Wing Chun ancestor Leung Guan Moon’s written history:
Wing Chun comes from around 1810 from “snake” and “crane” shape boxing. In Chuanjiao, Fujian, Yim Yee was going to be arrested by the government so he fled with his daughter, Wing-Chun, to hide and sold tofu for a living. His martial arts were healthy, beautiful, and effective and he taught it to Wing-Chun. One day while she was washing clothes by the river she saw a snake and crane fighting. She watched and learned from them and later she mixed the inspiration with her knowledge of Fujian Shaolin styles and made it suit herself.
More clues about the Fusion which kills the “theory” that this is only Hendrik’s idea on our roots.
originally posted by Jim Roseland
I am not going to repeat our past discussions over and over. Certainly you can believe what feels right for you.
Jim,
Early in our past discussions wasn’t it clear that this is about the most likely scenario and not about what an individual might “feel”. The only people repeating things are you regurgitating things from the Grandmaster’s webpage it appears you copied and then weren’t even kind enough to link in your article http://emeiqigong.com/ and hendrik posting without new evidence the same old theory over and over again, irregardless of how many times his theories are proven to be his_story.
If you are looking for the long pole and dummy then one need not look any further than what wasw mentioned in the article. Snake and Crane. The Crane has the Wooden Dummy and Pole. Check out the attachments:
Jim,
If you want people to take you seriously you shouldn’t try to pass yourself off as an authority one minute and a novice the next just to make a point. Yourself a student of koolo wing chun should know that as recently as 1950 while teaching wing chun Grandmaster Yip Man’s training of the wooden dummy was kept secret from the public as well as other kung fu schools. Secondly the Wooden Dummy Hall and Muk Yan Jong was said to have come from Shaolin Temple Others go so far as to even credit Jee Sim with its creation.
Jee Sim is also credited with devising the “wooden dummy hall”. http://yeeshungga.com/tradition/history/
According to Chi Sim -
The Muk Yan Jong contains three sets: Tien Pun (Heaven), Dei Pun (Earth), and Yan Pun (Human). In them are contained the fighting methods of the Muk Yan Hong, the Wooden Dummy Hall of the Southern Shaolin Temple. The Wooden Dummy is not used just to strengthen forearms or shins, but with the sensitivity found in Chi Sao.
This is a translation into English of applications supposedly related to the famous Wooden Dummy Hall of the Shaolin Temple. 108 Movements of the Shaolin Wooden Dummy Hall
compiled by Winnie Cheng
So clearly modern day adaptations of the dummy have progressed from its close quarter combat applications originally intended to sharpen the skills of Shaolin monks and then Wing/Weng Chun and Choy Le Fut practitioners. Recently we have all seen pictures of Preying Mantis, Bak Mei, western boxing karate and many others all trying to incorporate this training device into their particular practices so your post of a recent picture proves nothing. If you really want to discuss these things in an open and honest manner you must first recognize and acknowledge the Shaolin signature when you see it and then present your case anything less will be seen for what it is deception on the part of a biased writer.
originally posted by rene ritchie
Yik Kam supposedly did the same WCK as Wong Wah-Bo. What Leung Yee-Tai did remains a mystery as there is no separate Leung Yee-Tai branch (as there is a separate Dai Fa Min Kam branch through Fung Siu-Ching). He just, again supposedly, wrote it down a hundred year earlier or so. (The legendary fusion of Ng Mui and Miu Shun having been done generations before, just like the Yip Man version of the legend).
“Supposedly” Rene, you above all other people should understand a little about Chinese history yet it comes as no surprise that the Author of “Legends of Wing Chun Embers of the Shaolin” you are so quick to say “they” all use the term Shaolin but you are quick to join them as well and it appears you will say or do anything to make a quick buck or support hendrik contradicting yourself in yet another post, your words lose credibility with each new post.
What is true today is even more so in the past when a wing chun practitioner admits to having only learned siu lin tau but not chum kiu or biu jee it means that student has not learned the entire system. When only one family out of five can trace their roots back to Emei and white crane it make sense they are the abberation not the norm. Funny how these rules only change when someone applies them to hendrik’s his_tory. Your patronizing of hendrik only hinders the acceptance of these facts because he views these facts as derogatory and it his attachment of trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill that will not allow him to stop bashing Shaolin in the name of bringing Cho Ga Wing Chun to a place it can not otherwise reach.
Wing Chun comes from around 1810 from “snake” and “crane” shape boxing. In Chuanjiao, Fujian, Yim Yee was going to be arrested by the government so he fled with his daughter, Wing-Chun, to hide and sold tofu for a living. His martial arts were healthy, beautiful, and effective and he taught it to Wing-Chun. One day while she was washing clothes by the river she saw a snake and crane fighting. She watched and learned from them and later she mixed the inspiration with her knowledge of Fujian Shaolin styles and made it suit herself.
Jim,
No one said snake and crane aren’t relavent because they are just as relavent to Shaolin as any other art if not more.
When you apply hendrik’s theory to only the Cho Ga Wing Chun Family you run into far fewer problems, let us know how many problems you run into then.
She watched and learned from them and later she mixed the inspiration with her knowledge of Fujian Shaolin styles and made it suit herself.
All supporting facts you add even report Shaolin as their origin.
Won’t you need to take up the study of Emei to support your theories before taking them any further. Most of the people here discussing wing chun train wing chun and learn insights that way will you be doing the same.
The article was originally going to be called: Discussion with the Gatekeeper .
All information was presented from discussion with GM Fu. Yes. Even the history was discussed at lunch/class. A training partner and Sifu was with me for all of this. Much stuff on his web page was discussed. Those were the key history points he mentioned so I passed them on in a couple of paragraphs to start the article.
Go to RR’s web site to check the links I have posted to GM Fu’s site.
No one said snake and crane aren’t relavent because they are just as relavent to Shaolin as any other art if not more.
Great. Please feel free to show us which Shaolin Snake art would contribute to the Paradigm shift that created Wing Chun. I also look forward to you breaking down your Ging/Chi cultivation for your Wing Chun art.
Yi Chuan clutivate the (keng ging)
Taiji cultivate (peng ging)
Mantis cutlivate (Gan Tun Geng)
White Crane cultivates (Chuen Ging)
Wing Chun cultiavte etc and why/how? What is the resulting Ging and Qi?
Thats all that matters to me. My aticle breaks down the Snake/Crane theory and how it relates to our art. Guess what? Even if you dont agree that is ok to!
Great. Please feel free to show us which Shaolin Snake art would contribute to the Paradigm shift that created Wing Chun. I also look forward to you breaking down your Ging/Chi cultivation for your Wing Chun art
Jim,
Master Meng explained why this was surface level analysis at best and we already went over this with hendrik as well but just in case you missed it here it is one more time.
Everyone in support of this theory has used either the term fusion or mixed. No one is debating against one family Cho Ga Wing Chun mixing or fusing their own particular art. Weng Chun County White crane + Emie 12 Zhaung + Yik Kam = Cho Gar Wing Chun.
Originally posted by Hendrik
If you want to invent your version or style mixing different arts, that is respectable. But dont expect others to buy your story about thier style is derive from yours
So again looking in the wrong place to find answers that can’t possibly be found there is simply wrong and asking others to do the same thing makes no since originally posted by hendrik
Even Chen family Taiji and Yang family Taiji has different type of Power signature or Jing type . Dont belive me? ask even GM Chen Xio -Wang.
Thus, concluding bagua and tai ji have same power signature as do other so called internal arts are totally misleading and not clear about power signature.
My reply remains the same to you as it did to hendrik. All Taiji is coming from Chen family so when you say that other styles of taiji Can and Do have different Jing even though they have the same source that is a contradiction of your own earlier arguments that Shao lin and Wing Chun if they don’t have the same Jing then they must be coming from 2 different sources. This is not true according to your own statements. Chen and Yang Taiji one source 2 Jing, Shao lin, Wing Chun one source 2 Jing.
Shao lin started with the animal styles and like you so aptly pointed out to ghostofwingchun now just like Chen Taiji and Yang Taiji it is possible for them to have the same origins but not the same Jing. hendrik once again you choose to use whichever particular argument best suites your point of view never staying true to your own arguments or theory.
Jim,
Yourself as well as hendrik can keep looking in the wrong place for whatever it is you are looking for but don’t expect others to follow you down the wrong path when they already understand it is the wrong path. Yes, all this fusing and mixing linking and cultivation stuff you find in the Yik Kam SLT and Cho Gar Wing Chun probably is there but as hendrik likes to say “dont expect others to buy your story about thier style is derive from yours”.
Hendrik’s reply was the usual…
originally posted by hendrik
Excellent Reply!
Thanks for sharing your view.
I am sure Phil, Martin, Ghost, Bob and lots of others here might also appreciate you sharing about your feeling towards White Crane of Fujian…etc
We certainly look at things from different angle and travel different paths. so, in the mean time, here I send you lots of love and peace.
They set an excellent example of helping each others.
Who are we compare with them the Gate holder of Emei and the Abbot of Shao Lin?
If they can do what they do, helping each others,
What prevent us to help each others solve the Wing Chun Root issues? Why does it need to be either or — Your solution is the Truth or mine is the Truth? Why cant it be a open discussion based on facture evidents? Why does it n think carefully before starting attacking the person without knowing what is going on?
I guess, the spiral dynamic model is a good one. May be because our value system is so different. Some live in 100 years ago of China and some live in USA 2006 where one is no longer Tribal and democratic is the value.
Since Benny target on me, where it is Jim’s article not mine.
The following is my feedback for Benny.
1, Benny obviously is off the mark. instead of comment on the article with his personal opinion he put me and my ancestor Yik Kam on the top of his list.
2, He loves to comment on me, and my status in Cho family. where he has totally no idea about. I would say this is a bad move.
Just to share with you all,
Well, Benny needs to know that Late Patriach Cho Hong-Choy has a written letter about who is who. So, it is obviously that Benny have no idea what else exist in Cho family and Yik Kam lineage.
This is not the first time he repeat this type of mistake, the last time he make the same mistake is making conclusion about the teaching era of Fang Chi-Niang vesus the Shao lin era… and accuse me of…
So, As the old chinese saying, If one have no idea what it is, admit about the no idea. I suggest Benny considerate for his future commenting. Otherwise, what is the credit of a researcher speaking with emotion instead of facts? it is certainly going to make a big impact on the cridential of the Curator of the Ving Tsun Museum if this type of habit persist.
But then, may be it is a bad day for him, so, well, to err is human. So, what the heck we all make mistake. Just let it passed. I would not hold grudges but Benny is totally unfamiliar with Cho /Yik Kam family inner cycle and thier art. That is forsure and certain. So, I hope he know what he dont know and stop his off mark comments.
B,
Jim,
I hope this discussion is based on Interest how to benifit all of us WCners and not taking a position and debate the heck out of it for the shake of ego. Honestly, IMHO, I hope that you dont post link from the other exclusive forum similar to the above, because it is not anyone’s interest to read those off mark post. and I think it is a waste of time for me and others.
IMHO, lets ignore the noise, the off marks, and the go no where, Lets examine details and details such as how to generate the shock Jing, how that related to the II shoulder stance, the pigeon toes, the kumsut…etc. Those real technical stuffs… lets switch gear.
originally posted by Jim Roselando
Please let us know what you feel were the parent systems of your Wing Chun.
When you address the above is when we can have a more solid discussion.
“Solid discussion” or honest discussion, Jim you disqualify yourself from this discussion by acting as if you don’t know the arguments against those of your own no honest researcher ever does that. No one reading this believes for one second you don’t know the antithesis against your argument but the reason you ignore the honest discussion is because you have no answer to how Yik Kam as a Junior to Wong Wah-Bo and Leung Yee Tai and with no ties to Hung Gun Biu, Dai Dung Fong, or Jee Shim could ever be the source of any wing chun other than that of the Cho family. When you can discuss that then maybe there will be more “solid discussion” to advance this conversation but until then the circles we see are clearly being made by you and you alone. But since you love to read your own post we anxiously await your next post of everything but how Yik Kam performed this magic trick.
hendrik you bring more bad karma unto yourself yet again. Bad mouthing my Sigung in public and pretending to mispell abbott after you said you just viewed the picture. So now you are denying you are the main source behind the Yik Kam theory if not my sigung’s point is a valid one if so then you should inform Jim you are dropping that mantel not us.
My Sigung is well aware of you and your 2 friends trying to contact the Shaolin kung fu master before my Sigung was to meet with him and your attepmts to send this master private emails attacking my Sigung. He chooses not to hold this against you and your group and treat you professionally. Even though this only worked against your gang of 3 because the master later showed my Sigung the content of your emails and still he continues to treat you professionally.
My Sigung chose not to waste any energy on you regarding this matter yet you continue to try and place yourself above all others in public while doing your dirty deeds behind closed doors but they do not go unnoticed or live without consequence. All those attacks you claim to feel are bad karma you have brought unto yourself and will continue to feel until you acknowledge your wrong doing and move on.
1,
Thank you and appreciate for correct my spelling. I have just edit the spelling.
2,
This topic is about Jim’s article. there is nothing to do with me. and now this threathen me with bad karma just because I point out Benny’s screw up. So is Benny the Buddha or God that he is all entitle to bad mouth others and making claim. and if anyone disagree then there will be bad karma falling to them? or as usual, a group of people will start posting to bully and attack to punished the disagree person?
as about "bring more bad karma unto yourself yet again. Bad mouthing my Sigung in public . "
if pointing out other’s mistake and wrong information is bad mouthing then you have no idea what is karma.
You see, according to Buddhism, one take refuge on the Dharma, or following the truth. That means one follow the Truth — not some other guy or Title. In buddhism, Buddha and living being are in equal position. they all following Dharma. So, stop threatening others with Bad Karma stuffs.
If your sigung planted the cause of addressing something he has no idea with, then it is him who un aware of what he is doing and causing himself bad karma.
3, " He chooses not to hold this against you and your group and treat you professionally"
How profesional is Benny making a statement " 1. Hendrik can only represent himself. He is not a representative of Cho Ga or Yik Kam’s Wing Chun." ?
What JIm’s article Got to do with me?
How is this statement related to JIm’s article? is he my spoke person? Who is he in Cho Ga or Yik Kam Wing Chun inner circle? How peacefull is this statement is?
Who care about this master and that master or even myself who are little potato, in his article , Jim is contacting Gm Fu the legitimate Gate Keeper of Emei who is in the level of the Shao LIn Abbot. Get real, dont explode ourself thinking we are something so big. we are not, just small potato compare with those real Gm. IMHO
4,
As usual, for years, you can spread rumos about me, and honestly, I careless. those are the karma you create for yourself. Spreading too much rumos until you believe in your own lie will cause you to be ignorance and stupid. That is the effect of spreading rumos. IMHHHO.
5,
as for “My Sigung chose not to waste any energy on you regarding this matter yet you continue to try and place yourself above all others in public while doing your dirty deeds behind closed doors but they do not go unnoticed or live without consequence. All those attacks you claim to feel are bad karma you have brought unto yourself and will continue to feel until you acknowledge your wrong doing and move on”
The way your logic work, in Chinese Buddhism is called, flip the effect as the cause. It is a totally upside down screw up thinking.
You see, what is Jim article and Gm Fu got to do about me?
Beside, it is a fact Benny know nothing about the Inner Circle family and art of Cho family/Yik Kam art? so what to comment? If Benny Chose not to waste any energy. Then, he knows better not to make any comment on what he has no idea about. and you need to be smart enought to not threathen me with Bad Karma because I am a Buddhist and I dont buy those nonsense supertitious garbage ideas which Buddha is not teaching.
So, dont tell me I dont inform you about how karma work.
Peace and love. Thanks again for pointing out my spelling mistake. I hope this topic get back to JIm’s article. instead of wasting time on me.
This will be my last post on this particular side track.
originally posted by hendrik
Since Benny target on me, where it is Jim’s article not mine
hendrik,
It is actually you who “targeted” my Sigung when you and your friends sent the emails that you sent. This is where the rumors started so again you have only yourself to blame. Your problem is you found out the Master decided he could not trust you and that is why he showed my Sigung the emails he like many other people can see your real face.
Now you are the one posting anything and everything but relevant topics relating to Jim’s article. Your tatics are as transparent and superficial as your his_tory telling.
It’s been a few years since I have talked about wing chun in any forum/list, but this topic is interesting enough that I decided to say a word or two about it. I did not intend it, but this post turned out much longer than I thought in the beginning, so bare with me and have patience when reading all of this. Let’s just say that I have accumulated a lot to say over the last few years.
I have a few comments on this whole Emei/Shaolin/Wing Chun roots/connections discussion that has been going on for a few years now. Fact is that we will never know where wing chun originally came from and what other martial arts went into its creation. There are no written documents from outside (i.e. non-biased) sources, no uninterrupted geneology going back to shaolin that is verifiable (again by outside sources). What we have are just a bunch of personal speculations. It’s ok to think aloud and talk about probabilities of what might have actually happened in the past, but it’s not ok/productive to get carried away and see things/similarities where there are none.
First of all, let’s remember what wing chun really is. It’s a fighting system. You don’t have to be a genious to see that all parts of the wing chun system were created for the sole purpose of making the practitioner a very effective fighter. In this regard it’s not like any other chinese system I have seen so far. It’s very economic, efficient and all the techiniques and movements in the forms can be explained in the framework of their fighting applications. Such a martial art is not created overnight and not just by anyone. Logic would tell us that it must have been created by people who very expert martial artists over a period of time. If these expert martial artists came from Shaolin or elsewhere, we will never know. Could wing chun have been the “secret” fighting art of shaolin (north shaolin, south shaolin…or whatever)? Sure, but there is no proof. Could it have been invented by martial arts experts outside shaolin? Again, sure…possible.
What is clear to me however is that it was not invented as/influenced by a health or qigong system such as emei. Why would martial arts experts, who are trying to come up with an efficient fighting system try to include any helth/qigong system in their art? Imagine you are in their shoes? Would you try to make your art most efficient and economic in a fight, so you actually survive that fight, or would you worry about your stance promoting your health? Let’s remember that this is a martial art first and foremost. Any perceived or actual health benefits are a side-effect and could as well be achieved by a good workout in the gym, swimming, running etc.
A few years ago when Hendrik started talking about the emei/crane connection, I did not doubt that there might be something to it. He was talking about the cho family kuen kuits and how they are similar to emei saying/kuits and how the emei 12 zhuang were similar to our siu lin tao. Not having seen the emei art, all I/we had to go by were Hendrik’s words and interpretations. It all sounded plausable. I was imagining some Emei master standing in our Yee Gee kim yeung ma (yes, with toes pointing inward and knees very close) doing movements similar to our wing chun hand techniques.
Now, however, there are pictures and videos of Fu Weizhong performing some of his art. After seeing those pictures and videos and reading his website it is absolutely clear to me that it is highly unlikely that there are any connections between any emei health/qigong art and Wing Chun. I also find it highly unlikely that wing chun had much to do with yongchun baihequan (wing chun bak hok kuen), also known as Wing Chun white crane. Having seen several versions of both Saam Chin and praying mantis’s Saam Bo Chin, I just can’t too many similarities, beyond coincidental ones, between those forms and the Sum Nung Siu Lin Tao that I practice (or any Yip Man Siu Nim Tao for that matter). Some similarities, yes. Enough to warrant declaring white crane an ancestor of wing chun? Nope. More below…
Absolutely not. Not likely at all. I can’t see any similarity at all to our wing chun stance. Not only that, it looks like any basic qigong stance I have come across so far. Quite common in China and not specific to Emei. A qigong style called “wai dan gong”, which I have some familiarity with, uses the same exact stance and even similar shaking exercises. So, similar to other qigong systems. Absolutely. Similar to wing chun…only if you want to believe in it. You really need a lot of imagination to see any similarity to wing chun.
And Sum Nung wing chun has the 12 san sik. Hung Gar has 12 Kiu Sao. Other systems have 12 this, 6 that, 108 this and that etc..etc…etc. If you have not noticed chinese numerology is the common denominator here and used extensively in totally unrelated martial arts, too. After all, these people lived in China and can’t escape its cultural influence.
Absolutely not likely. You’re trying to argue that both arts are similar/connected by pinning down your argument on two of the most common words in the chinese language: “small” and “big.” That’s a pretty weak argument. Do you have any idea how many chinese nouns/names/expressions have “siu/xiao” “dai/da” in them? Is it not logical then that two totally unrelated people/groups of people would use these very common words to describe two totally unrelated things? Remember, the most basic/easiest explanation is usually the right one. That’s what scientists go by anyway.
Why does the SLT “need” emei technology? Qigong technology to make a superior martial art? Doubtful. When wing chun people refer to “sae ying” or “hok ying” in wing chun they refer to shapes of techniques resembling the body of a snake (tan, fook, dap, biu, etc.) or the wings of a crane (various forms of bong sao, saat kiu etc.). “Ying” means “shape”, not “engine.” Both are included in the SLT and both have nothing to do with Qigong specific things in wing chun. SLT teaching body structure, power generation, stance dynamics, upper and lower body connection…yes…of course. Qigong? Emei “engine”. Nope.
Yongchun baihe influence? Maybe, there seem to be some similarities and this hypothesis is much more likely than the emei connection, but most likely no direct connection in my opinion. They might have similar sources but why does wing chun have to come from white crane? There’s just no logic behind it.
Let’s not forget that non of the “origin” stories actually say that wing chun was developed from some snake style or crane style. The stories always refer to the snake/crane fight. A real snake and a real crane. Since some people here are referring to the wing chun origin stories to justify the crane connection, we might as well read those stories literally, keeping in my still that they are just stories and not historical truth.
Come on Jim. Those aren’t and probably never have been part of the “classical” Yongchun white crane system. Here you have their official curriculum:
Can’t find a long pole and a wooden dummy there. The wooden dummy training, in my opinion, is the real treasure and core of wing chun and maybe the key to the real origin of our art. How come only wing chun and “weng” chun have such elaborate wooden dummy training? I’ve seen the whole weng chun system including all three weng chun wooden dummy forms and it is absolutely clear to me that both wing chun and weng chun come from the same source. If one sees the dummy forms alone, one might think that they come straight from some unknown “wing” chun branch instead of another martial art called “weng” chun. Same applies to application and concepts, including the center line concept and “whole body” power/connection concepts. So, did “weng” chun also come from a fusion of Yong chun white crane and emei? I highly doubt it. Did both arts come from Shaolin? Again, no idea. Were they created by martial arts experts as ingeniously effective martial arts? You bet. If these experts were at shaolin or elsewhere is really quite unimportant.
Funny, my toes are pointed in quite a bit and my weight control is just fine. It fits in just fine with the rest of my wing chun body structure and footwork, including the turning and stepping. Try having a one fist distance (or even less) between knees stance with your feet parallel. Then see what kind of “blockages” and physical comfort problems that will cause. Then try to turn left and right from your parallel foot stance into a pien san (turned) stance and then try to come back to the jing san (frontal) stance. Good luck! It really screws up wing chun body mechanics. I especially recommend this little exercise to Jim, as I know that the Gu Lo turning/stance is quite similar to our Sum Nung/YKS turning/stance.
What if I don’t want to “orbit?” What if I look at the SLT as a way to learn/practice the correct techniques (wing chun alphabet), body structure, inch power generation, wrist power generation, body connection etc..etc.? What if that was really the purpose instead of “orbiting” and qigong exercises? Trust me, that I have chuen jing…and I have not orbited single day in my life (not that I am aware of anyway) and my toes are pointing in with my knees in. Looks like “emei” qigong technology is not necessary. Again, let’s remember that wing chun is a practical martial art and conceived that way. One does not need some qigong exercices to achieve the various “jings” (power generation methods) of the various martial arts. There is nothing mystical about it. It’s all practice.
I looked at it and all I see is an old, almost decrepid guy who can barely move. His techniques and his stance don’t look crisp. Besides that, he looks like he’s just standing there in a normal “everyday” stance, posing for photos, doing some halfhearted hand techniques on the dummy. This was obviously never meant to be strung together into a movie. Let me assure you that neither Yuen Kay San nor Sum Nung were standing in some parallel feet stance and “orbiting.” I highly doubt that a young, non-posing Yuen Chai Wan was any different. Let’s not jump to conclusions from some old photos showing an old yuen chai wan posing for photos.
How do you know “orbiting” was common at that time? Neither Yuen Kay San, nor Yip Man, nor the Gu Lo people are practicing with parallel feet. You think they all came up with the “extreme” toes in approach, as you call it, independently from each other? You really think that people like Sum Nung and Yip Man’s students failed to notice that Yuen Kay San and Yip Man were standing with their fee parallel and “orbiting” (which, of course, they were not) and learned it all wrong and decided to turn their feet in? Come on Hendrik, let’s use some logic here instead of speculating wildly.
Really? And what is Chen Xiaowang going to tell me? The guy does not even know wing chun. How can you judge if something is similar to what you are doing if you don’t even know anything about it? He can only look at external similarities, which can and will be deceiving. The Lao Jia Yi Lu of Chen Taiji has Tan Sao, Wu Sao, Fook Sao and Bong Sao shapes…should I now go ahead and say that I think Wing Chun comes from Chen Taijiquan? Of course not. You are going to see similar shapes in many chinese martial arts and even in related qigong systems. After all they did not develop in a vacuum, but within chinese society and culture, which shaped them. A chen taiji master of the same generation of Chen Xiaowang once told me, after doing some push hands (I used my wing chun chi-sao reflexes) that my “energy” was very close to his Taiji energy. Is that another reason to form a theory that claims wing chun comes from Taiji? No. So why should some external perceived similarities to Emei warrant such claims?
Feedback? The man says “it looks similar.” Nothing more. Look above for what that statement is worth. Confirmation from white crane? What confirmation? Did you find someone, who was there when some white crane people decided to use the “emei engine” to create wing chun? If not, how can you get “confirmation?” Even if some white crane guy said: “Yeah, I see lots of similarities between wing chun and white crane” that only means that there are similarities. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean, “wing chun must therefore come from white crane.” That is not a logical conclusion. Now..if white crane had a form called siu lin tao (or a dummy), which was very similar to ours…now THAT would be a different story. There’s just not any credible evidence. It’s all speculation at this point and should be presented as such instead of making it look like it’s the most likely version of what might have happened.
And those “leaders” are speculating themselves as they have no clue about wing chun and no clue about what might have happened in the distant past. Again, they are just seeing external, superficial similarities as stated several times above.
With some persuasive skill you could convince all three leaders (Wudang, Taiji, Shaolin) that wing chun is similar to what they are doing. Getting their feedback can be helpful, but is not conclusive.
Jim, you obviously don’t know (or don’t want to see) how the chinese “two” character is really written. It’s not two equal length horizontal lines as you depicted above (hence NOT “=”). It’s a shorter line on top and a longer line on the bottom:
So, if you use your imagination and picture the toes of your feet touching the ends of the shorter line above and the heels of your feet touching the ends of the longer line below, you will realize that your theory about the “character two” stance (yee jee) does not have any merit and is totally flawed. The character two clearly implies that the toes are supposed to be turned in. Knowing how the “two” character is really written in chinese completely invalidates what you said/thought above. The stance was meant this way and nothing is “thrown off.” Everything is very stable actually…very nicely thought out stance.
Yes, very good position..with the toes in as the stance was meant to be performed. If you see anything else, then you are just seeing things that are not there. See above explanation why they would not have used any kind of “parallel” type stance similar to emei. It just wasn’t meant that way by the founders of wing chun. Let’s also not forget that the yee gee kim yeung ma is not specific to wing chun. Wong Fei Hung line Hung gar’s tid sin kuen has the YGKYM and they perform it with their toes in. A rare branch of (probably very old) Hung Gar called “Ha say/sei fu” performs ALL their forms in YGKYM…and guess what? Toes are pointing in. So, Hung Gar was influenced by emei and white crane too? Hardly… It’s more likely that the YGKYM from wing chun and hung gar have some common, older source.
So, that’s it for now. Trying to figure out the roots of our art is a noble and ambitious endeavor but let’s not forget for what purpose wing chun was created for when examining all available evidence.
Take care,
Mustafa
PS: Just to make sure (as there are some political side-shows going on in this thread)…this criticism is NOT politically motivated. I just speak for myself. The criticism is offered in a friendly, open minded manner…just think of it as another “paper” in a peer-reviewed scientific journal contradicting your paper.
Your post is extremely long so I will try to hit it little by little.
What is clear to me however is that it was not invented as/influenced by a health or qigong system such as emei. Why would martial arts experts, who are trying to come up with an efficient fighting system try to include any helth/qigong system in their art? Imagine you are in their shoes? Would you try to make your art most efficient and economic in a fight, so you actually survive that fight, or would you worry about your stance promoting your health? Let’s remember that this is a martial art first and foremost.
Nobody creates a Martial art or Sport that has no foundation and cultivation to strengthen the body progressively. To say WCK is about Fighting and would have no possible purpose for improving ones strength and health is IMO silly. If Wing Chun was just a fighting art then lets face it, you would not need the Form or Forms. ““Does someone need form or forms to develop a structure and some elbow position? Absolutely not.”” And, in reality, those who continue to practice the Form’s without any ideas of possible health issues should realize that those forms may actually be making the body more brittle as we get older. Forms without cultivation are more or less a waste of time and harmful to the trunk IMO. No doubt our ancestors would know this and since they were also practical for fighting a balanced art would be important to them. Arts that are primarily “just” fighting arts like Boxing and Thai have continued to grow but Chinese and other arts that have turned to just fighting are dying out because of the time lost on worthless Forms etc..
Thats why as Martialists we always; Strengthen the weak body first.
I think it may be best to remember that we are analyzing a “possible” connection to our Snake and Crane story. It seems the Word “Emei” has too much attachment/animosity to it. Remember, Snake & Crane theory break down.
Chinese actually has two sets of numeric characters, the first one is the most popular one that we see in text books; and the other one is called the “rod” number set. This rod set is usually used in markets, it was designed for business use.
A few years ago when Hendrik started talking about the emei/crane connection, I did not doubt that there might be something to it.
Forget the word Emei. Lets just call it Snake and Crane.
He was talking about the cho family kuen kuits and how they are similar to emei saying/kuits
This is accurate. I read the Kuit to GM Fu and he “actually” thought I was talking about 12 zhuang art and not WC. When I told him this was Kuit from Miao Shun he said: Ah, this is your poetry! So, Yik Kam Kuit and Emei Kuit have many similarities.
and how the emei 12 zhuang were similar to our siu lin tao.
Internally very similar.
Not having seen the emei art, all I/we had to go by were Hendrik’s words and interpretations. It all sounded plausable.
Finding a More plausible or less plausible is all we can do. Right?
I was imagining some Emei master standing in our Yee Gee kim yeung ma (yes, with toes pointing inward and knees very close) doing movements similar to our wing chun hand techniques.
Nope. Wing Chun hand methods seem to have more relations to the Crane.
Now, however, there are pictures and videos of Fu Weizhong performing some of his art. After seeing those pictures and videos and reading his website it is absolutely clear to me that it is highly unlikely that there are any connections between any emei health/qigong art and Wing Chun.
GM Fu is no longer teaching the 12 zhuang art. He teaches a basic health system and healing practices. So, what is on his site show, IMO, almost nothing from his art.
I also find it highly unlikely that wing chun had much to do with yongchun baihequan (wing chun bak hok kuen), also known as Wing Chun white crane. Having seen several versions of both Saam Chin and praying mantis’s Saam Bo Chin, I just can’t too many similarities, beyond coincidental ones, between those forms and the Sum Nung Siu Lin Tao that I practice (or any Yip Man Siu Nim Tao for that matter). Some similarities, yes. Enough to warrant declaring white crane an ancestor of wing chun? Nope. More below…
Since you come from Sum Nung WCK maybe you can explain why your lineage claims Snake and Crane boxing fused by Miao Shun? What is it that makes WCK one of the “soft” arts then? Recently! One of Sum Nung’s pupils actually told me that Sum Nung thought there was a possible connection with Emei “Snake” as part of the birth of WCK.
