3 Points About TWC

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1 
  1.  In my haste to defend my Sifu against those who try to convince the world (and themselves) that he's lying about the TWC-Leung Bik-Yip Man-William Cheung connection, I've had to correct myself several times about names, dates, facts, etc...
   So yes, I will slow down and check everything more carefully before posting it;and in time you will see that my faults have had to do with speed and style...but not substance.

  2.  I won't be goaded into revisiting the Cheung/Boztepe

event-that-proved-nothing again without first doing some serious reflection on what is to be gained by it (other than allowing others to try and deflect the subject at hand away from a path they can’t deal with).

  1.   My position on the history/lineage issue needs to be put forward in an A to Z fashion so that it can be judged in toto and not picked apart piecemeal...the total argument is much more compelling when examined in this manner. So here it is:

    A)   The system I've been studying/teaching for the last almost 20 years with William Cheung is clearly a different system

than the one I studied previously for 8 years with Moy Yat…
The Central line theory, along with the sidestepping and other footwork that supports it; the Entry Technique to bridge the gap;
the fighting on the Blindside strategy; the use of the fighting on the horizontal centerline strategy AFTER gaining the superior position via the central line strategy…
these things did not exist back in the 1970’s-early 80’s within Moy Yat Ving Tsun…(For more details on TWC theory and why it virtually eliminates the possibility of your opponent outflanking you - see my post on the TO BE OR NOT BE thread which starts with the words: “Firstly…I’m not worried about any social engagements…”)
These things did not exist within what I saw and experienced when Victor Kan visited Moy Yat’s school; the same for Mak Po (a student of Yip Man who first introduced Moy Yat to Yip Man); nor did they exist within the video I have that was done by Wong Shun Leung (put out, if memory serves sometime around 1980)…with the single EXCEPTION of WSL turning his vertical middle-of-the-body centerline several times to face the point of contact while blocking some hook punches …a central line TWC concept…though WSL did not use the TWC footwork that usually supports such a move.
Nor does it exist on the Leung Ting video I have;
nor does it show up in the countless magazine articles containing photos I still have about wing chun since 1975, other than William Cheung’s. All of this is very suggestive - ie.- William Cheung’s TWC is substantially different than the rest of any Yip Man lineage wing chun I have ever seen over the last 28 (and I’ve seen quite a bit)- the minor exception being the aforementioned Wong Shun Leung video.
So after all these years I know that TWC is real; it’s not an illusion; it does exist; it’s too complicated to have been invented by William Cheung, and it’s very different.

B) Yip Chun’s account in the book entitled WING CHUN
MARTIAL ARTS (on page 100) includes the following:
…“Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems to be untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea…”

How much more of a clue do you want to back up William Cheung’s claim that Chan Wah Shun didn’t get everything from Leung Jan? (ie.- the centraline theory and corresponding footwork). Yip Chun couldn’t possibly mean the horizontal and vertical centerlines…two of the most simple and basic of concepts.

C) Yip Chun goes on to say…“As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it…when he studied Wing Chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult…”

INCREDIBLY SUGGESTIVE! Yip Chun again supports William Cheung’s claim that Yip Man learned the REAL (knowledge of) Wing Chun (with better understanding) from Leung Bik.

D) I’ve yet to hear anyone say that Yip Chun is lying about this…also very suggestive.

E) The Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story that the Leung Bik-Yip Man connection was fabricated in order to bring Yip Man more publicity is clearly ITSELF a fabrication, since Yip Man already had a crowded school with nothing to be gained by having his name associated with someone (Leung Bik) who no one even knew of… evidence of a post- 1982 attempt to discredit William Cheung’s claims with a lie.

F) The existence of Garrett Gee and Hung Fa Yi…
which is a remarkably similar system to TWC (and I say this based upon the Garrett Gee flier and two different magazine articles (with photos) I have and conversations with my friend Sifu Miguel Hernandez (a student of Moy Yat)…who attended a Garrett Gee seminar…(many others have said the same thing)…

This suggests that TWC concepts, strategies, principles and technigues are not sui-generis to William Cheung ( ie.-he didn’t make it up…unless someone can prove that he did (hardly possible given it’s complexity)…and then taught it to Garrett Gee;
or the reverse - Gee invented it and taught it to Cheung…

But there is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support this.

G) Neither has any proofs (claims) surfaced that William Cheung learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man…
Where is this mystery man (that some have suggested) or his decendents over the last 21 years?

Each fact (A to G) is suggestive…Together they have a CUMULATIVE FORCE that is very powerful.

Conclusions: Leung Bik (TWC)- Yip Man - William Cheung.
With the strong possibility that there was somewhere along the line a TWC/HFY connection.

This is what I believe. This is the logic I’ve employed in reaching my conclusions. At this point I am content that neither myself, nor William Cheung, nor anyone else within the World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association has to prove anything more. If you don’t believe the story - it’s up to you to disprove it. LOL

2

Hi Victor,

  1. Excellent, a well appreciated approach.

  2. Very wise. It does nothing but harm all of WCK

  3. We’ll go point by point.

A) Your personal experiences are your own, no one can argue them. However, they are your own, and so constrained by you. Just because you didn’t see something, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. Also, just because you later saw something you hadn’t seen before, doesn’t mean it was missing, it could also have been added. Therefore, this element I feel does show that William Cheung taught you (and others) different than what was available to you (and others) in your place and time (NYC in the 80s). In my own personal experience, when I first saw TWC, I didn’t think it was outlandish or strange or un-WCKish, it just looked to have a different preference and emphasis, and to different methodology so as to use that engine.

The root concepts are nothing unique, however. Pien San and Cheung Bo both emphasized flanking (talking the blind side) and attacking the center of gravity (the horizontal center line) from there. Likewise, there are concepts to deal with extensions of the centerline. What’s strange, however, is that while TWC seems to share these concepts, they’re thusfar exclusively referred to in English (side neutral, central vs. center, blind side). That in itself could add to people not seeing a connection.

B) Many people have written about Leung Bik. Leung Ting has it in his book as well.

C) See B.

D) “Lying” is something you keep mentioning because, IMHO, you’re not taking Chinese culture into account. Are you familiar with “fishing stories”? This has a much more expansive nature in China. They’re not considered “lies” in the Western sense, but are part of the culture of mythology, folk lore, ancestral worship, etc. that has over 5000 years behind it. Again, you need to understand the culture, not label the example. Second, are you familiar with “filial duty?” It would be impolite to explain Yip Chun’s reasoning as it would be impolite for him to offer any other account.

E) How do you know when the story was created? How do you know if it was needed or not? Hung Ga, Choy Lai Fut, all these other competitors had rich histories and prominent, known ancestors. WCK was almost secret until that time. If you understand the culture, and the “fishing story”, you won’t wonder what value linking in the Wing Chun legend and solidifying in an absolute heir to Leung Jan hook would add. You do raise a good point, however, that the stories about Leung Bik being a story could involve politics all their own.

F) The HFY folks don’t seem to think there is any connection at all between the two :P. Joking aside, this is another good point, but until Cheung sifu or Gee sifu clarify what if any connection, recent or ancestral, exists between them, it remains only potentially helpful.

G) Very true, however, there is also no proof he learned it from Yip Man. That’s both the brilliance and flaw to stories of secret training. However, on the same point, where are Leung Bik or Leung Chun’s children and heirs to verify the story? Chan Wah-Shun’s family is still around, Ng Jung-So’s, Yip Man’s, etc.

Conclusion: No honest, unbiased person can make any solid determination. Everything splits too evenly down the middle. Any conclusion reached, then, will be personal choise, based on personal preference, and a belief. And that’s fine, but please don’t throw around words like “proof” and “logic” where it is not possible.

3

RENE:

The logic is right there, staring you in the face…You “refuse” to see it due to your own political preferences and inclinations.

4

Victor,

Perhaps, like others, you’re confused by Canadian English. Let me rephrase:

What you state is personal opinion, not fact. What others state is also personal opinion. There is no logic in most of the arguments. I thusfar have not been convinced either way.

And I have no political agenda. Doesn’t make a flying flip of a difference to me one way or another, other than historical interest, and in that sense is about as interesting to me as whether the Tse brothers or Lai Wing taught Lao Daat-Sang. (Though, undoubtedly, it has more widespread repercussions).

On the other hand, you have a vested personal and political interest in propagating the story, as it is central to the way TWC has been marketed over the last 20 years. And that’s fine. You’re a good, loyal, trusting students, and your sifu must be very proud.

(As to logic, dude, please. Spock had one eyebrow raised through your whole post, maybe two!)

I respect your opinion and your personal belief none the less.

5

How’s this for logic: According to Chueng’s story, Chan Wah Sun was looked down upon by Leung Jan for his position as a money changer. Yet, it was Chan Wah Sun who represented Leung Jan’s school in challenge matches. Wierd huh?

How’s this for logic: Chan Wah Sun was indeed uneducated, and couldn’t grasp the finer points of Wing Chun theory. Yet, students of Yip Man such as Tui Shung Tin, Leung Shun, Ho Kim Man, William Chueng etc. teach systems that are quite refined in theory. Shedding doubt upon the claim that all these (except Chueng) were taught a system based on lack of theory.

6

how’s this for logic: The toes-pointed in stance is claimed by Chueng to be a detrimental modification, purposely making the stance worse. Yet, it fits right in with Wing Chun’s training needs, providing a stretch to the hips and improving the structure of the fighting stance. Furthermore, it helps in the delivery of unpivoted side kicks, which have certain specific usages.

7

Sorry to beat the horse (live or dead,) but I went and looked up your post in the other thread. What you say is either incomplete or not true. In Hong Kong Yip Man style, it is not as you say that there is no flanking, to the contrary, the triangle step is very usefull in flanking the opponent and changing the angle of attack. Additionally, the footwork of the wooden man displays other methods.

PS I studied TWC for a brief time, and it is a good system. I just don’t really think it’s better than the others. More like there’s pieces of the puzzle, some branches have some, some branches have others.

8

Hey guys,

Those were excellent views/posts!

Victor,

I think the point your missing is this!

Your TWC may be something with different emphacis and other elements from what you have been exposed to but the truth is it may not come from Leung Bik no matter how much you want to believe it.

Like I have said a few times now! For that to be true then Wong Wah Bo would have had to teach his two pupils differently! But, fortunately we can check the lineages and they are ultra similar so!!! Do you feel Leung Jan would have been taught 2 different WC systems (one correct and one wrong) and Leung Jan’s classmate would have only been shown the wrong way?

Regards,

9

I won’t be goaded into revisiting the Cheung/Boztepe
event-that-proved-nothing

Ha! no but you still made sure that your opinion of the encounter was reiterated.

A note on proof. It is a widely misunderstand concept. There is no such thing as proof. It exists only in our minds and is a label we attach to external evidence when we have reached a conclusion based on that. The cheung/boztepe incident proved something to some, something different to others and nothing at all to many I’m sure.
However you can make a judgement on how objectively people evaluate the evidence before them based on many factors. I was able to evaluate the evidence offered by the cheung/boztepe incident from a neutral standpoint and it and the preceding and subsequent behaviour of the individuals involved certainly proved something to me.

10

To wit: Things I found in TWC but not in the other Yip Man Style:

Fully pivoting while delivering front kick
More detailed circular footwork

Things I found in the standard Yip man style, not in TWC:

Exchange Step
Triangle step

We were not taught to drag our feet during the forward stepping, but different branches may vary.

Of course there are more differences, but not to where they are completely missing from one or the other system.

11

fa_jing,

While I believe the term “liar” shows a lack of understanding with regards to Chinese martial “fishing stories”, there is a lot in the TWC story which has proven to be factually challenged, to say the least.

Your example of “toe-in” is one of those. Several other arts beyond WCK use toe-in and variations of it as part of their footwork. These include Northern and Southern arts, with no connection to Leung Jan (obviously). Some, like Bagua and its Bajibu, are even famous for their footwork. Likewise you can see this footwork in Fujian derived systems, even in transition.

Another example is the old claim that Leung Jan had no other non-family students besides Chan Wah-Shun, when its well known in China he taught several others, mostly the other wealthy shop owners in his social circle, including Lo (Chu Yuk) Kwai, Ngao (Dai Shan) Shu, etc.

Yet another is the old claim that Yip Man had no students in Foshan, when its well known in China he taught a half-dozen students including Kwok Fu, Lun Gai, etc.

Errors are bound to crop up, especially when trying to relay oral transmissions from previous times and different places. And due to that fact, IMHO, its impossible for anyone to base objective, legitimate, mature, professional historical discussion solely on one person’s unsubstatiated childhood memories of late night chats.

12

BTW- Am I the only one who thinks there should be some cool retro 80s music on this thread, you know, to go with their issues…

13

questions of logic

master leung seung began training with yip man in 1950. (age 32)
master lok yiu began training with yip man in 1950. (age 28)
master tsui seung tin began training with yip man in 1951 (age 19)
master wong shun leung began training with yip man in 1952 (age 17)
master william cheung claims he began training with yip man in 1951 (age 10). he further claims that he was a live in student of yip man from 1954 to 1958 (age 13 to 17) in 1959 age 18 he left hong kong for australia.

here are my logical questions. can somebody give me some logical answers?

i am wondering why a master would choose to teach a child/teenager in secret, behind the backs of leung seung, lok yiu, tsui seung tin and wong shun leung.

i am wondering if a child/teen of age 10 to 17 (particularly one who had dropped out of school)would have the intellectual capability to understand and retain the full secret system of yip man’s “real wing chun” (including the intricate nuances of wing chun movements and the profound theory of wing chun) taught to him and no one else.

i am also wondering how william cheung gained entrance to an australian university when he dropped out of school at age 14

14

master wong shun leung began training with yip man in 1952 (age 17) master william cheung claims he began training with yip man in 1951 (age 10).

It’s my understanding William Cheung began training after Wong Shun-Leung, making the 1951 date possibly either a typo, or a miscalculation.

BTW - If we continue discussing this, do we have to grow mullets and watch old A-Team and Knight Rider reruns???

15

At a Wing Chun bowlling party in the 80’s :wink:

16

lol charlies angels too!! (just to throw some babes in there)

no it is not a typo. i was going to wonder about the date anomaly as well, but i thought i should limit my wondering. lol

just going to put on a duran duran vinyl now.

i could also wonder whether it’s true that yip man didn’t teach kids… but then i’d probably have to get my adam ant outfit on too.

17

One thing I dont understand. there is a school in NYC Chinatown that claims Leung Jans son Leung Chun as their source. This teacher has been teaching for a long time it seems and is not " secret". Its family tree coincides with the aussie school that claims Leung Chun through a different source. Could not someone go to this school and see if what they teach is more like TWC or regular old Yip Man wing chun. While this wont prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt it surely will give an clear indication. Unless Leing Jan only taught the good stuff to just one son>

18

Old Jong - Like, you looked so totally gnarly, dude!

19

Hunter,

The Australians had a web site up for a while and the pictures looked like Foshan WCK to me, not TWC (not 50/50). Glenn from that lineage posts here occasionally, I think, not sure he ever mentioned them being much like TWC.

20

http://hk.geocities.com/talkhandking/wong_slt.asf

I’ll shut up after this one. But, I was told by my TWC instructor that there was an “extra” traditional form called Advanced Sil Lum Tao. One of the differences between this form and regular Sil Lum tao, was an extra section after the pak + palm strike section. I have read that Yip Man changed this section to add a Tan, Gon sao sequence to help Wong Shueng Lueng. I suppose that’s not proveable. However, in the above link, you will find WSL performing both sections, the original one and the modified one. I think that Tui Shung Tin also performs it the original way. This is the same as the extra section taught to me as part of Advanced Sil lum tao. Which begs the question, how did the modification of the sequence low pak, tan, jut, jom, palm strike section to tan, gan, tan, palm strike end up in the secret “original” TWC forms?

PS if you have trouble viewing the above link, try right-clicking and selecting “save target as”