What is the "standard" ?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Ultimately I don’t see it as an issue either, other than to verify that what is being said did or did not occur. Because all the early students trained and then taught their own students via the “linked sets” and a similar training regimen. Just as the later first generation and second generation etc. students did.

If someone said Yip Man incorporated Shuai Chiao and Jujutsu into his early Wing Chun teaching after his adventures in mainland China and Japan respectively, I’d at least like some sort of correlation that the information was verifiable before just accepting it.

Lok Yiu is the seniormost living Hong Kong student of Yip Man.
He would be the one I would want to hear from with regards to what did or did not go on in the early restaurant workers union classes.

22

Hi Terence,

Likewise I was not challenging you to protect any position or anything. I have always had an intrest in the history of Wing Chun. Your comments were interesting and I personally would like to hear more. I just found it a bit odd as it kind of went against what I was told directly and indirectly. Like I said before, it doesn’t affect the skills Leung Sheung had. Wing Chun is a complete package that includes the forms and free hands.

If Wong Long and Wong Chuk have different perspectives, then that is great and probably important. Maybe I missed this, was their comments meaning that the first group of students all practiced this? Or that it continued for a while with their own training? Were they speaking of Leung Sheung’s training or their own?

Thanks for the insites.
Tom

JAILBROKEN

23

Originally posted by t_niehoff
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

My questions were aimed at understanding your reasoning, not an attempt to pry into your personal research, though they are obviously related. The subject was legitimately interesting, though no worries if you don’t want to discuss. Thanks for your concluding thoughts above nonetheless.

Regards,

  • Kathy Jo
24

TN sez: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;

Sure there can be some exposure to wing chun without forms-
but I dont think that it will be exposure in depth. Its possible that IM showed some people moves without teaching them forms and I can understand that LJ after retirement in his 3 or less remaining years showeda few folks movements without teaching the full form. Glimpses of a subject and teachinga subject in depth are quite different things.

About an opponent showing what should be done- true to a degree- but only good training results in seizing the moment.

A good form will have things arrnged in it in appropriate ways to
to link motions and concepts with proper flow. And the sequences are there for specific reasons. Untill the elbows are trained properly in slt- chum kiu elbows and their chamges wont work very well.

In any case I disagree with TN on this issue.

25

yuenfen writes:

Sure there can be some exposure to wing chun without forms-
but I dont think that it will be exposure in depth. Its possible that IM showed some people moves without teaching them forms and I can understand that LJ after retirement in his 3 or less remaining years showeda few folks movements without teaching the full form. Glimpses of a subject and teachinga subject in depth are quite different things. JC

Gu Lao/Koo Lo is WCK without linked sets; Sum Nung’s sup yee sik has a great deal of depth. What are the linked sets but san sik that are linked? Can’t one learn tan, bong, fook, the punch, YJKYM, etc. separately and then combine the points? Isn’t that what we do with tan da (where is that in the first form, yet we still learn to do it)? TN

About an opponent showing what should be done- true to a degree- but only good training results in seizing the moment. JC

“The moment” you refer to comes from the opponent; dealing with the opponent - or partner - is the training. You learn to box by boxing in the ring; you learn to wrestle by wrestling on the mat. TN

A good form will have things arranged in it in appropriate ways to
to link motions and concepts with proper flow. And the sequences are there for specific reasons. Untill the elbows are trained properly in slt- chum kiu elbows and their chamges wont work very well. JC

I never said that there isn’t a progression in san sik. Like anything else, one needs the foundation to build from. I do think that the WCK sets are brilliantly choreographed, however. TN

In any case I disagree with TN on this issue. JC

What? Are you breaking up the anti-HFY conspiracy group? :wink: TN

Terence

26

Bracketed brief answers-mercifully- to TN

yuenfen writes:

((Its YUANFEN- ask Rene))

Gu Lao/Koo Lo is WCK without linked sets; Sum Nung’s sup yee sik has a great deal of depth. What are the linked sets but san sik that are linked?

((Peano’s postulates links numbers- otherwise you just have some apples. My point holds good koo lo notwithstanding.))

Can’t one learn tan, bong, fook, the punch, YJKYM, etc. separately and then combine the points?
((more to it))

Isn’t that what we do with tan da (where is that in the first form, yet we still learn to do it)? TN

((Its there- even in the slt<g>))

About an opponent showing what should be done- true to a degree- but only good training results in seizing the moment. JC

“The moment” you refer to comes from the opponent; dealing with the opponent - or partner - is the training. You learn to box by boxing in the ring; you learn to wrestle by wrestling on the mat. TN
((The appropriate reflex training is needed-not just cerebral inderstanding. WC is more comprehensive and long lasting than boxing. And no- you just dont learn boxing in the ring. You will get only tough man contests that way))

A good form will have things arranged in it in appropriate ways to
to link motions and concepts with proper flow. And the sequences are there for specific reasons. Untill the elbows are trained properly in slt- chum kiu elbows and their chamges wont work very well. JC

I never said that there isn’t a progression in san sik. Like anything else, one needs the foundation to build from. I do think that the WCK sets are brilliantly choreographed, however. TN

((i have never liked the term choreographed — aint ballet or the movie Chicago- I will miss the choreography since I wont take my eyes of Zeta Jones. Michael Douglas is the dirty old man))

In any case I disagree with TN on this issue. JC

What? Are you breaking up the anti-HFY conspiracy group? TN

((Many theories are partly correct- even conspiracy theories.
Occams razor awaits… and you are not the only one from Missouri
in a space-time continuum on some recent issues))Joy C

Terence

27

T–i wonder if 20 years of leasurely study amounts to 2 years of intense historical research with the actually gentleman you talk about? 20 years is a long time to do something wrong as well…
as david pointed out the wongs started years after the first generation…which included leung sheung and yip bo ching if im not mistaken and than lok yiu and as mentioned there are bunchs of" little known" students
you may not break up yip mans classes/teaching periods but i do and i do not consider everyone that learned from yip man his first generation student…there are very specific classes with very specific teaching periods …l
and because yip mans san sik are listed on a web page…that is supposed to lend weight to you argument?? by that logic everything posted on anyweb sight would obviously be truth…yes??
a direct leung sheung student has told me, that leung sheung showed them weng chun …so they could see the differance in what leung sheung called siu lum weng chun…
again look at pre fatsan yip man…4 forms, jong, knives, 6.5 … he taught his first generation using the traditional chan wah shun method, so why would he not start out his first student in H.K with snt and san sik drills which are included in all wck…but you cant say san sik was his exclusive method of transmitting his knowledge…if that were truth… many of us wouldnt be doing slt,ck,bj,hj,jong,ect…
of cource if you provided proof, i may believe!!!

28

byond1 wrote:

T–i wonder if 20 years of leasurely study amounts to 2 years of intense historical research with the actually gentleman you talk about? 20 years is a long time to do something wrong as well…

LOL! Yeah, just 20 “leasurely” years wasting my time . . . certainly nothing like what you’ve done in your two years of intense historical research. :wink: TN

as david pointed out the wongs started years after the first generation…which included leung sheung and yip bo ching if im not mistaken and than lok yiu and as mentioned there are bunchs of" little known" students
you may not break up yip mans classes/teaching periods but i do and i do not consider everyone that learned from yip man his first generation student…there are very specific classes with very specific teaching periods …b1

Thanks for explaining your personal definition of “first generation”; how could I have been so silly to use the accepted definition and not yours. :wink: And I’m sorry if I happen to think that someone, like the Wongs, may be able to find out what was going on with their school during and before they were there (like by talking with older students). TN

and because yip mans san sik are listed on a web page…that is supposed to lend weight to you argument?? by that logic everything posted on anyweb sight would obviously be truth…yes?? B1

Merely pointing out – as I mentioned in other posts – that this isn’t anything “new.” TN

a direct leung sheung student has told me, that leung sheung showed them weng chun …so they could see the differance in what leung sheung called siu lum weng chun…B1

So? Have I ever said LS didn’t know something about weng chun? TN

again look at pre fatsan yip man…4 forms, jong, knives, 6.5 …B1

I suppose you mean YM’s foshan students (pre-HK)? Yup. So what? No one, including me, have said Yip didn’t know the forms. :wink: TN

he taught his first generation using the traditional chan wah shun method, so why would he not start out his first student in H.K with snt and san sik drills which are included in all wck…but you cant say san sik was his exclusive method of transmitting his knowledge…if that were truth… many of us wouldnt be doing slt,ck,bj,hj,jong,ect…B1

Obviously Yip had to begin teaching the linked sets, and if you look at my initial post on the subject I explained how that came about (or so the story goes). Look, Brian, I wasn’t there and you weren’t there. Two folks that we know of that were in HK at Yip’s school say Yip taught initially with just san sik. I don’t know why they would lie about that – perhaps you have some thoughts? I’ve not heard from anyone else that was there that it specifically didn’t happen. Have you? My mind is not made up. The account makes sense to me. But it could be false. Until I have other evidence to the contrary, I’m leaning toward believing the Wong account. TN

of cource if you provided proof, i may believe!!! B1

From my pov, all the evidence is on my side (I’ve got two witnesses to zero right now). TN

Terence

29

Terence,

Not sure if your ignoring my questions or are answering them indirectly. I am confused, did the wong’s learn this way, or were they suggesting the first group of students learned this way?

TST came a little bit after Lok Yiu and Leung Sheung, but I thought before the Wongs. TST does not say how LY and LS learned, but he says he learned SLT on the first day. I don’t think you can contradict that as he is still alive and that is what he said he learned.

Tom

Toys erotic

30

Hi Terence,

Forgot a couple of things,

Where did you here about this story? Is it posted on a web site? I think many of us would like to see it in context, especially if we are expected to beleive it. If it is not posted or published anywere, where did you hear it? Directly from the Wong’s? Or from one of there students? If it was from one of their students, why would they be any more credible that students of Leung Sheung?

Also, I wonder why every one who learned these san sik first dropped teaching them specifically in the begining to favor the forms? Leung Sheung taught the forms on the first day according to several first hand accounts to include Leung Ting’s own discription in addition to others. TST also says he learned SLT on his first day. Why are the forms the prefered way of learning and why don’t the san sik play a prominant role in the art as a training tool? Meaning we have the forms and various drills along with various methods of Chi sau. But you don’t hear much about san sik specifically like you do in YKS or KooLo wing chun.

Its interesting, but I would like to see or hear the Wong’s account of the story.

Tom

The apprentice dicussion

31

if you get into a pak sau drill (san sik?) on the first day…
that count? Seems pretty reasonable.

32

Hi Tom,

Tom, I wasn’t ignoring you, just that I thought my previous posts had addressed your questions. TN

tomparkerfo wrote:

I am confused, did the wong’s learn this way, or were they suggesting the first group of students learned this way? TP

As I understand it (which means, check for yourself – as Yip Man said, “Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you.”), Yip Man when he first began teaching in HK taught WCK via san sik for some time until the some of the students became aware that there were ‘kuen to’ and then he began teaching those. How long this lasted I’m not certain. TN

TST does not say how LY and LS learned, but he says he learned SLT on the first day. I don’t think you can contradict that as he is still alive and that is what he said he learned. TP

That may be true, I don’t know. Where/when did TST say this? TN

Where did you here about this story? Is it posted on a web site? I think many of us would like to see it in context, especially if we are expected to beleive it. If it is not posted or published anywere, where did you hear it? TP

This “story” has been around for quite a while. I learned it via the Hawaii group (via Robert Yeung, John Deviglio, etc.). As I said in my other posts, there are lots of conflicting stories (did Yip Man learn from Leung Bik?) – and I don’t care what you or anyone believes (I’m not trying to prove anything about history). TN

I wonder why every one who learned these san sik first dropped teaching them specifically in the begining to favor the forms? Why are the forms the prefered way of learning and why don’t the san sik play a prominant role in the art as a training tool? Meaning we have the forms and various drills along with various methods of Chi sau. But you don’t hear much about san sik specifically like you do in YKS or KooLo wing chun. TP

Did you learn tan da, pak da, guan da with turning, then stepping, etc. when you first began? That’s san sik. The drills like lop sao, turning punch, pak da, etc.? San sik. I don’t think that the forms are “the preferred way” of learning. The linked sets are nothing more than san sik linked thematically. So the sets are san sik and san sik are forms. WCK is WCK. TN

Terence

33

I don’t really understand the problem here, none of this really seems mutually contradictory. It just seems people have chosen what (or who) to believe and get testy if others believe different. Same old, same old.

FWIW, Yip Man was said by many (including his own students in print) to have been a reluctant teacher at best, teaching only when he had to to earn money to live. Would it make sense, then, for him to quickly and completely teach the sets so someone (as later happened) could go open up down the street and compete with him?

You can teach a punch before SLT, a few movements like Tan Da, a turn or a step. Is it a big deal? It’s obvious his early students learned the hand sets within a few years anyway.

BTW - I don’t recommend taking anyone’s word for any of this. Even if unconcious, the tradition is one of respect and giving face, and people tend to view such things through rose colored glasses, or through the hopes of looking good to those they speak. How many really learned the complete knives directly from Yip Man? How many say they did? Far fewer of the former than the latter, but people “believe” who they want (usually theirs and no one elses). It’s a childish way to look at all this.

Another thing to consider - Where’s the kneeling horse? It’s in the San Sik the Wong’s talk about. Yip Man used it in Foshan. I believe Tom Kagen mentioned something about it in the Moy Yat family. Perhaps that’s one way to sort through what was taught, to who, and when.

And John - You were, and are, and will be welcome any time on the WCML. Only you have ever decided when and if you participate.

RR

34

Hi Terence,

-Terence: Tom, I wasn’t ignoring you, just that I thought my previous posts had addressed your questions. TN

LOL, That is what I figured, but I did have a couple questions, which you answered this time…thanks. Tom

-Terence: As I understand it (which means, check for yourself – as Yip Man said, “Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you.”), Yip Man when he first began teaching in HK taught WCK via san sik for some time until the some of the students became aware that there were ‘kuen to’ and then he began teaching those. How long this lasted I’m not certain. TN

So, they didn’t say that they learned this way, only that Yip Man taught this way for some period of time. Perhaps a day, week, year, etc. This is interesting, and I don’t suggest that it didn’t happen, though I think it is wierd since Leung Sheung was well aware of the forms. So if Yip Man taught this way, I would think it was more of to keep the forms for himself or to teach the applicable aspects first. But I have a hard time he was hiding the fact that they existed. Most people would assume that there were forms simply because almost every style has them, so why wouldn’t these people think different of wingh chun? Interesting though. Tom

-Terence:That may be true, I don’t know. Where/when did TST say this? [regarding TST learning SLT od Day One] TN

I double checked and it wasn’t his writtings, or atleast appears not to be his writtings. It is a short biography of him from one of his affiliate schools. I would assume this holds weight, but can’t beleive everything you read and hear: ) And for what its worth, Leung Ting said the same in his Roots book. The web site for TST is: http://www.hchwingchun.com.au/life.htm

-Terence: This “story” has been around for quite a while. I learned it via the Hawaii group (via Robert Yeung, John Deviglio, etc.). As I said in my other posts, there are lots of conflicting stories (did Yip Man learn from Leung Bik?) – and I don’t care what you or anyone believes (I’m not trying to prove anything about history). TN

Just to put this in perspective, you suggested earlier, if I recall corectly, that we can’t beleive sources removed in regards to what we heard Leung Sheung students said. This sounds exactly like the same thing. If you personally heard if from the Wong’s, that would be different. But this seems to have the same weight as what Leung Sheung students have said. Not that either prove anything though. LOL. Yes lots of conflicting stories. I am not really challenging your story, but just would like to hear more so we can hopfully validate it or not. tom

-Terence: Did you learn tan da, pak da, guan da with turning, then stepping, etc. when you first began? That’s san sik. The drills like lop sao, turning punch, pak da, etc.? San sik. I don’t think that the forms are “the preferred way” of learning. The linked sets are nothing more than san sik linked thematically. So the sets are san sik and san sik are forms. WCK is WCK. TN

Yes I learned some stuff early on. I did learn the set, or a significant portion of it first. The form teaches things that I don’t think drilling san sik can teach. I don’t think the sets are merely linked san siks. I think the sets are not even really san sik. San Sik, to me, seem to be a way to drill a specific technique. The forms are not in my opinion for this. They are to focus on other aspects other than actual combat methods. The key is percision and other traits that come into play. Both are thus important, but the forms tend to refine traits that are needed for the indipendent san sik.
tom

I am not suggesting a lack of importance or even saying what was taught. It is all important! I just want to hear the story and make sure we put the emphasis on the right thing. It seems the forms have become the standard method for early training for what ever reason. The san sik in Yip Man’s branch don’t hold significance importance as being singled out like they do in YKS and KooLoo. Of course that doesn’t mean they are not important. But what do we call san sik in Yip Man WCK? Are they specific technqiues or any independent motion?

Oh well, Thanks for answering.

Tom

Zx14 vs hayabusa

35

sansik is just a name- not a concept.
One can take a beginning student and have him standing in a corner- just punching before he is ready for learning a form.
Purpose- developmental-getting him/her to minimize usage of local musculature alone relaxing the shoulders and pectorals etc..

This does not mean that good wing chun can ignore forms-
but a teacher can do different things to help develop a specific student. And as has been pointed out Ip man didnt teach everyone all the forms. Some learned from each other- which is no disgrace…if they have learned the right things.

And, there is much more to the forms than learning the sequence.
I am often puzzled and even amused by folks who claim that they learned the entire Ip Man system because they know the sequence of the forms.

The knives and the pole and the dummy are extensions of the 3 hand forms. And even the first two hand forms are good enough for fighting brcause the roots of biu jee are in there too.

So someone who has learned the first two hand forms very very well- can be formidable.

36

Joy - Well said.

37

T–exactly, im glad you can read between the lines (-20)…
lok yiu as well as his student allan lee focus on slt and the ygkym ,sam pai fut section for a very long time before progresion…as stated by allan lee…
tst said he learned slt his first day…
o.k so you go to robert yeungs web sight and see what he wrote not what the wongs wrote and you feel thats evidence???
i can provide tons of "that’ kind of evidence!!!

pre-H.K–thanks for the correction —did you enjoy that??

so now we have T’s opinion on what yip man did or did not…so i can go on with my life now…thanks…

leung sheung, and the fact he knew weng chun would add weight in him knowing exactly what wing chun was/is…and what its curiculum was..~