wing chun history is not important

[LFJ]

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you've not experienced WSL's system to see it from that angle.

The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not so in wing chun. It is even impossible to know who learned what from YM from listening to the various stories. It is very possible to tell if you use your eyes to see and your hands to feel.

Actually we do not agree here, it is rather easy to verify many who trained with Ip Man, those that cannot be verified may or may not have trained with him but without being able to historically verify one must be skeptical of their claim. It is also fairly simple to follow Wing Chun back to Ip man's sifus and it is also easy to see the difference between the Wing Chun of people he taught in Foshan as compared to Hong Kong. You just need to know how to do the research, of course you have to also have the desire to do the research as well. It is usually possible to tell by touching hands, assuming the one doing the checking is skilled enough to know the difference

The history of wing chun will not help you in this at all. Anyone persisting in any MA creates a story around themselves, based in reality or not.

Also we do not agree. Yes there are many in CMA that build stories, but being one who does a lot of research into the styles he trains or trained, Wing Chun being one of those, I can tell you the history can help you a lot at times. But again, you have to have the desire to do the research and know how to do it.

 

[Vajramusti]

Well, actually...if we whip out "Occam's Razor"........ The simplest explanation for the fact that it appears only WSLVT teaches this idea about Tan being used only to train the elbow, that only WSLVT empty hands seems to track so very closely to the Pole methods, that only WSLVT seems to make an almost complete separation between Chum Kiu & Biu Gee, that only WSLVT seems to consider the Knives so terribly different from the rest of the system...the simplest explanation upon applying Occam's Razor is that Wong Shun Leung himself made these changes to his Wing Chun. That these are his own interpretations and innovations.

The alternative argument is to say that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man, and how many times have we heard that now from different people? I'm afraid no one is going to take THAT argument seriously anymore!!

And there is nothing wrong with saying these are Wong Shun Leung's own innovations! He was a great Wing Chun man and had practical fighting experience. One could argue that what he came up with is better than what Ip Man taught! And doesn't everyone expect their best students to improve upon what they taught them?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a discussion list where opinions including mine abound. From what I know from different sources:
1.WSL was a good fighter and helped with the recognition of hia aifu's teachings
2 It is presumptuous to think that WSL "improved" upon Ip Man's understanding of wing chun.
3 WSL's fighting ability was greater than his analysis of wing chun-but it was notinsinificant.
4 The occam's razor analogy is misapplied in KPM's post.

 

[KPM]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a discussion list where opinions including mine abound. From what I know from different sources:
1.WSL was a good fighter and helped with the recognition of hia aifu's teachings
2 It is presumptuous to think that WSL "improved" upon Ip Man's understanding of wing chun.
3 WSL's fighting ability was greater than his analysis of wing chun-but it was notinsinificant.
4 The occam's razor analogy is misapplied in KPM's post.

Joy, you do realize this puts you in agreement with Guy's opinion that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about anyone other than Wong Shun Leung? That Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about Ho Kam Ming specifically, because I brought him up as one of Ip Man's primary senior students along with some other names and Guy included them in his assessment. Joy, you do realize that this puts you in agreement with LFJ's and Guy's contention that Wong Shun Leung was the ONLY one to learn the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man? Because all of that is exactly what you just agreed to by your #4 above, whether you realize it or not!

From the Wikipedia:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

The principle can be interpreted as

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

So tell me, just how have I misapplied this in my post? I am assuming simply that WSL was a talented guy and made some good changes in his Wing Chun. And he didn't make a big deal out of it or take credit for it because he was a humble guy and respected his Sifu.

The other hypothesis is that Ip Man taught the "true" Wing Chun only to Wong Shun Leung. It assumes that Ip Man did not really care anything about his other senior students like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, or his own sons...at least not enough to teach them the "good" Wing Chun. It assumes that WSL was not close enough friends with any of these other senior students of Ip Man to offer to show them these "secrets" that Ip Man showed only to him! It assumes that this is not just another story to promote the lineage as we have seen with William Cheung's and Leung Ting's lineage. It assumes that none of the senior students of Ip Man realized this is what happened, that they were taught a somehow "inferior" version of Wing Chun. Dare I use the word "modified" version? ;-)

It also assumes that the Pole was the foundation of the empty hand training, which is something we don't see in lineages other than WSL. It isn't the source of the empty hands in Pin Sun Wing Chun, in Tang Yik Weng Chun, in Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, etc. It also assumes that Ip Man taught that there truly is no actual application of the Tan Sau outside of training the elbow. But again, it seems Ip Man taught the use of Tan Sau to plenty of students as a basic! Should I go on?

I think Occam's Razor actually applies fairly well here.

 

[KPM]

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible.

---That's EXACTLY the argument I've heard from William Cheung's people! Cheung couldn't have possibly have come up with the "Traditional Wing Chun" system on his own because that would take generations of development. He had to have learned it from Ip Man!

The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.

---No. What you and Guy are saying is that YM wasn't concerned with producing ANY high-level students other than WSL, and ONLY taught the entire system to him! That is NOT a simple explanation because it is highly unlikely. Just start promoting this idea as William Cheung's people have and Leung Ting's people have and see what reaction you get.

 

[Phobius]

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you've not experienced WSL's system to see it from that angle.

The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.

Actually this statement is funny, lets write it the opposite way.

If you´re assuming WSL was working with "mainstream" Wing Chun and all other lineages Went about overhauling it by themselves, changing almost Everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that´s not a a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by multiple guys with same sifu. Hence, I said it´s incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you´ve not experienced all lineages of WC systems to see it from that angle.

If you truly believe WSL was the only high level student of YM you are wrong, the fact that WSL was one of the high level students is the very explanation why he took it upon himself to improve his WC in a way that suited him better. Dont try to do what WSL did, instead understand what he understood. Take a system and make it your own, and realize that Everything to WSL was true from his point of view. Not necessarily yours or anyone else.

Not many boxers box alike.

Coming from Leung Ting lineage myself, the only story I ever hear is that LT changed the curriculum (way of teaching) to a more european friendly way. The system is intended to remain the same, then however it is adapting to ever changing landscape. Of course I do not follow the mainstream Wing Tsun in Europé so hard to say what they are preaching.

 

[Vajramusti]

Joy, you do realize this puts you in agreement with Guy's opinion that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about anyone other than Wong Shun Leung? That Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about Ho Kam Ming specifically, because I brought him up as one of Ip Man's primary senior students along with some other names and Guy included them in his assessment. Joy, you do realize that this puts you in agreement with LFJ's and Guy's contention that Wong Shun Leung was the ONLY one to learn the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man? Because all of that is exactly what you just agreed to by your #4 above, whether you realize it or not!

From the Wikipedia:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

The principle can be interpreted as

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

So tell me, just how have I misapplied this in my post? I am assuming simply that WSL was a talented guy and made some good changes in his Wing Chun. And he didn't make a big deal out of it or take credit for it because he was a humble guy and respected his Sifu.

The other hypothesis is that Ip Man taught the "true" Wing Chun only to Wong Shun Leung. It assumes that Ip Man did not really care anything about his other senior students like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, or his own sons...at least not enough to teach them the "good" Wing Chun. It assumes that WSL was not close enough friends with any of these other senior students of Ip Man to offer to show them these "secrets" that Ip Man showed only to him! It assumes that this is not just another story to promote the lineage as we have seen with William Cheung's and Leung Ting's lineage. It assumes that none of the senior students of Ip Man realized this is what happened, that they were taught a somehow "inferior" version of Wing Chun. Dare I use the word "modified" version? ;-)

It also assumes that the Pole was the foundation of the empty hand training, which is something we don't see in lineages other than WSL. It isn't the source of the empty hands in Pin Sun Wing Chun, in Tang Yik Weng Chun, in Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, etc. It also assumes that Ip Man taught that there truly is no actual application of the Tan Sau outside of training the elbow. But again, it seems Ip Man taught the use of Tan Sau to plenty of students as a basic! Should I go on?

I think Occam's Razor actually applies fairly well here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
-Incorrect inferences on your part KPM. You are off by more than a mile.
Guy etc are off by much more than miles.
I know William of Occam's razor quite well- I do not depend on Wikipedia. To apply occam's razor- you need first a clear proposition thesis,not sloppy ordinary language.- around which different hypotheses can arise

Ip Man's students did not all spend the same amount of time with him.Not an issue of IpMan "caring". All the people you mention were not consistently in the same "class"WSL opened his own school and episodically came back for lessons. The BJD was the course ending phase in IM's teaching. Besides WSL and HSK, Most just waved their BJDs around and some still do.. Guy is off in most of his statements.H e is likely to rattle on- but that is the nature of the net.
I suggest we say good bye to this thread. Eventually lots of people can feel offended. I dont want to put out more info that will offend more peole,
Lots of of idle speculation on this thred I wanot going to comment on this thread but the idle speculations were getting to be a bit much.
Wang Kiu as afreind of WSL help publicize WSL's encounters.

 

[Marnetmar]

Ugh.

 

[mograph]

To apply occam's razor- you need first a clear proposition thesis, not sloppy ordinary language - around which different hypotheses can arise.

Thanks for that. We need to be very precise when applying Occam's Razor.

 

[KPM]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know William of Occam's razor quite well- I do not depend on Wikipedia. To apply occam's razor- you need first a clear proposition thesis,not sloppy ordinary language.- around which different hypotheses can arise

.

The thesis is simply that Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun is different from everyone else's. Then the hypotheses are simply why this is so. Is that not clear? And Occam's Razor can be applied in many settings and is used in verbal debate. Certainly when "ordinary" language is in play. So I ask again, why do think it does not apply in this discussion?

 

[KPM]

Ugh.

Ugh is right! I'm trying to prevent the development of a whole other occurrence of "true believer" syndrome like we have in the William Cheung and Leung Ting groups. But, I probably shouldn't even bother and just let them do and believe whatever they want. When I can't even get Joy to back me up when they have insulted Ho Kam Ming along with every other senior student of Ip Man...... ;-)

 

[Vajramusti]

Ugh is right! I'm trying to prevent the development of a whole other occurrence of "true believer" syndrome like we have in the William Cheung and Leung Ting groups. But, I probably shouldn't even bother and just let them do and believe whatever they want. When I can't even get Joy to back me up when they have insulted Ho Kam Ming along with every other senior student of Ip Man...... ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------

Back you up?Ho Kam Ming holds his own position- doesnt need backing up in chit chat., from you. me, guy and co.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The thesis is simply that Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun is different from everyone else's. Then the hypotheses are simply why this is so. Is that not clear? And Occam's Razor can be applied in many settings and is used in verbal debate. Certainly when "ordinary" language is in play. So I ask again, why do think it does not apply in this discussion?

Occam's Razor is basically among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

 

[KPM]

Occam's Razor is basically among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Exactly! Which is what I described above!

Here's another line of thought for consideration. Even if Ip Man "didn't care sh!t" about anyone but Wong Shun Leung, as Guy maintains, I think most would agree that he cared about Wing Chun. So if he only taught WSL the "true" Wing Chun, why didn't he name him as his successor? Wouldn't this had made sure that people would know who had the "true" Wing Chun? Wouldn't this have made sure that there was no doubt which version of Wing Chun was the "real thing"? But he didn't do that. Why didn't Wong Chun Leung step up after Ip Man's death and declare that he was the "true" successor of Ip Man's school? But he didn't do that either. And if Wong Shun Leung looked around and realized that he was the only one that Ip Man taught the "true" Wing Chun to, why didn't he pick his own #1 student, make sure he knew this "true" Wing Chun very well, and then name him as his successor so that everyone would know who to go to for the "real" thing? Wouldn't this have cleared up any confusion generated by his students watching other Wing Chun lineages and wondering why there were differences? But he didn't do that either.

So here's another assumption that the theory that Wong Shun Leung learned his version of Wing Chun entirely from Ip Man must maintain....that there was a "true" version of Wing Chun that was taught only to one person, but Ip Man chose not to name that person as his successor, and in turn that person chose not to declare himself the rightful successor.

So. I propose that the simplest explanation is that WSL, being a talented and smart guy with a passion for Wing Chun, made his own innovations and interpretations to the Wing Chun he learned from Ip Man. For the thesis....why does Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun differ so much from the Wing Chun taught to other Ip Man senior students?...I think this is the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions. Therefore it is a fair application of Occam's Razor.

That's it. Everyone is free to believe what they like.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Could also be that Wong Shun Leung trained more than Wing Chun (boxing and possibly taiji) and later incorporated that in his Wing Chun.

Also isn't Wong Shun Leung the guy that allegedly trained Bruce Lee

 

[geezer]

Dont try to do what WSL did, instead understand what he understood.

...Take a system and make it your own, and realize that Everything to WSL was true from his point of view. Not necessarily yours or anyone else.

...Not many boxers box alike.

This alone would more than explain the differences between Yip Man's top students. Good people don't just imitate, they innovate.

Unfortunately traditional Chinese culture frowned on this kind of innovation, so instructors and especially their followers, devise other explanations such as being taught secret techniques, the true system, and so on. Of course money also plays a huge role in these kind of claims.

My main teacher was LT, and I have no doubt that he innovated quite a lot. And he made a lot of inflated claims. But I knew him well enough to know that, at least back in the 80s, he really did care about the quality and efficacy of what he taught. He was genuinely upset by people teaching what he believed to be poor WC.

Perhaps the same was true for other well known instructors in Yip Man's lineage. As you say, different boxers box differently ...and coach differently. And maybe that's a good thing.

 

[LFJ]

@KPM

I never said anything about YM teaching a "true" style to WSL and a "false" style to others. That would be stupid and a waste of time. I don't think he cared to dumb things down for people or give special treatment.

Simply that his teaching style allowed for students to fight, think, and ask questions. Most didn't fight, think, or ask questions. Most weren't around for very long. It's obvious YM didn't spend much time on these folks. He taught movements with very little or no explanation, and if you didn't catch it or ask, you didn't get it.

WSL fought, thought, and asked questions. So, his experience and learning differed from those who were left to their own imagination with no fighting experience or direction from a teacher but wanted to then go on and teach.

From WSL himself:

Interviewer: "How does the teaching of Yip Man differ from the way you teach?"

WSL: "Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude. This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job."​

 

[geezer]

@KPM"....If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job."

This is very well expressed. However, as a person who has spent decades teaching ceramics and sculpture (skill and art) to earn my living, I would like to point out that even the most utilitarian skill, when raised to the highest level, is recognized as art. Or, to use the Cantonese term for mastery of a skill through years of hard work: gung fu.

 

[LFJ]

 

[KPM]

WSL fought, thought, and asked questions. So, his experience and learning differed from those who were left to their own imagination with no fighting experience or direction from a teacher but wanted to then go on and teach.

----Is that not also saying that WSL made his own interpretations and innovations on his Wing Chun to make it better for himself? Is that not what I have been saying? But you yourself have pointed out how different WSL's Wing Chun is from everyone else's. So again, either WSL "fought, thought and asked questions" and made use of his own "experience and differing learning" to make his own interpretations and innovations,......or the alternative theory is that ONLY WSL was able to "get" Ip Man's "true" intent behind his Wing Chun. Which is the same thing as saying that only WSL was taught the "true" Wing Chun.