crap, I don’t know if that link is working or not. But you all may remember the thread where the site was posted:
http://gongsau.isportsdot.com/
The clip I’m referring to is WSL’s SLT.
On one website, they claimed Tan -> Jum -> Tan was Leung Bik’s version, but after Wong Shun-Leung lost a fight, Yip Man showed him Chan Wah-Shun’s version, which was Tan -> Gaun -> Tan. However, the Tan -> Jum -> Tan is the standard way the choreography occurs in other WCK branches, including Chan Wah-Shun in China.
Almost every teacher has their own “signature” within their sets. Once you know them, you can “trace” the set. Yip Man’s HK “signatures” show up in some suprising places, not suprisingly.
PINOCCHIO FREQUENTS THE FORUM
Rene:
Perhaps something needs to be repeated on this thread that will serve as a very clear example of what I’m talking about:
In a recent post on the thread TO BE OR NOT TO BE you said the folllowing while addressing Joy…
“There is no “clean” evidence Yip Man told anyone about Leung Bik, while there is direct evidence he never mentioned Leung Bik to his earliest students, and many of the other early students as well. So, we’re left only with hearsay…”
And later in the same paragraph you wrote…“there’s no reason to disrespect Wang Kiu or William Cheung…”
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN BY PHONY BEHAVIOR.
By no “clean” evidence what you’re really saying is that William Cheung’s claim that Yip Man told him about Leung Bik is not
“clean”…meaning…not believable…meaning that you, Rene…are assuming that William Cheung is lying.
But when others say that there was never any mention of Leung Bik - they’re telling the truth (according to Rene)…
NO REASON TO DISRESPECT WILLIAM CHEUNG?
Then don’t disrespect him by calling him (no matter how subtly you phrase it)…a liar!
And don’t think that when you hold William Cheung to one standard but everyone else to a different standard…that I…and others… won’t call you on it.
You’re a phony, Rene.
And your nose is growing.
Victor,
I answered that on the original thread you mistated the information on. Why do you feel the need to resort to petty personal attacks and name calling? Attacking me does nothing to prove your point or promote your argument.
Here’s the reply from the other thread, in case you missed it:
Victor,
Please don’t get your panties in a bunch. I wasn’t thinking of Cheung sifu at all in that quote, but to the “interview” of Yip Man by Mok Poi-On where Yip Man supposedly recounts, first hand, the story of meeting Leung Bik. This would be the only direct example of Yip Man (and not one of his students) relaying the story. However, it is “unclean” in that Leung Ting’s involvement in the interview, and the assertion that it was actually he, and not Yip Man, who fed most of the information to Mok, makes it “unclean” or “tainted”, and thus it returns to the neutral state for me.
And please don’t drag the conversation down with name calling or petty political personalism. I have no interest in trading insults with you. I understand where you’re coming from, but I also understand the culture the story is coming from (which your repeated use of buzz words like “liar” shows you’ve yet to acknowledge).
If you really believe you have a logical and convincing argument to present, I’m very much interested. If not, I’ll leave you to your beliefs.
Hendrik,
Your post on Chan Wah-Shun raises some very interesting points. Clearly, Leung Jan wasn’t the only one teaching WCK in Foshan at the time, so why would he have to challenge Leung Bik or Leung Chun? Also, Leung Jan’s pharmacy, which he reportedly inherited from his father, was not taken over by any of his sons, and was sold to another family. Chan Wah-Shun didn’t take over the pharmacy, where Leung Jan taught, so again, what did he gain by challenging either of them? And even if he did, and beat them at WCK, wouldn’t they have sold the pharmacy, and not Leung Jan? Could Leung Bik have moved away before Leung Jan sold the pharmacy, thus explaining why his children didn’t take it over? And if they did, it couldn’t have been because of Chan Wah-Shun challenging them, since Leung Jan was still alive and still teaching. Very confusing! Koo Lo is a very important point as well. It was Leung Jan’s native town. He retired there. He taught his nephews, and others there. Perhaps their records could be helpful? But then, as Jim has said, Koo Lo records don’t indicate Leung Jan’s children having significant skill/knowledge in the art. Also confusing.
Jeremy, Hendrik,
Very interesting discussion on Buddhism. If you can keep it free from personal attacks, I think it will turn into a great thread of its own.
Rene Ritchie
P.S.
Rene:
Let me also add something else to my last post concerning your non-credibility:
Earlier on this thread you wrote…“And I have no political agenda. Doesn’t make a flying flip of a difference to me one way or the other, other than historical interest…on the other hand, you (Victor) have a vested personal and political interest in propagating the story…”
Who the f##k do you think you’re kidding…Rene!
Even the people who agree with you about TWC have got to be laughing in their boots right about now!
You’re part of a wing chun sytem and lineage…OF COURSE YOU HAVE AN AGENDA…just like everybody else…Trouble is…
YOU’RE LYING ABOUT IT… while I’m not hiding the fact that I want to promote TWC…
but I’m promoting it - as on the first installment of this thread -with logical arguments…not by trying to fool people about where I’m coming from.
Again I’ll say it…you’re a phony.
P.P.S.
Rene:
But of course you have no interest in trading personal insults with me…
Because you want to keep your (not-so-hidden-any-longer) agenda under wraps, and the way to do that is to stay away from anything other than the guise of…how did you phrase it earlier?..HISTORICAL INTEREST… yes, that was it.
If you can hide everything you say (warts and all) under historical interest… instead of being a human being like the rest of us with self interests at stake… people might not notice that Rene is promoting himself, his book, his kung fu lineage, etc…
But people have noticed…and you’re now exposed.
Re: 3 Points About TWC
—OK Victor. Rather than acknowledging or answering points made in the other thread you chose to start a new one. So be it.
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.
—Good policy.
-
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).
—Another good policy. I also do not think that the Cheung/Boztepe incident proved anything.
-
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:
—It is no more compelling “in toto” than it was before. It still has problems, despite your claims to logic.
these things did not exist back in the 1970’s-early 80’s within Moy Yat Ving Tsun…(further similar sentiments snipped).
—Most of the things you mention are TWC’s “claim to fame.” But they are not what was used to define “modified” WCK in those original articles. Maybe you need to define for us exactly what you think “modified” WCK consists of. I still maintain that no one is practicing what those original articles defined as “modified” WCK.
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.
—Too complicated to have been invented by William Cheung? Maybe you are not giving your Sifu enough credit for talent and ingenuity! 
It may be an different interpretation of WCK concepts, but it is still WCK concepts. It is not VERY different, and it is not too big of a stretch to see how someone may have come up with this interpretation based on “standard” YMWCK theory.
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.
----These stories being repeated by Yip Chun and Yip Ching have been addressed by both Rene and I in the other thread. You didn’t respond to our answers then. Do I need to outline it for you again?
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.
—Incredibly suggestive (!) only of someone unwilling to contradict old stories and someone seeing a way to help line their own ricebowl. The clear implication of these stories is that Yip Man taught this “real” knowledge to his sons. Does William Cheung support that idea?
D) I’ve yet to hear anyone say that Yip Chun is lying about this…also very suggestive.
—Of what?
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.
—I also addressed this on the other thread, which you chose to ignore. We don’t know the timeline of this storie’s invention. If it was when Yip Man first arrived in Hong Kong, then he likely didn’t have a crowded kwoon right from the beginning. The story may very well have been used to increase Yip Man’s fame and the size of his classes. And since it was Lee Man that convinced Yip Man to start teaching openly and it is also said that it was Lee Man that invented this story, then it seems likely to me that it was very early on and used as a “marketing” strategy.
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.
—There is also not one shred of evidence to support TWC existing prior to William Cheung or HFY existing prior to Garrett Gee. All other WCK lineages have a verifiable past, more than one person representing the lineage, people that were around that can “vouch” for them, etc. All except TWC and HFY. Seems strange to me. And HFY has elements that come from YMWCK that Yip Man himself created. Seems strange to me.
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?
—Exactly! Where are other people that knew about or learned TWC prior to Yip Man? Where are the other lineages of TWC descending from Wong Wah Bo’s teachings? Where are the other people that learned TWC from Leung Jan or Leung Bik? Why, after 21 years, is there no shred of evidence for the existance of TWC prior to William Cheung?
Each fact (A to G) is suggestive…Together they have a CUMULATIVE FORCE that is very powerful.
—Only to someone with a vested interest in believing in them. Your logic is not full-proof, as I have pointed out above and as has been pointed out in the other thread. There are still problems with your story. Jim has pointed out an excellent point in the other thread. Wong Wah Bo did not teach only Leung Jan. Fok Bo Chuen was also his student. But what Fok Bo Chuen taught to Yuen Kay Shan is very similar to what Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo village and neither is similar to TWC. So the “modified” WCK would have had to originate with Wong, not Leung Jan. And why would Wong teach Leung Jan two versions of WCK, and why would he teach Fok Bo Cheun only the “modified” version? It just makes no sense. TWC’s own stories say that it is designed to give the smaller fighter the advantage over the larger. You have made a big point in saying that Chan Wah Shun had not only learned the “inferior” and “modified” version of WCK, but also that he had a poor understanding of WCK concepts/theories. Yet your own stories say that Chan defeated Leung Jan’s sons. That just doesn’t make sense either.
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
—Laugh all you want. The fact remains that there are problems with your logic and that what you have lined out above proves nothing. You can believe what you want, but if you want the rest of us to believe it as well, then you have some explaining to do. Stories don’t suddenly become true by force of repetition. Even after 21 years.
Keith
Keith:
Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu, with it’s central line concepts and footwork that does not appear in any other non-William Cheung
Yip Man lineage…
Is here to stay. It was true in the 80’s, the 90’s…it’s true now… and will always be true.
Sorry if that doesn’t fit in with your plans.
It is too complicated for William Cheung to have made it up…
again I’ll repeat the words of Yip Chun…
…“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…”
A huge clue that backs up William Cheung’s claim that Chan Wah Shun didn’t get the central line theory with its footwork…because Yip Chun couldn’t possibly have meant the horizontal and vertical centerlines…these ideas are just TOO basic.
“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 because Yip Chun supports William Cheung’s claim that Yip Man learned the REAL (knowledge of) Wing Chun (with better understanding) from Leung Bik.
I’m beginning to suspect that you folks who talk about pidgeoned-toed stances and what-have-you have never really seen the footwork that I’m referring to in this thread…
It’ goes way beyond the pidgeoned-toe or not-to-pidgeon toe
business…That stuff is just the very tip of the iceburg.
You need to look deeper into TWC footwork in order to be taken seriously.
Victor,
What of the story that William learned another style of Wing Chun while hiding out on the mainland? Could that have been Hung Fa Yi or something similar?
The story of William being the ONLY one with “traditional” Wing Chun seems credible when you don’t have the rest of the history behind Wing Chun in evidence. In other words, it works when you are back in the 70’s and there is little in the way of knowledge that there are even other branches of Wing Chun.
Yet we now know where Leung Jan himself retired to. We know that he taught his system there as a series of points in Koo Lo. Why doesn’t the Koo Lo system look like TWC?
We have a parallel line of Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun and we see the similarities in form, concepts and movement. It doesn’t look like TWC either.
There are a lot of others like this which don’t have the similarity towards TWC–interestingly enough Hung Fa Yi does in it’s choreography of forms.
Additionally, what was the form of logic behind choosing who to teach this secret version to? Leung Jan withheld it from his top student Chan Wah Shun to keep it in his own family (so in other words, he NEVER showed the real form to ANY other students than his two sons during the lifetime of his teaching, both before Chan Wah Shun and after?).
So, Leung Bik breaks this tradition and shows it to Yip Man?
Yip Man breaks this tradition and does not teach his own sons, or his most senior students in Hong Kong, but instead shows it to a teenager who is a non-family member who leaves his master’s side and only at the beginning of his studies and departs for Austrailia?
If the tradition was to pass on this secret art from family member to family member then Leung Bik and Yip Man both violated that.
If the tradition was to pass on this secret art to the best student then Leung Jan violated this by not passing it on to Chan Wah Shun.
If the secret art was superior? Then why did Chan Wah Shun defeat Leung Bik?
MORE NON-CREDIBILITY
Rene:
What Leung Ting says or doesn’t say is no reason for you to return to the “neutral state”…since you don’t believe Leung Ting.
William Cheung says that Yip Man told him about Leung Bik…but you (Rene) wrote …
“There is no “clean” evidence Yip Man told anyone about Leung Bik…”
SO BECAUSE YOU DON’T BELIEVE LEUNG TING MEANS THAT WILLIAM CHEUNG’S CLAIMS ARE ALSO NOT “CLEAN”?
Again I have to say…Rene…you’re just not credible.
Over-reaching logic.
The fact that TWC doesn’t show up in Leung Jan’s other students’
wing chun doesn’t mean that he didn’t teach TWC to Leung Bik…
How can you assume that? How do you know what Leung Jan’s motivations were towards these other students…?
Very faulty… (because it assumes too much)… reasoning.
Victor,
Why did the inferior Chan Wah Shun beat the supperior Leung Bik?
Why did Yip Man not mention Leung Bik in his records, thought he mentioned Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So, and others?
Why would Leung Jan teach his sons the secret style, but Yip Man would not?
Tom
Guess I’ll wade in:
The main problem I have with Sigung Cheung’s version of history is not mentioned in Victor’s original post.
That is that Yip Man taught him alone the “secret” TWC system and told him in private that he had inherited the “Grandmastership”, whatever that entails besides a hifalutin’ title. Without telling anyone else so his (YM’s) special regard for W Cheung could be verified. The combination of alleged unverifiable secret tuition and alleged events which back up claims by W Cheung which IMO an impartial observer would regard as grandiose cannot avoid arousing ire and scepticism. Unless indisputable proof that the events occurred appears (which will never happen so far down the track) such scepticism will continue, justifiably.
Still, I have two instructors who trained extensively with Sigung Cheung, one as far back as the late 1960’s in Canberra. Their stories indicate that W Cheung’s claims cannot necessarily be dismissed out of hand.
Sifu David Crook, who has been teaching KF in Canberra, AUS since 1969, trained with W Cheung while the latter lived in Canberra. Whoever cast doubt earlier on Cheung’s academic qualifications knows sweet FA, he definitely attained a degree in AUS and also worked in the Public Service as well as teaching KF. If you’re going to question YM’s deep teaching to the teenage W Cheung, you need to do the same with Bruce Lee also.
Cheung’s assertion that he did not teach TWC until after Yip Man’s death in 1972 in accordance with a vow WC made to YM has some support from actual events: David Crook, who trained with him prior to 1972, was taught the pigeon-toed stance and the bent-wrist bon sao of “modified WC”; Rick Spain, one of his earliest Melbourne students (1974) who was with him for 23 years, was taught the parallel foot neutral stance and straight wrist bon sao of TWC.
David actually knocked Sigung Cheung out, at a time when Emin was probably just getting out of daipers. They were sparring, and David drew WC’s sidekick while fighting with his arm intentionally left low. he caught the kick and swept it upwards, WC went A over T and banged his head on the floor.
Instead of making a career out of it as some would (and have), Dave was s****ing himself, expecting a severe beating when GM Cheung came to. Perhaps because there were other people around but also to his credit, W Cheung just smiled evilly and said “good technique”. Dave never regarded this as anything but a freak stroke of luck, which might as easily have turned bad as good, and certainly not as any sort of victory or something to boast about.
This story may annoy some, but frankly I find the demigod status that some instructors expect and some students promote to be extremely disappointing and in desperate need of bubble-bursting.
fa-jing is correct about there being an “extra” TWC form, ASLT (there are in fact a couple versions of it, with more or less footwork). You may be right about everything else you said about it.
As for the HFY parallels, they are intriguing but there’s even less proof of that than of the subject under discussion. Even the tow major protagonists (Cheung and Gee) say it is baseless. GM Cheung is hardly reticient in claiming credit for his accomplishments or his impressive relationships, and if there were an angle in this that he could use there is no doubt that he would do so. I couldn’t see Benny Meng passing up the benefits to himself and the museum either.
LOL at Victor for saying he’s going to present a reasoned coherent argument and then going ad hominem at Rene. Even if Rene did have an agenda, you descending to abuse and name calling does nothing for your cred. Stick to facts.
I just cranked up some Gary Numan and Joy divsion MP3’s myself. I didn’t have a Brian Lewadny mullet (not enough hair), but I did used to wear skinny ties and red and yellow jeans.
A lot of this went on in the 70’s too. How about some Led Zep, flares, and incense? I changed my .sig in homage!
Anerlich- When WC made the change in the style of wing chun he taught how did he explain things to his students? Did he just walk in one day and say guess what Yip Mans dead now I’m gonna teach you the real stuff ! Did David learn TWC? Was the TWC taught to Rick Spain the same as WC taught in America in the 80S? WAs there ever a point where WC taught both versions of wing chun?
hunter,
good questions but I don’t really know the answers.
David and William had a falling out prior to the latter leaving Canberra in the early 70’s. Not exactly unusual where the latter is concerned. I don’t think it’s right to go in to detail but suffice to say it was serious enough for David to consult a lawyer about it. They patched it up, but about 15 years later.
I think William only started teaching fulltime when he went to Melbourne (in Canberra he worked in the Public Service), with a different set of students. And probably, though I don’t know for sure, he started teaching TWC around this time. As I said before, my current instructor, Rick Spain, was taught TWC from day one.
David treats the whole traditional/modified thing as a matter of supreme irrelevance, though he has told me that while he doesn’t give the stories much credence or attention that William’s footwork “was definitely different to everyone else’s”. He also has some interesting stories about the origin of certain programs marketed in the past by the WWCKFA.
Rick Spain has told me he believes the training in Melbourne in the 1970’s is somewhat different to what has been taught in the US, but going into detail would be inappropriate for me. It’s also fair for critics to say “well, he WOULD say that, wouldn’t he?”
Victor,
I haven’t mentioned my books except when you brought them up, and haven’t promoted them or my lineage at all in these threads. I don’t care to. You can name call all you want, you can make up any pretend stories about agendas or whatever, but none of that serves to make your argument any more compelling, any more believable, or anything even approaching logical.
If anything, I sympathize with you. You passionately believe something you cannot factually support or articulately argue, and your level of frustration must be high. Perhaps you need to step back, take a breath, and work out an alternate method for conversation. You do yourself, and your cause, no service with this manner of behavior.
For my part, I will not address that aspect again, but will stick with reasonable discussion of the facts (or lack thereof) at hand.
Have you had a chance to type out the Cantonese for Side Neutral Stance yet? Or how central and center line are differentiated in Cantonese? Do you have any idea why Leung Jan would have to sell his pharmacy to another family if his sons didn’t leave until after he died?
Keith, Andrew, well said. If Cheung sifu did go from 1972 to 1974 with a completely different systematic approach, it lends credibility to him not just coming up with it during the interim. However, while it fits the idea of a “vow”, it also means that Yip Man was no longer around to either confirm or refute the claim (“Yes, I did teach him that and it did come from him”, or “what the heck, I never did anything like that and never met that guy!”)
Teacher Parlatti brought up a good point, that the Chueng Style seems too in depth and consistent to have been “made up.” However, the regular Yip Man style, is the same. It is way too in depth, precise, consistent, complete etc. to be a “dumbed-down” version of wing chun. Sure it could be a simplification of some things, even the most popular legend states that wing chun was created as a simplification and refinement of shaolin techniques, however it would be a calculated simplification and streamlining, in the interest of efficiency in teaching (or whatever other reason), not a modification to deliberately make it “worse.” That’s the biggest problem with the story we hear from William Chueng, the motivation for creating the “Chan Wah Sun” version is supposedly to put him at a disadvantage, and that simply is not logical.
Furthermore, there are a lot of different versions of Wing Chun out there, and again, the reason for this cannot be to make a less proficient fighter. The skills of the foremost practicioners of each lineage prove that this is not the case.
What are the real reasons for differences? Well my teacher’s theory is that it is a domino effect, one student remembers it slightly differently from the other, and these differences add up with each successive generation. Furthermore, each teacher will refine the system slightly according to their understanding and vision for the development of the art. Some may even be influenced by other styles. Ultimately though, the reasons for these differences aren’t so important, what is important is how well the art works for you, the individual practioner.
Now we all have heard that Yip Man taught different things to different people as he progressed in age, and according to his location (Mainland China vs. Hongkong). For instance, although my teacher studied the popular Yip Man style, his bon saos and tan saos are performed with a straight wrist, which Anerlich understood to be particular to the W. Chueng variation. Again, we are not taught to drag the feet. And we do have a “square stance” with toes pointed forward, which we use for some training exercises.
Who knows what Yip Man told W. Chueng, anyway? He may be simply repeating aspects of what he heard from his teacher. And if Chueng is correct, then it was Yip Man who was a liar, presenting a “modified” version of Wing Chun to the world as the real deal…
I think Rene’s in the No Spin Zone!
For instance, although my teacher studied the popular Yip Man style, his bon saos and tan saos are performed with a straight wrist, which Anerlich understood to be particular to the W. Chueng variation. Again, we are not taught to drag the feet. And we do have a “square stance” with toes pointed forward, which we use for some training exercises.
Hold your horses, bub. I never said, or “understood”, the stance or bon sao configuration, or stepping, or anything else to be unique to TWC. HFY, and, so it appears, your Sifu, and doubtless other lineages as well, have similar signatures.
W Cheung claims that TWC uses these signatures, and others, where “modified” WC uses pigeon toed stances, bent wrist bon sao, etc. Neither he nor I said that no other variant of WC might not use them as well. I have the infamous “Comparison of Traditional and Modified Wing Chun” article by W Cheung handy if you feel it necessary to continue this aspect of the discussion.
Problems I have with the version of history under debate is the signature attributes of TWC aren’t in fact all that unique. And that it blithely ignores at least some of the many non-YM lineages.
I don’t care if you wanna argue with me or call me names. But MISQUOTE me - WATCH OUT!