Some YMWCK historical theorizing

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Hey Spencer!

It’s what I was attempting to imply, yes. I’m not trying to form a definitive answer here, as information like this is always a bit sketchy but what I am saying is that as far as I’m aware Lee Shing had always taught these two distinctive ways to interact. It definately wasn’t something added after WCK became so popular.

—I think you missed my point somewhere. It makes sense that Lee Shing had both ways to roll…the Poon Sao roll from his Pin Sun WCK connection and the Luk Sao roll from his Yip Man connection. The timeframe we are considering is before Yip Man went to HK or started teaching. It would have been a generation prior to Lee Shing. To my knowledge, Lee Shing was not a contemporary of Yip Man and Yuen Kay Shan, but was much younger.

I’m also not too sure, I don’t think anyone is, of exactly how long Lee Shing had studied Wing Chun before joining Ip Man in the early fifties and coming to the UK from HK. I wouldn’t write him off so soon as one of the developers of interactive training.

—I’m not sure what you mean by “interactive training.” I’ve strictly been referring to the development of the Luk Sao rolling platform from the prior and widely used Poon/Huen Sao rolling platform.

At this point I have to stress, the luksau I know is constructed of a bong, tan, fook rotation which is very easy and natural to train. It makes sense that this be inroduced first due to its simple softer defensive nature. The chisau however (tan, bong, fook rotation) is harder to learn and drill into the body as it doesn’t flow as easily, but once set is very offensive and hard in nature.

—I’m afraid I’m still not clear what you are talking about. :confused: B/T/F vs. T/B/F…what’s the difference? Are you talking about the Poon/Huen Sao rolling vs. the Luk Sao rolling? If so, then which is which? I don’t see the Poon/Huen Sao roll as really including a bong/tan/fook cycle like the Luk Sao roll does. Its primarily Huen!

22

[QUOTE=reneritchie;841800]KPM:

The nasty political arguing and story-telling back in the 60s and 70s centered around Yip Man and Yuen Kay-San. So you can slide on the sun glasses and begin the CSI: Fatshan credits on them… :)[/QUOTE]

One more reason to think that any YKS connection to YM’s WCK may have been covered up by the Leung Bik story in order to save face. :cool:

Let’s take the tact that Drew suggested. Its hard to cover up or suppress trained reactions and responses. Let’s assume that the WCK that YM seems to have taught the majority of his students (the pivot on the heels with 50/50 weight distro, powerful techniques up the middle) is the “baseline.” Now lets assume that the “other” WCK he learned came out at various times, and that different students picked up on it to a greater or lesser extent based on personal preferrences. If we look for the “departures” from the “baseline”, what I see looks much more like YKS WCK than TWC! Maybe Leung Bik was a real person and the WCK he did was much like YSK WCK. This would match what we know of LJ’s art thru Pin Sun WCK. Or maybe Leung Bik was a cover story for things that YM didn’t want to reveal from his past. Either way, I just don’t see YM practicing and teaching what we now know as TWC. But that’s just me! :eek:

23

[QUOTE=KPM;841823]—I’m not sure what you mean by “interactive training.” I’ve strictly been referring to the development of the Luk Sao rolling platform from the prior and widely used Poon/Huen Sao rolling platform.

—I’m afraid I’m still not clear what you are talking about. :confused: B/T/F vs. T/B/F…what’s the difference? Are you talking about the Poon/Huen Sao rolling vs. the Luk Sao rolling? If so, then which is which? I don’t see the Poon/Huen Sao roll as really including a bong/tan/fook cycle like the Luk Sao roll does. Its primarily Huen![/QUOTE]

The Poon/Huen, Luk Sao rolling platform you talk of is what I would refer to as ‘interactive’ training or Doi Lien in cantonese. Similar to two-man sets in Wushu (dulien) I see all chisau practise in this way. Sets against sets. Circles against straight lines etc.

B/T/F Vs T/B/F? Now don’t go getting me confused! :confused: These things are easier to ‘show’ and I’ve still to get that camera lol! It’s all in my mind I suppose. A btf cycle can also be tfb & fbt. A tbf cycle can also be bft & ftb. Both completely different looks and feel. Not too different from the pole & knives imho. Have you tried it out?

[I]Left Hand - start at fook sau. Cycle to fook sau by rotating the arm from fook to bong, bong to tan, and tan back to fook. Repeat until you hear and feel the wind :smiley:

Repeat with alternating variations on both sides and you’ll find, what I have been refering to as ‘luksau’ ;)[/I]

24

Leung Bik is a mystery.

In Fatshan, Yip Man’s early students never heard of a Leung Bik. In HK, Leung Sheung’s students claim the first they heard of a Leung Bik was when Leung Ting brought them the story a long time later.

Pan Nam’s documents claim Leung Bik died young and Leung Chun had little aptitude for WCK and didn’t learn.

Sum Nung remembered hearing Leung Bik fell out of a window at a young age and died.

Wang Kiu made a statement that Leung Bik was created by Lee Man as a way to more closely tie Yip Man (unknown in HK, teaching a little known art), with the folk hero Leung Jan, and that Yip Man didn’t care about marketing and said they could do whatever they like.

A connection to Yip Chun added that, publicly, there was a set story and no one should contradict it (publicly).

Lastly, in his own written history of WCK, Yip Man never mentioned Leung Bik, crediting only Chan Wah-Shun, and his (Yip Man’s) sihing.

On the flip side, several of Yip Man’s students specifically mention a Leung Bik connection, and Leung Ting’s interview with Yip Man specifically mentions him (Yip Man) learning from Leung Bik.

So, unless CSI: Fatshan goes to HK, finds school records for Yip Man showing he was at St. Stephan’s, and matching employment records for a Leung Bik at the docks during the same period, it will probably remain one of the many, many, many WCK mysteries…

Personally, since Yip Man’s art looks pretty much like solid, Fatsan WCK to me, I don’t know if it really matters whether he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, Ng Chung-So, and/or Leung Bik, as the stuff he passed on has been proven useful by generations, and the high skill level many of his students obtained doesn’t really make “history” a needful thing.

25

Comments on Rene’s post in brackets:

Personally, since Yip Man’s art looks pretty much like solid, Fatsan WCK to me,

((Ip man’s wing chun looks pretty unique to me. Each to his own))

I don’t know if it really matters whether he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, Ng Chung-So, and/or Leung Bik, as the stuff he passed on has been proven useful by generations, and the high skill level many of his students obtained doesn’t really make “history” a needful thing.

((True that. RATHER-MUCH TO THAT. But chit chat fills internet space and vacuums ))

joy chaudhuri

26

[QUOTE=reneritchie;841832]Personally, since Yip Man’s art looks pretty much like solid, Fatsan WCK to me, I don’t know if it really matters whether he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, Ng Chung-So, and/or Leung Bik, as the stuff he passed on has been proven useful by generations, and the high skill level many of his students obtained doesn’t really make “history” a needful thing.[/QUOTE]

–Very true! But then we wouldn’t be able to go off into speculative flights of fancy and drive Terence up the wall! :smiley:

27

Driving Terence up the wall is only reason anyone posts anything on the interwebs…

28

[QUOTE=reneritchie;841895]Driving Terence up the wall is only reason anyone posts anything on the interwebs…[/QUOTE]

I actually get paid to do it! :smiley:

Still, he has some very valid points to make sometimes. To himself :wink:

29

As I mentioned previously, if people aren’t disagreeing with you, you’re in the wrong place. Imagine weight lifting with no resistance. It’s the mental exercise that makes us all better.

(Notice I refrained from any dvorak.org/blog jokes…)

30

RR, I think it greatly depends on the sort of “mental exercise”.

People can put all kinds of mental energy and effort into nonsense, and it won’t develop anything “better” – just more nonsense.

If you are after anything resembling truth or moving toward truth, then you need to “exercise” critical thinking skills.

31

The problem with most critical thinkers is that they either forget or don’t acknowledge context or even the subjectivity of what THEY may see as “truth” or “fact”.

32

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;842006]The problem with most critical thinkers is that they either forget or don’t acknowledge context or even the subjectivity of what THEY may see as “truth” or “fact”.[/QUOTE]

Truth – reality – isn’t relative or subjective. If it was, the world/universe wouldn’t, and couldn’t, make sense, i.e., there would be no consistency.

The people who argue subjectivity/context are those that recognize that their views don’t hold up to critical scrutiny but nevertheless want to find some justification for their beliefs – which, by definition, are irrational beliefs (since they are not based on evidence and reason).

People find all kinds of ways of justifying their irrational beliefs. Much “mental exercise” goes into that.

33

Then why can’t I unify relativistic Terence with Quantum Terence? :slight_smile:

34

RR,

A good book I recommend is “Counterknowledge” by Damian Thomson.

Thomson’s definition of counterknowledge is “misinformation packaged as fact”. There seems to be much counterknowledge in WCK.

For a review of the book: http://newhumanist.org.uk/1696

35

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;842012]Truth – reality – isn’t relative or subjective. If it was, the world/universe wouldn’t, and couldn’t, make sense, i.e., there would be no consistency.

The people who argue subjectivity/context are those that recognize that their views don’t hold up to critical scrutiny but nevertheless want to find some justification for their beliefs – which, by definition, are irrational beliefs (since they are not based on evidence and reason).

People find all kinds of ways of justifying their irrational beliefs. Much “mental exercise” goes into that.[/QUOTE]

Did you even ready my post?
What people see as “truth” and what is “truth” are not always the same, heck not to long ago the truth was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and so on.
The truth for some is that we never landed on the moon and Lee harvey killed Kennedy and no one else was involved.

Truth…

36

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;842049]Did you even ready my post?
What people see as “truth” and what is “truth” are not always the same, heck not to long ago the truth was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and so on.
The truth for some is that we never landed on the moon and Lee harvey killed Kennedy and no one else was involved.

Truth…[/QUOTE]

Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? There is truth and there is belief. You are mixing the two up.

Truth is truth, in that it reflects reality, the way things really are. Beliefs are something different. People can believe things that are true and they can believe things that are not. To say that both categories are “true”, just individual “truths”, is nonsense and redefines the term; that equates reality with nonreality. When people believed that the world was flat or that qi flowed through our bodies, they were wrong. That was (and is) not reality, it is not how the universe works, and it is not truth. They may believe it but that’s not how things really are.

We know how things really are via evidence and sound reasoning, i.e., the foundational elements of critical thinking.

37

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;842065]Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? There is truth and there is belief. You are mixing the two up.

Truth is truth, in that it reflects reality, the way things really are. Beliefs are something different. People can believe things that are true and they can believe things that are not. To say that both categories are “true”, just individual “truths”, is nonsense and redefines the term; that equates reality with nonreality. When people believed that the world was flat or that qi flowed through our bodies, they were wrong. That was (and is) not reality, it is not how the universe works, and it is not truth. They may believe it but that’s not how things really are.

We know how things really are via evidence and sound reasoning, i.e., the foundational elements of critical thinking.[/QUOTE]

People tend to mix up belief and truth, it does indeed become subjective.
One man’s truth about the odds of getting shot in South Africa are not another man’s truth about being shot in Norway.

The is the issue with critical thinking, IF it can be done from an non-bias point of view, its great, problem is getting a non-bias point of view.

The reality of MY MA training is not the same as the reality fo yours or anyone eles on this board.

I am a big fan of critical thinking, when applied to specfics and not to generalizations.

38

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;842041]Thomsons definition of counterknowledge is misinformation packaged as fact. There seems to be much counterknowledge in WCK.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should elaborate here t? If the counterknowledge you suggest is present in WCK you’re suggesting misinformation. Much of it.

Fact is, only facts about WCK can be traced to Leung Jan according to most practitioners. Before then it’s all just gravy. I was taught more to rely on what I see and who I meet. My Sifu existed and so did my Sigung and Ip Man. That’s a fact. How they trained and taught is diffferent from other members of the same family. Fact. Publically, I was in the first western group to exhibit these methods. Fact. I’m now one of the only practitioners publically promoting Man Sifu in the World. Fact.

That’s enough for me. No Misinformation. No irrellevent info imo. What about a factual look into your training past & present? Why do you contribute to any forums?

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;842041]If you are after anything resembling truth or moving toward truth, then you need to “exercise” critical thinking skills.[/quote]

I’d say considering we’re talking about WCK here we all need to exercise physically and mentally. Healthy mind, healthy body if you know what I mean…