some form of a set curriculum, on paper, standard, chinese terminology, cantonese terminology… all great Ideas…
Just curious what is everyone’s “standard” of what needs to be learn or what is covered in studying the form SLT/SNT? ( For those from Yik kam lineage, the first section of Yik Kam’s SLT set)
what is your opinion?
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION. NO HIJACKING PLEASE, NO PERSONAL OR SCHOOL ATTACT PLEASE!
Are the forms not curriculums in and of themselves?
burnsypoo wrote:
Are the forms not curriculums in and of themselves? EB
Doesn’t that depend on how one uses them? Yip Man when he first came to Hong Kong taught WCK without the linked sets, using san sik. Then, one day, someone acquinted with WCK stopped by his kwoon and asked some of the students about “seeing their forms”. The students approached Yip, and so he began teaching the linked sets. So what is “the curriculum” for Yip Man WCK? TN
Terence
T- i dont believe you…lol…yip man taught in the late 40’s using the standard 3 forms…jiu chow, lun gai, gwok fu ect.
Y.M left for H.K in 1949… and started teaching leung sheung in late 1949 early 1950.s…almost immediatly…poverty forced him to teach…leung sheung knew what wing chun was and what it contained!!..he was a student of weng chun sigung tang suen…he knew the differances between wing chun and weng chun… Y.M also used san sik to teach early students as sum num did…but did not exclude the 3 forms
byond1 wrote:
T- i dont believe you…lol…B1
That’s cool . . . look into it yourself. Maybe contact the Hawaii group (Robert Yeung’s people?);they have some good info. TN
yip man taught in the late 40’s using the standard 3 forms…jiu chow, lun gai, gwok fu ect. B1
Yup. I was talking about HK though. TN
Y.M left for H.K in 1949… and started teaching leung sheung in late 1949 early 1950.s…almost immediatly…poverty forced him to teach…leung sheung knew what wing chun was and what it contained!!..he was a student of weng chun sigung tang suen…he knew the differances between wing chun and weng chun… Y.M also used san sik to teach early students as sum num did…but did not exclude the 3 forms. B1
Again, don’t take my word for it (neither of us were there), do some checking. I didn’t say, fwiw, that he didn’t teach the forms only that he didn’t initially teach the forms and it seemed like he hadn’t intended to (until the cat was let out of the bag). TN
Terence
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]byond1 wrote:
T- i dont believe you…lol…B1
That’s cool . . . look into it yourself. Maybe contact the Hawaii group (Robert Yeung’s people?);they have some good info. TN
yip man taught in the late 40’s using the standard 3 forms…jiu chow, lun gai, gwok fu ect. B1
Yup. I was talking about HK though. TN
Y.M left for H.K in 1949… and started teaching leung sheung in late 1949 early 1950.s…almost immediatly…poverty forced him to teach…leung sheung knew what wing chun was and what it contained!!..he was a student of weng chun sigung tang suen…he knew the differances between wing chun and weng chun… Y.M also used san sik to teach early students as sum num did…but did not exclude the 3 forms. B1
Again, don’t take my word for it (neither of us were there), do some checking. I didn’t say, fwiw, that he didn’t teach the forms only that he didn’t initially teach the forms and it seemed like he hadn’t intended to (until the cat was let out of the bag). TN
Terence [/B]
This is inconsistent with my understanding, though I’ll do my best to check and recheck. It is my hope that others associated with Yip Man’s early Hong Kong students - especially others close to or in the lineages of Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu and Tsui Sheun Tin - will attempt to do likewise, lest any of us allow what little of Wing Chun history can yet be accurately traced to be misrepresented in the longer term.
To help clarify and give substance to your assertion, can you provide any specific information? For examples,
a) Who and how many do you believe were taught in this manner? Also, are you referring to Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheun Tin, the Restaurant Workers Association, and others in that time period, or are you alluding to someone earlier?
b) For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of forms and is it significant? (e.g. the first 5 minutes, the first 5 months, the first 5 years, etc.)
c) In light of the fact that teachers often tailor their training to students or try different methods at different times, what led you to believe it was Yip Man’s “reluctance” to teach the forms rather than simply the approach he took with a particular student or set of students?
d) Can you provide verifiable and corroborating sources of information?
TIA,
Hi Terence and KJ,
That is quite an interesting comment. I have never heard this before, so I take it it is not common knowledge. Would anyone be willing to provide any info on this?
Perhaps it was meant in a general sense rather than litteral. Perhaps Yip Man taught the first group of people a couple simple drills prior to the form or as they were learning it. Thinking about to day, one may learn the opening of the form and maybe a simple tan da or something like that just to keep the appitite whet.
What we know, and much of it maybe exageration, is that Leung Sheung was teaching and Yip Man was able to handle the experienced Leung Sheung quite easily with a couple simple moves. Perhaps he explained these simple moves prior to showing the forms. But in any case, what is the context of this assertion?
It almost sounds like Yip Man ignored the forms in favor of the san sik. Is this what your suggesting? I wonder why he would go back to the forms, as would the other students. Lok Yiu teaches the forms. TST puts lots of emplasis on the forms. Leung Sheung students all praise the importance of the forms.
Interesting
Tom
T–i have looked into over the past 2 years…wong long and wong chuk were not the first generation of ym students anyway so …i dont see how they could know what ym taught leung sheung…who learned 4 years before wsl and 2 years before chu shong tin. lok yiu started just after leung sheung if memory serves…as i said…leung sheung was a very experianced martial artist and knew waht wc was…there was no cat to let out of the bag…leung sheung studied weng chun under tang suen…as did pak cheung…he knew the differance between what tang suen did and what leung jan did.
There are at least 2 conflicting stories about the early days of Yip Man’s teachings.
Leung Sheung knew Weng Chun from Tang Suen, recognized Lee Man’s Huen Sao, sought out Yip Man, and got him to start the first WCK class where they immediately learned SNT, etc.
Yip Man didn’t tell his students what he was teaching them, he just taught them fighting moves, and it wasn’t until someone else visited who knew it was WCK and told the students that they went to Yip and he had to teach them the sets, etc.
Who knows what really happened? Maybe only Lok Yiu, and maybe only if he remembers it well and is willing to share it.
BTW- Though people talk of Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung-Tin, etc. like a 1-2-3, there were many people in the first class with Leung Sheung and the restaurant workers, and many other classes started up in the early days. There were lots of early students, even before Tsui Sheung-Tin. Most just didn’t stay very long.
RR is correct. There are two versions of the history. I tend to believe Wong Long’s version as it makes sense to me, is specific, and doesn’t self-aggrandize. TN
KJ writes: For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of forms and is it significant? (e.g. the first 5 minutes, the first 5 months, the first 5 years, etc.) KJ
San sao are forms (just as Gu Lao has san sik forms); they are just not the linked sets of SNT/CK/etc. Thus Yip Man did teach forms, just not the linked sets. Why is this surprising? WCK is in the application. It makes sense to me that if Yip were trying to teach an initial group to achieve some level of fighting competance (skill) quickly (so that they can impress, and teach, others and bring you more students and more $), he might forego having his students spend time practicing linked sets. If you have questions about how Yip Man taught, do the research – you’ve been pointed in the direction. TN
byond1 writes: T–i have looked into over the past 2 years…wong long and wong chuk were not the first generation of ym students anyway so …i dont see how they could know what ym taught leung sheung…who learned 4 years before wsl and 2 years before chu shong tin. lok yiu started just after leung sheung if memory serves… B1
I’ve looked into this too – for 20 years. WL and WC were “first generation students” (all of Yip’s students in HK are considered 1st generation). You are correct about different folks coming it at different times, but fail to take into account how much WCK material Leung Sheung or others learned with their “headstart.” If they didn’t have that much of a headstart (in terms of material, but let’s say mainly the same core san sik that they just got very good at applying), it would be easy for others starting later to see what, and how, they learned. TN
Terence
Inferences are really problematic in reconstructing post facto what happened. Some logic, some induction and ultimately judgements are involved in the mix.
To me- yes-- Ip man, Leung Jan or any other great can show someone isolated movements for their improvement- but that does not mean that forms were unimportant for their serious teaching. Also IM several times pointed out that slt and ck and chi sao should provide the ability to meaningfully use wing chun.
Casual students can get some movements but not the real foundations.
Hi Joy,
Yuenfen writes:
Ip man, Leung Jan or any other great can show someone isolated movements for their improvement- but that does not mean that forms were unimportant for their serious teaching. Also IM several times pointed out that slt and ck and chi sao should provide the ability to meaningfully use wing chun.
Casual students can get some movements but not the real foundations. JC
San sik as I understand them are not simply “isolated movements”; rather they contain the core points of WCK as do the linked sets (the sets are only linked san sik arranged thematically), are progressive (they build on each other and provide the “foundations”), etc. Neither linked sets or san sik, in and of themselves, “provide the ability to meaningfully use WCK.” Serious study of WCK is not dependent on the teaching platform IME. TN
Terence
Hi Terence and Rene,
I am not suggesting your info is bad because it may well be true. But your citing the sources almost as if they were there. You suggest that you beleive the story because there is no self grandisement. Well, that is an important aspect to take into account as people tend to exagerate or even lie at times. But if Neil Armstrong was to tell me he was the first man on the moon, self grandisment or not, I would pretty much have to agree with him.
Anyways, I can not recall for a fact so I will double check next time I get a chance, but I recall a discussion that said Leung Sheung WAS very aware of wing chun before Yip Man. He was not blindly training away until someone came and told him what he was practicing. But like I said, I don’t recall the info I was given.
Also, I am not suggesting that they didn’t focus on the san sau stuff, but that I have not heard that and I am a tad skeptical that they learned it in the place of the forms. I would beleive they would have learned it simultaneously. Anyways, I will do what research, is that REALLY the correct term, that I can when I can. LOL. TST and Lok Yiu are probably the only two left alive that probably have the “authority” to say what really was taught in the early years. I would tend to beleive the students of these people as well.
tom
Non-Compelling Historical Rewrites
Hi Tom,
Originally posted by tparkerkfo
[B]Hi Terence and Rene,
I am not suggesting your info is bad because it may well be true.
[/B]
But, probably isn’t. 
[B]
But you’re citing the sources almost as if they were there. You suggest that you beleive the story because there is no self agrandisement.
[/B]
Just as people post made-up stuff on KFO to appear knowledgeable or important, so do “sources” puff themselves up by trying to appear to know some unique info. And this despite it contradicts Leung Sheung’s students’ understanding. :rolleyes:
[B]
Well, that is an important aspect to take into account as people tend to exagerate or even lie at times. But if Neil Armstrong was to tell me he was the first man on the moon, self agrandisment or not, I would pretty much have to agree with him.
[/B]
You’re easy. 
[B]
Anyways, I can not recall for a fact, so I will double check next time I get a chance, but I recall a discussion that said Leung Sheung WAS very aware of wing chun before Yip Man. He was not blindly training away until someone came and told him what he was practicing. But like I said, I don’t recall the info I was given.
[/B]
Yes. Leung Sheung had heard about Wing Chun AND Yip Man as its proponent, and LS wanted to study with YM.
From the BAWCSA bio section
[B]
Leung Sheung had heard about Wing Chun since he was quite young, but as Wing Chun was quite secretive and well protected, he had never seen it; but, this martial art intrigued him, as did the stories about one of its teachers, Yip Man. The thought that he would take Wing Chun at his first opportunity was beginning to emerge as a prominent thought in the back of his mind.
Mr. Lee, also an officer in the Restaurant Association, in 1949, found out that Yip Man was currently in Hong Kong. Knowing Leung Sheung’s interest in Wing Chun and Yip Man, he informed Leung Sheung that Yip Man was in town. Leung Sheung urged Mr. Lee to introduce him to Yip Man. By the time they met, Leung Sheung had already decided that he wanted to learn Wing Chun from Yip Man. He would provide the flat for Yip Man to teach in. In addition, Leung Sheung would turn over his White Eyebrow class to Yip Man, and he would become a student again.
[/B]
[B]
Also, I am not suggesting that they didn’t focus on the san sau stuff, but that I have not heard that and I am a tad skeptical that they learned it in the place of the forms.
[/B]
You are right to be skeptical. It likely isn’t true, and in the interest of truth, one must question the intentions of any folks making such assertions. According to Ken Chung, Leung Sheung said he taught everything exactly as he had learned it from Yip Man and that he (Leung Sheung) had gotten maybe 85 percent of what Yip Man knew. I will check with Ken or Ben for their recollection of this, but I doubt that YM changed his teaching as suggested in this thread.
[B]
I would beleive they would have learned it simultaneously. Anyways, I will do what research, is that REALLY the correct term,
[/B]
Yes, but the word is often misused.
[B]
that I can when I can. LOL. TST and Lok Yiu are probably the only two left alive that probably have the “authority”
[/B]
I disagree that they are the only two that could tell us, but they would know certainly. 
[B]
to say what really was taught in the early years. I would tend to beleive the students of these people as well.
[/B]
I would also believe the students of Leung Sheung, as well. During their study in Hong Kong, they often heard Leung Sheung speak for the entire Wing Chun community at Yip Man’s behest in Yip Man’s ceremonial dinners.
Regards,
John Weiland writes:
Just as people post made-up stuff on KFO to appear knowledgeable or important, so do “sources” puff themselves up by trying to appear to know some unique info. And this despite it contradicts Leung Sheung’s students’ understanding. JW
These things are not “secret” nor am I making them up to “appear knowledgeable or important” – hell, YM’s san sik are even up on the web, see
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/methods/forms/supbaatsansao.html
And this has in the past been discussed on the WCML at least twice that I recall. God forbid that I contradict Leung Sheung’s students! After all, they and only they know the real truth. 
TN
Terence
Originally posted by t_niehoff
These things are not “secret” nor am I making them up to “appear knowledgeable or important” – hell, YM’s san sik are even up on the web, see
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/methods/forms/supbaatsansao.html]WingchunKuen.com article
I know you are not making them up. But, you are proliferating them.
The reference reads:
The Sup Baat San Sao (18 Separate Hands) are believed to be a rare and informal part of the Yip Man Wing Chun Kuen system taught by the late Yip Man to some of his early students. (my emphasis)
Rare and informal suggests what to you? To me, it doesn’t sound representational of Yip Man Wing Chun. The source also doesn’t post a referenceable source for this assertion, nor does it cite examples of who was taught in this manner. It cites Robert Chu and John D. (sic) for special thanks.
[B]
And this has in the past been discussed on the WCML at least twice that I recall.
[/B]
As you may know, I am not allowed membership on the WCML for my views on Wing Chun and some of its obscure minor, and need I say, often bizarre, lineages and their adherents. :rolleyes: Hence, I am not privy to the discussions you mention.
[B]
God forbid that I contradict Leung Sheung’s students! After all, they and only they know the real truth. TN
[/B]
At least we are in agreement on this latter point. But on the list of those in the know, I’d also include Lok Yiu and TST, and a host of others.
I consider those teachers who want to rewrite Wing Chun history to be in violation of the kuen kuit principle of teachers showing their students the truth. 
Regards,
Originally posted by t_niehoff
RR is correct. There are two versions of the history. I tend to believe Wong Long’s version as it makes sense to me, is specific, and doesn’t self-aggrandize. TN
Thank you for explaining your reasoning.
I have found few students and families of Wing Chun descending from Ip Man who put more emphasis on the linked sets (in deference to your preferred phrase) than the early Hong Kong students including Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, and Tsui Sheun Tin. Unless they had, in theory at least, a) learned only via san sik at the beginning and b) found significant shortcomings in that method of learning, I don’t see why they would subsequently c) express such an adamant emphasis on the standard forms or “linked sets” for training, d) not only for their students but e) in their own practice as well.
Tom, Joy and Brian also aptly stated some issues that I agree are relevant, so I’ll avoid restating those.
[B]
KJ writes: For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of forms and is it significant? (e.g. the first 5 minutes, the first 5 months, the first 5 years, etc.) KJ
San sao are forms (just as Gu Lao has san sik forms); they are just not the linked sets of SNT/CK/etc. Thus Yip Man did teach forms, just not the linked sets. Why is this surprising? WCK is in the application. It makes sense to me that if Yip were trying to teach an initial group to achieve some level of fighting competance (skill) quickly (so that they can impress, and teach, others and bring you more students and more $), he might forego having his students spend time practicing linked sets.[/B]
Okay, I can follow that. It is neither inconsistent with what I wrote, nor necessarily different than the usual variations in day-to-day training that any of us might experience. Still, and in hopes of understanding your assertion more clearly, I’ll rephrase the question:
b) For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of “linked sets,” and is it significant?
Also, and again,
a) Who and how many do you believe were taught in this manner? Also, are you referring to Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheun Tin, the Restaurant Workers Association, and others in that time period, or are you alluding to someone earlier?
And at this juncture, again to clarify, are you referring to Wong Long and Wong Chuk in answer to this question?
c) In light of the fact that teachers often tailor their training to students or try different methods at different times, what led you to believe it was Yip Man’s “reluctance” to teach the forms rather than simply the approach he took with a particular student or set of students?
Again to clarify, are you now proposing that it was Ip Man’s desire to crank out performers quickly that was his incentive to teach via san sik exclusive to “linked sets” at first? If so, how do you believe this resolves with a theoretical reluctance to teach the linked sets “until the cat was let out of the bag?” Either way, the implications are interesting to speculate.
d) Where I asked, “can you provide verifiable and corroborating sources of information,” do you again refer to Wong Long and Wong Chuk?
These questions are relevant specifically to your assertion, regardless of whatever independent information I or others may or may not uncover on the issue. So thanking you again and in advance for your clarifications.
If you have questions about how Yip Man taught, do the research – you’ve been pointed in the direction. TN
As I stated, this is interesting enough that I will continue to inquire on this issue in the broader sense as I am able. All things being equal, I confess to having more urgent priorities and can’t drop everything else in favor of it, especially with so many avenues to be explored for corroboration and to gain a well-rounded understanding the circumstances. In the meantime, it is the basis of your theory which is appropriately of interest.
Last but not least, (and again, if you will) do you believe that your theory that Ip Man initially taught only “unlinked sets” during his early time in Hong Kong is important? If so, why is it important?
Everyone is biased in some fashion or other (e.g., whether self-aggrandizers, interpreters of history, those just curious, trying to learn, readers of this forum, etc.). While the bias factor is not irrelevant, discounting something on that basis alone, as Tom suggested, doesn’t seem prudent. And until we realize the types of technologies foreshadowed in "Minority Report,” we are necessarily on shaky ground any time we make assumptions about the motivations of others. Still, the topic is interesting, and I would like to understand the reasoning behind your conclusions more clearly.
Regards,
Hi Terence,
it is not that the leung sheung students know the “truth”. It is just more likely that they are aware of Leung Sheung’s teaching than people further removed. IE, if you, who are NOT a student of the source you learned if from. And the source you learned it from was not there. So if the Leung Sheung people can be wrong, then why couldn’t the guys from Hawaii?
I think it matters little in any case. Leung Sheung’s reputation and skill was not based on the order he learned the art. Nor is his students. But it is an interesting story non the less. In any case, John pointed out one source on the web which comes as close as you can get, in regards to Leung Sheung. I heard if from another source as well from the Leung Sheung lineage. The only other viable options is the senior students of Leung Sheung as well as Lok Yiu and maybe TST. Unless you can find the original students that were with Leung Sheung.
Another Interesting thing is that Leung Sheung taught Leung Ting the form at his first lesson, which he says is the “traditional way”.
As your well aware, we need to becareful of an account of something from just one source. It may be better to beleive the concensous of many people rather than the once source approach. Have you heard this story from other sources?
Tom
Wong Long’s version?
Where can one read about Wong Long’s version of the training?
Wong Long started Wing Chun under Yip Man in 1956.
Wong Chok started Wing Chun under Yip Man around 1953.
Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu started Wing Chun under Yip Man in late 1949 early 1950.
It would appear then that Lok Yiu, as he is still alive, would be the most knowledgable as to what occurred during that time period before both Wong Long and Wong Chok began their training with Yip Man.
Just as I’d give him more credence than William Cheung with regard to William’s tale of the meeting and demonstration of skill between Yip Man and Leung Sheung as William did not begin his training until 1954, at least 4-5 years after that event occured.
Thanks,
I don’t see the big issue. Clearly WCK can be taught with or without linked sets. Lots of our ancestors - Cheung Bo, Leung Jan, etc. - have used the san sik format to teach; some have used linked sets; and some have used both linked sets and san sik. Someone that truly understands a subject doesn’t need to regurgitate material just as he or she learned it, and WCK by its very nature can’t be taught that way IMO. We have two of Yip Man’s students, Wong Long and Wong Chok, from the early 50’s saying that Yip taught for a time in HK with san sik. I haven’t heard from any YM student saying that Yip absolutely didn’t do that. But things in YM’s school aren’t always clear – we have YM students saying the Leung Bik story was true, and other YM students saying it was made up by Lee Man. Who is lying and who is telling the truth? TN
KJ, if you want answers to your historical questions you’ll need to do research yourself. The only reason I raised this was in response to the “forms as curriculum” point Eric B. made. Does it matter to me if YM did or didn’t? Not IMHO. WCK is in the application; it is our opponent’s that teach us how to make our WCK work, not a linked set or a series of san sik. TN
Terence