[QUOTE=hunt1;1053119]T I am a bit surprised by your belief that what Sum said is true and factual.
On what evidence should we accept Sum’s word as fact? Being old and being good at WC are hardly grounds to believe in some ones infallible accuracy?
[/QUOTE]
That he was meticulous in attributing the various parts of his curriculum to where they came from (as I indicated).
Try to put this all in context. YKS was in his time, one of if not the most senior WCK practitioner in Foshan. Yip was one of the most junior WCK practitioners in Foshan (the last of CWS’s students). YKS was, like Leung Jan, a well-known and respected WCK fighter.
Lun Kai and Kwok Fu said YKS was always trying to steal Yips dummy techniques. Aren’t they just as believable as Sum? Even more so since you have 2 people telling the same story instead of one?
Where is this reported?
And stories like that really make no sense. The very notion of stealing someone’s dummy techniques is silly and when you see the YKS dummy you will see that it has the same as Yip’s dummy plus “more”.
Leung Ting in his book printed some of Sums written account of Yip Man. It was to say the least at great odd’s with Yips History even according to 3rd parties Yui Kay, who was also there and Lee Man who was there too?
Leung Ting’s book (“Roots”) is mostly nonsense and propaganda.
You still did not explain the rolling as part of the Chum Kui of Ng. Why does is it there in a form predating YKS/SM when you say YKS/SM invented it?
The “rolling” has always been a part of WCK (it occurs as a transition out of the huen sao platform naturally). It just wasn’t a chi sao platform until YKS/SN created it.
And, btw, how do we know when that was incorporated into Ng’s chum kiu? This was not a part of CWS’s chum kiu after all.
On what basis do you accept Sum Nung word as gospel and while there is at least as much if not more evidence pointing in other directions?
Much of WCK “history” has been rewritten by Yip supporters, like Lee Man and Leung Ting, to present Yip in a much greater role than was the case.
My reasoning is as follows:
-
There is no good evidence of the luk sao platform of chi sao being used in any branch/lineage prior to the YKS/SN/YM collaboration. All the older branches of WCK, including Gu Lao which descends from Leung Jan, use either the huen sao platform or like Pan Nam – who was taught by Yip’s own senior, Lai – the touch-and-go (not luk sao).
-
So we can say that luk sao as a chi sao platform began in the YKS/SN/YM era.
-
Luk sao as a chi sao platform is subsequently adopted into many other lineages/branches. Most often this isn’t attributed. Many think it has always been a part.
-
Sum, who is very meticulous (and seemingly honest) in recording what aspects of his “system” come from where/who (Cheung Bo, Fok Bo Cheun, Fung Siu Ching) including his own modifications (like adding the “bob” in the CK form), and we know was there when this development occurred, says it was YKS that developed it.
-
In that culture, a WCK senior would not have learned from a junior, or taken drills/exercises developed by a junior. That would have been scandalous, a loss of face.
-
Yip as a junior and not having finished his training under CWS, and having continued with Ng, would have likely sought other senior and well-respected WCK practitioners to learn from. YKS was YM’s “uncle” and one of the best-known, WCK fighters in Foshan (while YM was still a young pup).
-
In the culture of the time, YM’s sifu in name would always be CWS (who “opened his fist”) and his sihings. To publicly acknowledge that he learned from someone outside his family (YKS) would be considered inappropriate.
And I’d add that the YKS/SN curriculum is much more expansive and explicit that the YM curriculum, it much more organized, has retained more of the traditional elements (like keywords, the faat mun, etc.), has a whole training series that YM’s curriculum lacks, etc. In other words, if you compare the YM and YKS curriculum side-by-side, it is clear that the YKS curriculum has much more explicit info and is better put together.
