3 Points About TWC

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
61

sel:

somewhere else i read that he quit school to become a live in student of yip man in 1954. i will try to find it again.

Don’t bother, I have William Cheung’s “My life with Wing Chun” right here next to me. In it he states he continued his schooling through to 1958, even after he moved to the New Territories.

Exactly what relevance the circumstances of W Cheung’s university entrance has to this discussion escapes me. If you’re trying to imply that the truth is being stretched in WC’s accounts, that particular drop in the ocean seems rather unnecessary.

It is true that Bruce Lee only learned part of the system. However, he remains the highest profile YM student, had obvious fighting ability, and nearly every WC org in existence uses his WC training as a point of advertising when it suits them. Indeed, the significant portion of W Cheung’s book is about his relationship with Bruce Lee. There is about five times as much on him and Bruce Lee is there is with him and Yip Man. Ypi Man certainly didn’t seem to mind being associated with Bruce as a high profile student when the latter returned, famous, to HK.

Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it.

A movie? Well, jeez, then it MUST be true. Many Bruce Lee biographies have him being taught by WSL as well as Cheung.

In the book, Cheung states that when he started with YM in 1951 WSL was already training there. It is up to you to decide who is telling the truth.

Victor:

" don’t recall William Cheung ever saying that Yip Man said to him …

“Son…you’re going to be the new Grandmaster after I die”…I think William Cheung claimed that title as his right because of the fact that Yip Man did not teach TWC to anyone else. I agree with him."

In the book:

“… after some time, Yip Man decided that the inheritor of the [TWC] would be William Cheung.”

“By the power of the oath he had sworn to uphold, Yip Man’s knowledge of [TWC] was now the knowledge of the new Grandmaster, William Cheung.”

On whose authority?

If you’re making the point that W Cheung is a self-appointed “Grandmaster”, whatever that means, then we are in full agreement!

A rough chronology from the book (it’s pretty hazy on that):

1940 approx (he doesn’t actually say): born.

1949: meets Bruce Lee.

1951: starts training with Yip Man (Wong already there).

1954: completes learning the whole Modified WC system.

1955-58: Move in with Yip Man, learn the entire TWC system. Move to New Territories to avoid heat from gangs in HK.

Sometime between 1958 and 1972: Move to Australia. Gain Engineering degree. work for the Public Service in Canberra.

1972: Leave Public Service, open Dragon Inn Restaurant in Canberra. Yip Man dies.

1973: trip around Australia. Stop in Melbourne. Asked by Chinese community in Melbourne to set up “proper” Kung-Fu school. Starts teaching TWC.

As regards this guy who managed to counter William Cheung’s sidekick…never heard about that…even if true…didn’t Dan Lee once hit Bruce lee with a very heavy boxing punch…what did it prove about Bruce Lee…anything of significance?

“Even if true” … its as provable as all of the other matters being discussed here. Dave Crook could possibly find witnesses in the unlikely event he thought it was worth talking about, unlike WC and yourself regarding the stories under discussion.

The points I’d draw from this are: there are things about these subjects that you, me and everyone else don’t know, also that it’s laughable that someone who made Cheung slip over on a polished floor has made a career out of it. I agree that neither event proves anything about anybody’s fighting prowess. Rickson probably has to tap occasionally in training as well, but those who make him do it keep it in the academy rather than creating reputations and starting massive internet flame wars about it.

I think the point is made that you’re just as human as the rest of us around here.

And, like you, carrying no special imprimatur of authority or knowledge on the subject, but having as much right to express an opinion.

This conversation is heading down the nonsense road.

Yeah, but it’s fun.

62

thanks anerlich, that’s what i wanted to know. wong shun leung was not already there though in 1951. he started training in 1952 when he was 17.

now where is that supertramp album?

63

Anerlich;

Your remark about the polished floor is most welcome…Yes, I’ve reflected on it, and decided that something I’ve never bothered to mention on this forum but that you’ve just brought up is relevant to the overall discussion…since it would seem that everytime that William Cheung sneezes past a certain volume point someone is going to jump up and say that he’s losin’ it…

The floor in Germany during the Boztepe incident was a polished, somewhat slippery wooden floor…And careers are made!

Also…I’m not doubting your story when I say…“even if true”…

The bigger picture is that on any given day the better man can still lose…or…get hurt.

Furthermore, I believe that it WAS self-appointed on William Cheung’s part…but I also believe it was justified.

Which relates somewhat to my next point about Chan Wah Shun vs. Leung Bik - not necessarily in response to Anerlich - others keep bringing this up:

It’s about… the WILL…and the desires that stand behind and fuel the will; and the powers of one-pointed concentration that a strong will can provide; and the WILLingness to do whatever it takes to win…Let’s just sum all of this up for the sake of argument under the term…THE WILL…

I believe that this is the single most important ingredient in determining who will win a fight; obviously not the only ingredient
but the most important one…ie.- the will could be there, but the body is shattered - you lose…or, the will is there - your body is racked with pain…but you still prevail…whereas, someone else without a will as strong as yours would have allowed the pain to defeat him.

What’s the point? Who can say that 5’ tall man with a better system…HAS… to beat the 6’ tall man with a lesser system?

Perhaps the bigger man’s will was stronger…He might win on that day.

Rene: In your first post on this thread (during A) you said that…“Pien San and Chung Bo both emphasized flanking (taking the blindside) and attacking the center of gravity (the horizontal centerline) from there…”

Do they do this flanking with the triangle step? Or other kinds of steps?

Because the most important step (in addition to the entry) in TWC
in terms of flanking is the FULL SIDESTEP.

This is similar to the matador facing the charging bull…the matador stands in kind of a neutral stance waving the red “flag”
and then pulls his foot and the flag away when the bull charges by turning his whole body away…LIKE A DOOR COMPLETELY OPENING UP BY ITS HINGES A FULL 90 DEGREES.

Because if you’re not talking about this move then you have no point…Put that another way:

The Pien San and the Chung Bo systems you refer to are NOT doing the same TWC flanking moves without the full sidestep…
Which is the best sidestep I’ve ever seen…and there are a number of variations of it used in TWC as well…ie. -the footwork is slightly (but still significantly) different when one is in a front stance…rather than a neutral or a neutral side stance.

To be continued…

64

—Hey Victor, I’m not Jim, but since I have asked you the same question…

I don’t know why Wong Wah Bo may or may not have taught Leung Jan differently than others…and I don’t care!
And do you know why I don’t care?..Which is the same reason why I’ve ignored you about this until now…

—And see that’s the problem! People on these various threads have been making some very valid points that show the problems with the old TWC story and you have simply ignored them. This makes for a somewhat frustrating and pointless discussion. I’ll state again, try listening to what others have to say!

Because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to really know what happened back then. I see what you’re getting at, but who knows why some things may have been kept secret and other things not? Who knows why some people may have been favored over others?

—I think that the main point was to show that there appears to be a pretty major factual error in the old TWC story. The old story is that Leung Jan was the one that “modified” his WCK and then taught it to Chan Wah Shun. But going by the similarities in the existing lineages, if anyone actually “modified” WCK it would have had to be Wong Wah Bo and not Leung Jan. The old TWC story even provided a reason or motivation for the “modification” (to hide the “real” deal from CWS), but there would appear to be no apparent motivation for Wong to have modified what he taught. So this brings into question the accuracy of the “history” provided by TWC, and whether WCK was ever “modified” at all.

Sometimes…(not always, but sometimes)… the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

—True. And it sure seems that there is no history of TWC to be found further back than William Cheung.

And in the present, there is this TWC system that had to come from somewhere…William Cheung says it came from Leung Bik…and Yip Chun makes some very revealing remarks in that interview that seems to give some (and in my opinion, more than some)…but let’s just say…some…credence to William Cheung’s claims.

—I’ll say it again. Yip Chun repeated an old story about his father, not only in keeping with an old Chinese propensity to save face by not contradicting what others have said, but also to promote himself to some extent. The story likely originated when Yip Man first got to Hong Kong and was first starting to teach in order to promote his classes. This story is NOT told by Yip Man’s Foshan students. William Cheung’s version of the Leung Bik story is the only one to say anything about Yip Man learning an entirely different version of WCK. Prior to William Cheung the story was only that Yip Man learned more advanced theory and concepts from Leung Bik. It is very easy to see (to those willing to look) how the Leung Bik story could be somewhat “elaborated” upon to give Leung Bik a completely new style of WC totally unknown to anyone else. Stories tend to grow with the telling. And I will ask for a THIRD time…if you believe that Yip Chun supports William Cheung’s story, do you also believe that Yip Man taught his son the advanced knowledge he learned from Leung Bik as Yip Chun implies by his telling of the story? Victor it is time to stop ignoring the valid points being made that poke holes in the TWC history.

Keith

65

Hello Victor,

I don’t know why Wong Wah Bo may or may not have taught Leung Jan differently than others…and I don’t care!

Thats part of the problem. Did you even ever think it of it like that or did you always believe Leung Jan just came up with some wrong version on his own?

And do you know why I don’t care?..Which is the same reason why I’ve ignored you about this until now…

I would like to know.

Because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to really know what happened back then. I see what you’re getting at, but who knows why some things may have been kept secret and other things not? Who knows why some people may have been favored over others?

Ok. I agree with you! Yet! Using your own logic how can you you be such a firm believer in the Leung Bik story when its IMPOSSIBLE to know and most information shows its next to impossible to be true. Nobody knows but all we can go with is what is more likely and cross check the lineages to figure out what is more likely rather than less likley.

Do you know? Does anybody living in the present know?

I know what is more likley. All I have to do is check the two lineages coming from Wong Wah Bo and check other Red Boat’s lineages (like Yik Kam) and they are all ultra similar so.

Sometimes…(not always, but sometimes)… the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

Yes! Totally agree and thats why all we need to do is check the present lineages stemming from the Red Boat that can trace back to the Red Boat with a verifiable tree and then go from there.

And in the present, there is this TWC system that had to come from somewhere…William Cheung says it came from Leung Bik…and Yip Chun makes some very revealing remarks in that interview that seems to give some (and in my opinion, more than some)…but let’s just say…some…credence to William Cheung’s claims.

Yip Chun is only repeating the same old story that was used back then to support his dad’s so-called advanced theory/training with Bik. He makes no mention of learning another art.

I’ll have more to say later…Gotta go now.

Take care,

66

Jim R. sez:

Do you know? Does anybody living in the present know?

((Probably not- but definitely not you, Rene or I. So we have Ip Man’s story of who influenced him- what’s the big deal?
I dont see how turning these tea leaves-improves ones wing chun))

.

Sometimes…(not always, but sometimes)… the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

((Murky historiography and methinks-largely a waste of time))

67

Hey Joy!

Victor wrote that stuff not I!

Cheers,

68

Hi Jim-

Ok. Thanks. If so- sorry.

The logic applies to him too.
I couldnt distinguish his stuff from your’s in your last long post.
The paragraphs follow each other in the same script- or seemed to.

Of course I dont accept Victor’s “history” either. If TWC folks believe that stuff- i leave them alone. Its when someone claims that what they do is superior- then the burden is on them to show. Hiding behind stories wont do.

joy

69

Hey Victor,

We have several ways, I’m not sure if any was unique to Cheung Bo sijo. We have single and double angle steps, which I think the Yip Man folk call “triangle”. We also have a side step where you literally step sideways in Kim Yeung Ma. And we have a half-horse side step which comes from Fung Siu-Ching tai sijo. In application, it is all combined together as needed, so I can angle into or around, turn like a door into (though probably different than you – if Phil has a clip up maybe I can check and see?), or in other ways take the side or even back (even safer than side sometimes :wink:

BTW- Since you brought up the entry, is that something you believe William Cheung learned or something he developed like the elbow watching or the new knife form? I’ve heard an account that he developed the entry in Australia, at a hotel, after seeing a karateka use it and then exchanging with him. I’ve been unable to verify this, however.

70

Hiya Rene,

We have several ways, I’m not sure if any was unique to Cheung Bo sijo. We have single and double angle steps, which I think the Yip Man folk call “triangle”. We also have a side step where you literally step sideways in Kim Yeung Ma.

Same here. Its all KYM anyhow! JR

And we have a half-horse side step which comes from Fung Siu-Ching tai sijo. In application, it is all combined together as needed, so I can angle into or around, turn like a door into (though probably different than you – if Phil has a clip up maybe I can check and see?), or in other ways take the side or even back (even safer than side sometimes

Not sure about FSC’s half horse but the rest sounds pretty much identical to what we do.

Speaking of the back! Sifu has mentioned to me that Wong Wah Sam was so quick with his footwork that he would often get the back of his opponents very easily. We also have a little phrase that is used; Biu to the center, Tang to the side.

Regards,

71

Yeah, I think we call it 3-angle step, not triangle step, my bad, my terminology su(ks. It can look like this: |_| or like this _ or like
| |

this: |_\ , etc. However, not to confuse you with the diagrams above, it looks like the wooden man footwork but it’s not, because your stance is facing “out” along the vertical lines instead of “in” like when you’re moving around the wooden man. The main thing is that in my lineage (unlike many others), we usually fight starting with one foot forward, so this allows you to “triangle” out to the side and re-angle in with the other foot. We also have side-stepping from the forward stance, side stepping from the side-on stance, circular (huen ma) stepping, bracing stepping etc. If you combine all of these you have a nice menu of footwork to choose from. Not to say these are all the same as the William Chueng or other lineage’s footwork, there are definitely differences in training and application. But in terms of flanking in general, yes this footwork allows you to do that.

72

Oh, and the concept of stepping out to the side and re-angling in is very similar to Chueng’s usage of the T-stance stepping. Except in our case, again will usually start from the front stance, so we’ll pull back that front leg and swing it out to the side, then bring the rear foot up to the front foot (like your T-stance, except without switching feet) and step in with what was the rear leg, to re-angle in. The feet follow slightly curved paths like with huen ma. I think the difference being with the use of the T- stance, you would step in with that same front foot.

73

sel

You’ve asked a few times regarding GM Cheung’s education. If you met him you wouldn’t have to ask. Yes, he does have a degree in statistics. You’re stuck on saying that he didn’t go to school. Do you know that for sure?..grin.
To answer your last question my opinion is that Cheung looked after Yip Man when they lived together and when Yip Man went out on his “excursions”. They had to have been tight. Of course none of us will know all the truth for sure.

74

WHAT ABOUT THIS?

Even though part of what I’m about to say contradicts part of what my sifu, William Cheung, has been saying all these years -
I feel compelled to share with all of you a “theory” that occurred to me last night, by way of an explanation to the TWC mystery/controversy.

Could it be that the original system was NOT TWC and modified was NOT the “second” system of wing chun…produced by Leung Jan to fool Chan Wah Shun; but rather, could the truth be the other way around? That is:

Wing Chun - at least the lineage that Leung Jan originally came from - started out as “modified” - ie. pidgeon-toed, bent wrist bong sao, no FULL sidestep in the footwork, no entry technique, no blindside strategy, no rules of foot placement when in cross or parallel leg position…AND THEN…as time went on…and through
trial and error - more advanced pieces were added to the puzzle?

The horizontal and vertical centerlines used in the original system eventually hit a wall, so to speak, ie.- wing chun fighters were getting outflanked…the charge straight ahead strategy was being countered by kicks to the groin…by hooking punches, etc..and…over time…the ENTRY TECHNIQUE emerged as a means of bridging the gap safely…THE CENTRAL LINE THEORY with the ADVANCED FOOTWORK to support it also emerged to prevent the opponent from outflanking the wing chun fighter…the NEUTRAL SIDE STANCE replaced the neutral stance because it presents less target to the opponent…the rules of foot placement…the blindside emphasis…etc…in other words - EVOLUTION TOOK OVER.

All of these things - compared to what I learned in vingtsun with Moy Yat - have all made a huge difference in my ability to fight with wing chun. Now of course, people like Rene and others, will be quick to tell me that this is “just my opinion” based upon my own “subjective” experiences…BUT…it is also the opinion by now of hundreds (and possibly thousands) of people worldwide who have previously studied modified and now do Traditional Wing Chun…and in the words of General Schwartzkopf (of the first war with Iraq)…Quantity has a Quality all its own.

The fact that so many people who previously studied modified agree with what I’m saying has to be taken into account - (hopefully without resorting to the mindless claim that we all have been brainwashed by a powerful “marketing ploy”). You can’t brainwash a victory in a real streetfight brought about by a well-executed entry technique…a personal experience of mine…and of other people I have spoken to as well.

There has to come a point where this “subjective” observation graduates to “objective” phenomena. Anyway..back to this “theory”:

Eventually this newer “material” became very highly regarded AND VERY HIGHLY GUARDED…secret…This would account for why Leung Jan left out the more advanced stuff when he was teaching people other than his two sons; and besides, as Yip Chun points out in his interview…
“Master Chan Wah Soon was not quite an educated person,and it is better to be well educated in order for one to study the arts and get more understanding from them. As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Soon did not know much about it, so frankly Grandmaster Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he studied Wing chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienec and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult…”

And yet again (with the new theory in hand) let’s revisit the other quote from Yip Chun…

“Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea…”
And once more I have to remind all of you that given the simplicity of the horizontal and vertical centerline theories…it is highly unlikely that Yip Chun was referring to them…(Facing-the-point-of-contact…in terms of the strike or the kick coming at you…and the corresponding footwork that supports this…in other words…the central line theory…is clearly more complicated to grasp and perform with skill).

Am I onto something?

If you respond by saying…No, you’re just “on” something…drugs..
I’ ll laugh…for a minute…like I’m doing right now…but then I’ll expect some serious answers.

This theory would also explain why TWC doesn’t show up PUBLICLY until William Cheung decided to do so…As for Garrett Gee and the similarities of Hung Fa Yi to TWC…aside from repeating again that there is no evidence to support the allegation of a Cheung/Gee connection…I don’t know what to make of him.

As regards the story of Leung Jan changing things when deciding to teach Chan Wah Shun…if my theory is correct…he didn’t “suddenly” invent modified…he simply dropped all the TWC elements of the system when Chan Wah Shun was around.

As to why would William Cheung change this part of the story…
I’ll venture a guess…He wanted to deflect people’s attention away from the fact that the TWC elements of wing chun were always TRADITIONALLY regarded as something to be kept secret;
because he decided he was going to make a career (and money)out of teaching it worldwide (which I and countless others are grateful for)…and by saying that modified was invented by Leung Jan when Chan Wah Shun came along…William Cheung gives more credence to the fact that TWC is the advanced material.

I realize that I am leaving myself open to things like…“Well now, look at this - one of Cheung’s students’ is calling him a liar”…

the fact is…that’s not what I’ve said…I’m just giving you folks a “guess”…a “possible theory”…to explain certain mysteries that surround TWC.

75

Re: WHAT ABOUT THIS?

Even though part of what I’m about to say contradicts part of what my sifu, William Cheung, has been saying all these years -
I feel compelled to share with all of you a “theory” that occurred to me last night, by way of an explanation to the TWC mystery/controversy.

—Victor I applaud your effort to finally “think outside of the box.” Maybe you are starting to consider some of the points we have been trying to make?

Wing Chun - at least the lineage that Leung Jan originally came from - started out as “modified” - ie. pidgeon-toed, bent wrist bong sao, no FULL sidestep in the footwork, no entry technique, no blindside strategy, no rules of foot placement when in cross or parallel leg position…AND THEN…as time went on…and through
trial and error - more advanced pieces were added to the puzzle?

—I think this idea is very likely. However, I don’t think what you are calling TWC was in “full bloom” as early as Wong Wah Bo or Leung Jan. The changes made to “modified” WCK to turn it into TWC were likely made much later.

Eventually this newer “material” became very highly regarded AND VERY HIGHLY GUARDED…secret…

—Why? And if it became the favored method for winning fights with WCK, how could it remain a secret? Leung Jan was known for winning many challenge matches. If he was using these elements that you claim as unique to TWC wouldn’t people notice? Wouldn’t his students speak up and say “hey, why aren’t you teaching us that!”? I think all these theories of “secret Chinese method” are out to lunch.

This would account for why Leung Jan left out the more advanced stuff when he was teaching people other than his two sons;

—And why? Why keep it a secret from his students? To a large extent the reputation of the sifu, the kwoon, and the WCK style would rest upon the quality of students produced. Leung Jan had more students than just his sons and Chan Wah Shun. Why would he purposefully keep things from them? And you mentioned an evolution, implying that Leung Jan was not the only one involved in the development of TWC. If the evolution included Leung Jan’s teacher, then why don’t some of these elements of TWC show up in the other lineage that descended from him…Yuen Kay Shan WCK? And if these developments were underway with Leung Jan, then why didn’t they show up in what he taught at the end of his career in Koo Lo village? But then again, maybe they did! Both Jim and Rene have stated that they have footwork that is similar to that of TWC. And after all, “Pien San” WCK means “side body” …indicating an emphasis on what TWC calls the “side neutral” stance. Leave out all the ideas of things being so “secret” and your theory may have some merit.

Am I onto something?

—In the sense that you are starting to see that there are some holes in the old TWC rhetoric…yes! :slight_smile: In the sense that you are proposing an evolution in the development of TWC rather than a “dumbing down” to create “modified” WCK…yes! I have far fewer problems with this theory of yours than with the old TWC story.

This theory would also explain why TWC doesn’t show up PUBLICLY until William Cheung decided to do so.

—How does it explain that? Other than this mysterious emphasis on everything being secret for some unknown reason.

..As for Garrett Gee and the similarities of Hung Fa Yi to TWC…aside from repeating again that there is no evidence to support the allegation of a Cheung/Gee connection…I don’t know what to make of him.

—Me either. But even though there may be no currently known evidence of a Cheung/Gee connection, it is the theory that explains things the best.

As regards the story of Leung Jan changing things when deciding to teach Chan Wah Shun…if my theory is correct…he didn’t “suddenly” invent modified…he simply dropped all the TWC elements of the system when Chan Wah Shun was around.

—But then this idea would involve believing that TWC was “fully formed” with Leung Jan. How is that an “evolution?” If it was fully formed with Leung Jan, then we should see more evidence of it in what he taught his students. The beginnings of this evolution were likely present with Leung Jan, but I think the total composite recognizable as TWC came much later.

As to why would William Cheung change this part of the story…
I’ll venture a guess…He wanted to deflect people’s attention away from the fact that the TWC elements of wing chun were always TRADITIONALLY regarded as something to be kept secret;
because he decided he was going to make a career (and money)out of teaching it worldwide (which I and countless others are grateful for)…and by saying that modified was invented by Leung Jan when Chan Wah Shun came along…William Cheung gives more credence to the fact that TWC is the advanced material.

—Again, kudos for actually daring to contradict what your sifu has taught. I can go along with the idea that Cheung Sifu was motivated by the desire to promote a career in teaching TWC. What I have a problem with is this entire “traditional secret” method idea.

the fact is…that’s not what I’ve said…I’m just giving you folks a “guess”…a “possible theory”…to explain certain mysteries that surround TWC.

—Again, your effort is much appreciated. Thanks for finally attempting to think of something other than the “party line.” Now maybe you will consider going back and trying to answer some of the questions and points that were put to you earlier in the thread? :slight_smile:

Keith

76

Re: Corrections

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
[B]Stevo wrote;
“YM’s deep teaching to Bruce Lee? Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it.”

Phil [/B]

I didn’t write that. Someone else wrote it and I quoted it.

77

Re: sel

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
You’ve asked a few times regarding GM Cheung’s education. If you met him you wouldn’t have to ask. Yes, he does have a degree in statistics. You’re stuck on saying that he didn’t go to school. Do you know that for sure?..grin.
To answer your last question my opinion is that Cheung looked after Yip Man when they lived together and when Yip Man went out on his “excursions”. They had to have been tight. Of course none of us will know all the truth for sure.

lol, not stuck on it… anerlich set me straight.

there are people who know the truth. lok yiu and tsui seung tin were there. they did live with yip man. tsui seung tin was living with yip man the longest out of anyone.

quote tsui seung tin: “regarding the question of “closed door” students: yip man did not specify who would be closed door students. those people who had close contact with him and who trained solely with him, are generally regarded by the public as “closed door” students.
leung seung, lok yiu and i all lived with yip man for several years while learning wing chun. it is most likely that this is how the term “closed door” students came about.
there have been claims that there was more than one form of wing chun taught by yip man. i understand there has only ever been one.”

78

Stevo,
Oops. I thought it was you. My apologies.
PR

79

All of these secret TWC techniques can be found in Jui Wan WC as well. The t-step; facing point of contact; the full side step (though it’s not called that); V-line stepping; emphasis on blind side (but not limited to); the entry technique; these are all in our system.

Jui Wan trained under Chan Wah Shun (some say CWS’s son) in Fatshan and was junior to yip man. Later in Hong Kong he helped teach in the yip man school and also taught privately on the side. (Francis Fong; Jason Lau; etc…) Now… Leung Bik doesn’t even enter this picture. (unless you say the Leung Bik “secret techniques” knowledge came through Yip Man to Jui Wan. But that’s not supposed to have happened, right?) So from this can we conclude that CWS taught these methods?

Personally, I think the stripped down method came from Yip Man and his desire to simplify wing chun. I would even quess that many of his students had probably seen or heard of the extra footwork either from YM himself or through being exposed to other lineages, but instead chose to follow his lead in streamlining their wing chun. Maybe William Cheung liked the idea of these methods and got Yip Man to show him some. It’s not that far fetched if he did in fact live with Yip Man for a while. Then, he picked up the ball, eventually called it Traditional Wing Chun, and ran with it. Of course this is just speculation. I could be wrong.

80

“During the last Cheung seminar I attended, in may 2002, I asked Cheung his opinion of other WC sifus and his remark was basically that they were nobody and that he is the true Grandmaster.
In 1993 he openly sent out a photograph of Yip Man and his students; including Tsui Seung Tin, Wong Shun Leung and Leung Tin; saying they are all useless.”
- william cheung student

so what’s that all about?