the material that concerned Ng Chung So and the details surrounding that matter. I mentioned the other stuff as reference to show that this material did in fact exist and that other arts, with connections to some Wing Chun branches, also had similar material.

For styles with forms of similar name, technique and usage to Wing Chun material we have ( I'll use Pinyin to avoid screwing up the Cantonese) Chong Da (Colliding Strike) from Dengjia Hong Quan (some other Hongjia branches also have this set) said by some to be a Post method. Chuan Xin Zhang (Heart Penetrating Palm) from Yongchun Bai He Quan, Chuan Xin Zhang (Heart Penetrating Palm) from Linjia Hong Quan said to be from Red Boat Yongchun and originally a Post method, it is also known as Jian Quan (Arrow Fist). There is also Bai He Xiao Yue Gong (White Crane Small Moon Skills), also known as Zhuang Quan (Post Fist) and Yongchun Quan (Eternal Springtime Fist) from Liujia Bai He Quan. There is also Xiao Wu Xing Quan (Small 5 Pattern Fist) of which is composed of two sections, the second one is called Dui Zhong Fa (Chasing Center Method) or Dui Zhuang Fa (Facing Post Method) depending on who you ask from Xiajia Heyang Bai He Quan. There are more but I think this will suffice.

Now admittedly I'm no expert on Deng & Zhu family Yongchun but isn't the form Shuang Kuang Zhuang Quan (Double Frame Post Fist) that Deng Zhi passed onto Zhu Songmin also known as Zhuang Quan (Post Fist)? Or am I mistaken?

As for Shiyi Shou (11 Hands) which is also the name of the 2nd section of Xiao Lian Tou (Small First Training). isn't that also known as Yongchun Quan (Eternal Springtime Fist). This form has a lot in common with Ba Shou Sanzhan (8 Hands 3 Battles) of Yongchun Bai He Quan and the form Bai He Xiao Yue Gong as mentioned above.

As an FYI, I make absolutely no claims to being a Yongchun expert or historian, I only learned about 3/4 of the Ruan Ji Yun system of the Duan family, and I am not a disciple. My main art is Bei Xizang Lama Bai He Pai of the Liu Jun Ren and Wu Jian Hua lines. Ive also learned a fair amount of Hong Tou Cai Wei Quan (No relation to the populat Zhoujia system) of Huang Tian Fang who was also a student of Liang Tian Zhu I've also dabbled in some other stuff so have made some very interesting observations and have heard some pretty interesting things concerning the relationships between Hongjia, Bai He and Yongchun.

So yes, as you say it's all southern method and there was definately a lot of mixing going on, but does that make outlying forms outright illegitimate after all these years?

Honestly, who's to say that the 3 canonical forms we know as Yongchun today were anything like what was originally taught all those years ago, and that some old man practicing something his father taught in the park isn't actually closer to the truth than we know?

 

[KPM]

Wouldn't that be a form then, or am I missing something? San Sik done as a form is exactly what I'm referring to with a lot of these branches and their "Chong Kuen" form. In my case these San Sik have evolved into a codified form we call Chuan Sin Jeung. When I see other branches performing San Sik in this manner without deviation of sequence and calling it things like Che Chin Kuen I can't help but to think form despite the label of Sik or Lou. Wouldn't it be proper to just call it a form since they are performing It like one, or is that a technicality?. That's why I stated I believe its just semantics despite terminology used. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm most likely going to call it a duck and not a cat. But that's just me, I'm sure others feel differently.

Good point! A set of San Sik can certainly become a "form" when they are being consistently strung together in the same way. Even in Ku Lo Wing Chun....which is San Sik based, they seem to run the San Sik together back to back for demonstration purposes and refer to it as the "Dai Lim Tao" form. I still think it possible that the Tang Yik "Weng Chun Kuen" form may have started out as San Sik that were later put together as a "form." It has 11 sections, each separated by a pause bringing the fists back to the hips, and each section has a distinct 2 man drill that goes with it to teach its application. This would be exactly how Ku Lo Wing Chun would function if you chose to string the San Sik together and teach them as a single form only. And for that matter.....most versions of Wing Chun's "Siu Lim Tao" form could be said to be a series of San Sik strung together because, again....each section is separated by a pause drawing the fists back to the chest. Each section can be practiced and applied independently. I've also read, but don't know how true it is, that "ancestral" White Crane in the distant past was taught as a series of San Sik rather than with longer forms. It could be that the more modern White Crane forms are San Sik strung together. But I don't know enough about White Crane to say.

But it can be a confusing distinction and really comes down to how the specific lineage is practicing and teaching the material......as San Sik.....as a single form....or maybe even both as in the case of Ku Lo Wing Chun!

 

[jlq]

Nobody Important,


Thanks the references, much appreciated.

I will look into it as soon as I have time.

As I said, Wing Chun has much more in common with the various other local arts, than many realize.

So It is a great passtime to look into this stuff.

Now admittedly I'm no expert on Deng & Zhu family Yongchun but isn't the form Shuang Kuang Zhuang Quan (Double Frame Post Fist) that Deng Zhi passed onto Zhu Songmin also known as Zhuang Quan (Post Fist)? Or am I mistaken?

As I explained to you, the name of the form is Shuang Gong Quan, not what you are saying and no, the Zhuang Quan is a totally different form. The former comes from Yang Tian, the latter from Fong Shao Qing - so yes, you are mistaken...

As for Shiyi Shou (11 Hands) which is also the name of the 2nd section of Xiao Lian Tou (Small First Training). isn't that also known as Yongchun Quan (Eternal Springtime Fist). This form has a lot in common with Ba Shou Sanzhan (8 Hands 3 Battles) of Yongchun Bai He Quan and the form Bai He Xiao Yue Gong as mentioned above.

The form you are referring is called "Yong Chun Quan", i.e. that is its proper, original name. At some point someone started calling it " Shiyi Shou", so that is a relatively modern "nickname".

The second section of Fatsaan-type Yong Chun Quan is typically called "Shi Zi Shou" - "Character Ten Hand", not 11.