Part of the Confucian tradition is cultural conservatism, especially the concept of filial piety or respect, obedience, and devotion to your family, your parents and ancestors. Unlike the militaristic model of Japanese and Korean martial arts, Chinese martial arts were taught according to the family model, and bringing honor and respect to your kung-fu family, your sifu and si-gung are of great importance.
Consequently, after the passing of one's sifu, when great masters inevitably adapt and evolve the arts they have been taught, rather than proudly proclaim their innovations as we tend to do today in the West, the traditional confucian gentleman would respectfully claim that any apparent "innovations" were actually part of the traditional system all along.
So a modern Westernized master tends to take personal credit for innovation, perhaps even proclaiming that he has created a new, improved system (JKD?) while a more Confucian minded master (or one using tradition and purported "authenticity" as a marketing ploy) will claim that any novelty in their instruction is in actuality the "authentic" or "traditional" version.
Accordingly, when Grandmaster Yip over his long teaching career tried out different approaches with his students, he would have claimed that it was all original Wing Chun as he was taught by Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So, or perhaps by the mysterious figure of Leung Bic. He never claimed to be inventing a new version of his own. Similarly, his students never admit inventing new approaches themselves.
Even my old Chinese Sifu justified any changes he personally made by pointing out that they either came directly from GM Yip or from earlier versions of what GM taught in Fo'shan. It seems that not one of the major figures in the Yip Man lineage takes personal credit for the variance in their teaching. It's always claimed to be traditional.
)
