I started a thread on another forum, Southern Shaolin Kung-Fu Discussion Forum on the Subject of “Where did TWC come from”.
so for all you practicioners and instructors under Grandmaster William Cheung and his organization WWCKFA, or anyone else interested, there is some interesting thoughts there so feel free to visit and contribute. Follow this link to go directly there, http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=4317#post4317 .
James
I’ve seen all that stuff before, on KFO even.
Somehow I doubt I’d be welcome on that forum (and even if I was, I wouldn’t be for very long).
Deja vu all over again.
The problem with this theory is that TWC looks nothing like Chi Sim Wing Chun. I have no doubt that Yip Man worked out with or studied with people other than Chan Wah Shun. The list almost certainly included Ng Chung So, Yuen Kay Shan, and Chu Chong Man. But I seriously doubt he learned a separate form of WCK in its entirety. He likely did what most do and incorporated techniques or concepts that he liked into what he had already learned.
I think the simplest theory about TWC’s origins is still the best…William Cheung developed it on his own over time after he first moved to Australia based upon his own fighting experiences and his own body type/body mechanics. Following an old Chinese tradition, he attributed it to someone famous rather than taking credit for it himself.
Keith
I’ve thought the samethings, that TWC doesn’t really look like Chi Sim Weng Chun at all, and from what I understand the visual cues of Chi Sim remind one of traditional Shaolin more than anything. TWC looks more like HFY Wing Chun than any other system of WC out there, but I still haven’t seen any video of them.
As for GM Cheung developing it himself, I don’t know, I think he is a tradional man but IMO after reading about him and meeting him personally and spending time with him if he had developed the whole art himself than I think by now he would have admitted that. I’m sure he’s improved somethings and added on somethings also to the art of TWC, but I do believe that he did learn something different from Yip Man.
James
It’s possible to learn a whole system in a few months. So William could have learned a whole system from anyone. Maybe it was Yip Man and maybe it wasn’t. Since he was already a fighter then to turn a new system into something he could also fight with wouldn’t be that hard. Wong Shun Leung did the same by putting Wing Chun on top of his boxing skills.
I don’t think William Cheung invented a new complete system. He modified the system throughout his life which is no big deal in the interest of progress. It doesn’t prove he invented the system in the first place.
Maybe William learned it from someone other than Yip Man but for marketing said he learned it from Yip Man. Later he can’t change his story because then he would lose face. Makes some sense to me. But then you would wonder where is there any trace of that person and his fellow students friends or whatever? Then again where is there a record of the second art that Yip Man learned somewhere?
In my simplistic view the standard Wing Chun and William Cheung’s Wing Chun are two parts of a whole with the whole being the inside approach combined with the outside approach. The both approaches have elements of each other. Thus with William Cheung’s approach you can fight also on the inside as they do in Chi sau and with the other approach, you can also take the blind side or outside. But the emphasis in training is different. Both approaches have produced successful fighters. I think it’s no big deal that William Cheung learned another system from Yip Man. Only he knows for sure.
I have taught different things to different students as well. I am sure Yip Man was a smart man versed in more than one thing. A lot of us know several systems so why couldn’t he? Maybe for mass consumption he taught the easiest one? Maybe his studio was so full of people that there was no room to move, no room to do the pole and knives no time to teach the dummy. Maybe that’s where the secret idea comes from.
The problem with this theory is that TWC looks nothing like Chi Sim Wing Chun.
Keith here you discount the fact that if the theories are identical then the two systems don’t have to outwardly look the same.
He likely did what most do and incorporated techniques or concepts that he liked into what he had already learned.
Though here you come back and are more open to modern day theories that suggest if the concepts and theories are in place the systems don’t necissarily have to look identical to one another to have a connection. That is what the VT Museum has been reporting most recently that the foundation of a majority of Chinese Martial Arts is Shaolin Chin Na and that the principles & concepts from that foundation are present in Chi Sim Weng Chun and from there the same Shaolin concepts & principles (Tin Yan Dei & Saam Mo Kiu) were advance to the state of Hung Fa Yi Shaolin Wing Chun so as you say they incorporate the same original Shaolin concepts & principles but in a way that is not readily visible to the naked eye so there is in fact a reasonable explination as to how and why these 2 southern arts connect by way of the Red Boat via an art such as TWC which does express outwardly the visible connection you might need to connect the 3 by way of GM Wai Yan ->Chu Chong Man -> Yip Man-> William Cheung.
I am sure if you get the chance to discuss this topic with Master Meng he or other research members can explain in detail this connection. Along with that the study of Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi would be useful as well. Those that study these arts readily acknowledge the visible difference but recognize the obvious connection between the Shaolin principles & concepts. This was most recently visualized, realized and reported by Parlati Sifu after he was visited by and trained with Chi Sim Weng Chun Sifu Eckert. The evidence is out there but people may need to move beyond their preconceived notion of what does or does not constitute a connection.
Here’s my $0.02 FWIW –
KPM wrote:
The problem with this theory is that TWC looks nothing like Chi Sim Wing Chun. I have no doubt that Yip Man worked out with or studied with people other than Chan Wah Shun. The list almost certainly included Ng Chung So, Yuen Kay Shan, and Chu Chong Man. But I seriously doubt he learned a separate form of WCK in its entirety. He likely did what most do and incorporated techniques or concepts that he liked into what he had already learned.
**IMO there are no “separate form(s) of WCK” – there is only one WCK. Frazier doesn’t “look like” Ali who doesn’t “look like” Tyson who doesn’t “look like” someone else but there is only one boxing.
YongChun wrote:
It’s possible to learn a whole system in a few months.
**It depends on what you mean by “system”. If you mean “the textbook” on WCK, then sure – if someone already has been through a textbook on chemistry, it will be easier for them to digest another text of chemistry. But it is all just chemistry.
The text isn’t the subject matter.
canglong wrote:
Keith here you discount the fact that if the theories are identical then the two systems don’t have to outwardly look the same. . .
Though here you come back and are more open to modern day theories that suggest if the concepts and theories are in place the systems don’t necissarily have to look identical to one another to have a connection.
**I actually agree with you to a point. Instead of focusing on “concepts and theories” (which only help us use the tools of WCK), however, let’s instead focus on the tools of WCK - tan, bong, fook, jik chung choi, etc. We all share those tools. How we use them – how they “look” – may differ. But it is all WCK, just one WCK. Similarly, boxers, bjjers, etc. all share the same respective tools but may use them in differing ways.
Regards,
Terence
Originally posted by canglong
Keith here you discount the fact that if the theories are identical then the two systems don’t have to outwardly look the same.
What if the CHAN , A system core and based on is not the CHAN of Shao Lin eventhough it is claimed as Shao Lin?
How is the inward “look” hold?
PS:
It is my friendly reminder to just ignore the above question if one dont feel it is making sense.
It is my view that if one truely want to investigate system. then , check everything in details verified them with solid data. Otherwise, it is just an arguement which based on personally biased.
But, open up everything to let the data tell its own story might be an event that everyone is not ready for yet.
just some thoughts. if you dont like, ignore it.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]**I actually agree with you to a point.
Instead of focusing on “concepts and theories” (which only help us use the tools of WCK), however, let’s instead focus on the tools of WCK - tan, bong, fook, jik chung choi, etc. We all share those tools.
How we use them – how they “look” – may differ.
But it is all WCK, just one WCK. Similarly, boxers, bjjers, etc. all share the same respective tools but may use them in differing ways.
[/B]
beware if your Straight Sun Punch might be a local evolution version which is influent by the Boxing’s straight Jab.
Two person using the same Tan, one might be Boxing evolve , the other might be Hung Gar influence.
By Definition of 1850, a Tan sau without a Sickle is not a Tan Sau. anyone claim to have Tan Sau at 1850 will have to follow that definition. That is very difficult to swallow and enforce in todays world and things naturally must evolve, isnt it?
Thus, Tools doesnt tell alots if one doesnt investigate into the “concepts and theories” behind the tool.
There is not just one WCK today after hundred years of Localization Evolution. That doesnt make sense for the human existance.
Eventhought every WCK has its birth right to be respected equally.
There are lots of stories today about Wing Chun Kuen which is different. But if you look at the stories in Ip Man’s geneartion and above, great part of them is petty h0m0genius. Since old chinese place Ancestors honor and worship very high, but the modern chinese is drift away from that and history starts to varies, thus, lots insight can be seen here.
China, In the ancient time, there even cases that husband and wife will not share and/or learn from others art. that is how far things can go. They keep it seperated to have a clear family tree without mess up the ancestors’ family tree.
In additional,
about the history of lineage which related to Chan.
I will never buy a Shao Lin Chan Ancestor’s story without a clear lineage which the monk name recorded in the Chan lineage history clearly.
Upto today, that chan lineage family tree is still preserve pretty solid. if one is source from a chan monk within a lineage with the mind seal and the true lineage teaching. That Monk’s name has to be listed in the family tree. Why? because when one attain satori, some elderly has to certify one. and thus, the name recorded. otherwise, it is not likely that person even exist or that person is just a follower without inherit the teaching of chan.
As I mention above, not everyone is ready for the shade to be remove to reveal what is in there. Thus, ignore my post is the best if you dont like it. It is just my view. so what? you can ignore me.
See, that is a big different between starting a war or to state one is totally right, and to find out what is going on. I have no interest in war or who is totally right. my interest is clearlly in to find out what happen.
And, one importand idea of mine is There is great respect for Localization Evolution. Because ------ everything needs to be evolved to iterated to grow. So, I never hold fault on people who Localization Evolution, But in contradict, praise them. Without them, I dont believe WCK is going to be bloom like what we see today. They are the catalized of Grow and keep the art alive.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]
YongChun wrote:
It’s possible to learn a whole system in a few months.
Terence:
**It depends on what you mean by “system”. If you mean “the textbook” on WCK, then sure – if someone already has been through a textbook on chemistry, it will be easier for them to digest another text of chemistry. But it is all just chemistry.
The text isn’t the subject matter.
[/B]
Yes, the textbook, forms, drills, sticking hands, theories along with some fighting skill. With previous fighting skill the new stuff is easy to pick up.
The text isn’t the subject matter:
Joe:
Hey Terence, what subject are you taking this year?
Terence:
Chemistry.
Joe:
I see you got a new chemistry textbook.
Terence:
Yes, but the textbook isn’t the subject matter, it’s just a textbook.
Joe: But I thought you are taking chemistry for a subject and that’s the textbook for the subject.
Terence:
No Joe, you got it all wrong, I do Chemistry, I don’t take chemistry. Real people do chemistry. You see the difference?
Joe:
Well no Terence, I don’t.
Terence:
Well if you spent more time doing something instead of asking your pointless questions then you would understand the difference.
Joe:
Ok, Terence, sure, whatever.
Hendrik wrote:
beware if your Straight Sun Punch might be a local evolution version which is influent by the Boxing’s straight Jab.
**If you can’t make your “original” jik chung choi work against a skilled fighter but I can make my “evolved” one work, what is the advantage of the original? Fighters are pragmatists. They don’t do something simply because in the past someone did it that way, but rather because however they do it works best for them. And if the “original” is best then folks will find no reason to change.
Two person using the same Tan, one might be Boxing evolve , the other might be Hung Gar influence.
**So what? I can box with the influence of WCK too, but it is still boxing. The fighting arts are all very robust and open to lots of influences – this is why they grow and continue to be effective.
By Definition of 1850, a Tan sau without a Sickle is not a Tan Sau. anyone claim to have Tan Sau at 1850 will have to follow that definition. That is very difficult to swallow and enforce in todays world and things naturally must evolve, isnt it?
**Hendrik, who cares what the “1850 definition” was? I don’t care what the 1850 boxer did either, or what the 1850 juijitsu practitioner did, etc. If we are just trying to preserve some art the way it was trained or even used in the past just for the sake of sticking to that “definition”, then we are bound to be mediocre at best. How many folks are practicing caveman stick-fighting – hitting each other on the heads with clubs? That’s very original. 
Fighting arts constantly grow and evolve or they wither and die. The very nature of WCK is its adapatability – including to adapt it methods, training, application to suit the present.
Thus, Tools doesnt tell alots if one doesnt investigate into the “concepts and theories” behind the tool.
**The “concepts and theories” are there to enable us to get the most from the tools, they don’t exist independent of the tool.
There is not just one WCK today after hundred years of Localization Evolution. That doesnt make sense for the human existance.
**Boxing has been evolving for a hundred years too – still just one boxing.
Regards,
Terence
What does this have to do with the original purpose of this thread that I started, which is from another forum? Lets try to stick to subject matter and go from there please.
James
Sorry sihing – I didn’t realize you were the forum police. Nor did I realize that these threads couldn’t, like conversations often do, move off on related tangents.
FWIW, my response to Hendrik pertains to your initial question “where did TWC come from?” – that it, TWC, is just another example of the continuing evolution (change) in the transmission of WCK. Since it began with William Cheung, it seems obvious where TWC came from. Maybe your next inquiry can be where Wong Sheung Leung WCK came from.
Regards,
Terence
I think the simplest theory about TWC’s origins is still the best…William Cheung developed it on his own over time after he first moved to Australia based upon his own fighting experiences and his own body type/body mechanics. Following an old Chinese tradition, he attributed it to someone famous rather than taking credit for it himself.
I don’t see merit in making this more complicated than it has to be either. But I think there’s more to it than this.
My first instructor, David Crook, trained with William Cheung in the late 1960’s, while they both lived in Canberra and before the latter moved to Melbourne. The Wing Chun David learned in the 1960’s had the pigeon toed stance, the bent-wrist bon sao, and other “modified” attributes.
That WC IS different to the TWC which William Cheung started teaching in the 1970s after, he claims, Yip Man’s death released him from a promise to keep it secret. Thus there is, IMO, some credence to the two system thing, though the vows, Leung Bik and other parts of the story stretch credibility well past breaking point.
As for "Following an old Chinese tradition, he attributed it to someone famous rather than taking credit for it himself. ", I have to say:
LOL! 
William Cheung has never been reticent in taking credit for anything in which he has been involved. That is not meant to be insulting, why not take credit where due?, but it is a demonstrable fact. He has many good attributes, but humility is not the highest developed one.
As for the other forum, I have a feeling it would be much more of a “forum police state” than this one. Not interested.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
How many folks are practicing caveman stick-fighting – hitting each other on the heads with clubs? That’s very original.
There are quite a few Escrima and Arnis people doing that.
Ray
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]Since it began with William Cheung, it seems obvious where TWC came from. Maybe your next inquiry can be where Wong Sheung Leung WCK came from.
Regards,
Terence [/B]
Good one Terence. Ray
Originally posted by anerlich
[B]I don’t see merit in making this more complicated than it has to be either. But I think there’s more to it than this.
My first instructor, David Crook, trained with William Cheung in the late 1960’s, while they both lived in Canberra and before the latter moved to Melbourne. The Wing Chun David learned in the 1960’s had the pigeon toed stance, the bent-wrist bon sao, and other “modified” attributes.
That WC IS different to the TWC which William Cheung started teaching in the 1970s after, he claims, Yip Man’s death released him from a promise to keep it secret. Thus there is, IMO, some credence to the two system thing, though the vows, Leung Bik and other parts of the story stretch credibility well past breaking point.
As for "Following an old Chinese tradition, he attributed it to someone famous rather than taking credit for it himself. ", I have to say:
LOL!
William Cheung has never been reticent in taking credit for anything in which he has been involved. That is not meant to be insulting, why not take credit where due?, but it is a demonstrable fact. He has many good attributes, but humility is not the highest developed one.
As for the other forum, I have a feeling it would be much more of a “forum police state” than this one. Not interested. [/B]
I have to agree here with Anerlich, the both of us have been in the TWC organization and have actually meet the man himself (I would think Andrew has had more time with GM Cheung than myself) and to say that GM Cheung is full of humility is not his nature. If he invented it he would have said that, for SURE. And like the story Andrew related about his first instructor training with William back in the 60’s and learning the “modified” version of WC and then in the early 70’s changing things when Yip died, also to me gives creditability to Cheung’s claims. The question is where did Yip Man gain his knowledge, from Leung Bik or someone in the Chi Sim clan. The reason I ask this question is I believe there is no proof of Leung Bik ever living in Hong Kong. Maybe someone on here know’s more about this than I and can answer that question with some certainty.
Although the Chi Sim Weng Chun doesn’t resemble the Wing Chun of today in any visual aspects, the principals and concepts maybe similar indeed. So if this is true and since Yip Man did learn from Chan Wah Shun, it can be fair to speculate and say that if Yip did learn some new concepts from the Chi Sim clan, he could have just adapted it to his vast knowledge of the CWS WC he already knew, and eventually passed it down to William Cheung like the story I posted earlier on in this thread from the Shaolin forum, provided by William E. Maybe we will never know the truth unless Andres Hoffman has information passed to him about what exactly Yip Man learned that he hasn’t or won’t reveal?
James
Originally posted by t_niehoff
Since it began with William Cheung, it seems obvious where TWC came from. Maybe your next inquiry can be where Wong Sheung Leung WCK came from.
Regards,
Originally posted by YongChun
Good one Terence. Ray
Yes but if Cheung claims to have learned it from Yip Man then it didn’t come from Cheung. He named it Traditional Wing Chun, but this was strictly to distinguish himself from the others, a business move. I do believe that Cheung has done things to improve the art and changed things like forms and such, but in comparison to the other seniors of Yip Man, including WSL, it is still different in many other regards.
James
who cares what the “1850 definition” was? I don’t care what the 1850 boxer did either, or what the 1850 juijitsu practitioner did, etc.
If we are just trying to preserve some art the way it was trained or even used in the past just for the sake of sticking to that “definition”, then we are bound to be mediocre at best.
How many folks are practicing caveman stick-fighting – hitting each other on the heads with clubs? That’s very original.
Fighting arts constantly grow and evolve or they wither and die. The very nature of WCK is its adapatability – including to adapt it methods, training, application to suit the present.
------T
You can be totally right.
However, how is one going to evolve and grow if one has no idea about what type of platform the art is designed in? how is one going to Bench mark them if one has no idea at all?
As in CMA,
A broken arrow platform type art is not equal with a Full Arrow platform type art. because they come with a totally different power generation process.
One can keep bandaide a "use-to be but lost " Full Arrow platform art, keep Grow, evolve, making His-story, and adapt as one likes it without an understanding on what art type is it, and guess what ? what is the person doing?
At the end, it is generally default to a broken Arrow art .
and,
If one doesnt know both art’s pro-and con, one cant bench mark them.
Thus, I never buy the so-called ORIGINAL or the OLDEST type of claim. EVen in my own Lineage family. One can present me an OLDEST SET, quoting all the Kuen Kuit. But if he is doing BROKEN ARROW. I will tell him he is full of it.
I also dont buy the story of everything keep evolving and growing…etc is the best and pragmatic without have an idea of is it an apple tree or a coconut tree.
My position is clear, nothing personal but one better knows what is what before evolving or adapting, or making claim about what is what. Otherwise, one is misleading others due to one’s ignorant.
As I mention before, the broken arrow platform straight line guy will always has to Prepare about recovery move because those are the nature comes with the method/style.
The full Arrow platform circular guy will AWARE about resultant force equilibrium at every points of the circular movements and adaptation syncronized with sensing because those are the nature comes with the method/style.
(note that the full arrow platform and the broken arrow platform also make a hand techics different. The broken arrow platform will come with multiple structure KIU SAUs technics. While the Full Arrow will come with loosely structure Chi Sau. )
Nothing is good or bad, better or worst, just they are different. mix matching the two without undestand what is what is going to create confusion to a certain degree. and that called for keep making of HIS-STORY to bandaide the inadequatecy.
so what is your WCK? a full Arrow Platform type or a broken Arrow Platform type? According to SLT, the art is a full arrow platform type. However, if your WCK has evolved into a different type with a clear understand of the pros and cons, that is valid and nothing wrong about that.
life is about Localization Evolution and iteration. Nothing good or bad? and my bottom line is one has to be clear what happen. That is all.
Just some thoughts, again, if you dont like my post, just ignore it. just my view. you dont have to take it.
"My first instructor, David Crook, trained with William Cheung in the late 1960’s, while they both lived in Canberra and before the latter moved to Melbourne. The Wing Chun David learned in the 1960’s had the pigeon toed stance, the bent-wrist bon sao, and other “modified” attributes.
That WC IS different to the TWC which William Cheung started teaching in the 1970s after, he claims, Yip Man’s death released him from a promise to keep it secret. Thus there is, IMO, some credence to the two system thing, though the vows, Leung Bik and other parts of the story stretch credibility well past breaking point.
As for "Following an old Chinese tradition, he attributed it to someone famous rather than taking credit for it himself. ", I have to say:
LOL!
William Cheung has never been reticent in taking credit for anything in which he has been involved. That is not meant to be insulting, why not take credit where due?, but it is a demonstrable fact. He has many good attributes, but humility is not the highest developed one."
Andrew Nerlich is absolutely correct about this…I’ve been around William Cheung for 21 years now…and modesty will never be one of his virtues…Yes - he has added a number of things through the years that were/are uniquely his own (ie. - watching elbows and kness…based on his own fighting experiences)…
but the core principles and techniques of TWC - things that ARE very different than the first system he did - were taught to him by Yip Man, imo. William Cheung is too proud to have made the whole thing up and then NOT take the credit for it…and from time-to-time he’s said that he personally has come up with this…he himself has come up with that…but never the core forms, wooden dummy, strategies, and techniques that form the whole nucleus of what he calls Traditional Wing Chun.
As far as Chi Sim Weng Chun is concerned…I have seen first hand that there are certain similarities to TWC - though clearly two different systems with many non-similarities…Was it what Yip Man learned from Chu Chong Man - or from this one or that one - that accounts for the similarities?
Maybe.
Andreas Hoffman told me (after I sent him a very extensive TWC William Cheung compilation tape) - that TWC was closer to Weng Chun than any other Yip Man lineage Wing Chun he ever saw…
But what does it all mean?