wing chun history

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

sandman—this is somelthing that needs to be talked about…not bottled up…i believe if personal attacks were left out and questions were aswered logicaly,with the proof to back up the words,we could get somewhere…

chango— well i see the connection between shaolin and chan… i, as of yet, dont see a “direct” connection between wc and shaolin…i believe the only way of comparing kung fu systems is by examinging the ging patterns…this is something rene and hendrik have been looking at and i believe will eventually lead to finding our origins…shaolin is differant than wc…now white crane weng chun and some of the hakka arts resemble wc…very closely if you ask me

leung jan?? there is plenty of documentation on leung jan, wong wah bo, fung siu ching,dai fa men kam,for those who know where to look… wong wah bo did exist and there are records of him and where he lived and taught when the opera was closed. wwb was a native of koolo village if im not mistaken. and it is documented when he retured to the opera after the ban was lifted. its documented where fok bo chun and fung siu ching worked and where and when they taught..same for dam fa min kam…actual shops where they worked are know to us. of cource anything before wwb i consider as legend but the late 1800’s are not a huge mystery…and through investigation we can see what leung jan and fok bo chuns wc looked like. so we than have an idea what wwb wc looked like. characteristics for example is a pigeon toed ygkym with afist distance between the knees…sow hung-another very important characteristic to all hakka arts…so in my opinion its not so hard to grasp what recent history was…of cource pre boats is like a ghost…hopfully someone will make steps in figuring this out…the problem is that some people in the wc community have information that could peace the whole thing together or at least help…but are unwilling to become a victim of internet terrorism…this type of ignorant attack, on these schoolars keeps us all ignorant…there are many questions to be answered…fewer who can answer…and even less who want to hear…
thanks to all who have helped me from ignorance

2

ha fa say??

anyone see the new article on the 2 branchs of hung gar? 1) ha fa say?sp or 2)canton??
the ha fa say uses a pigeon toed ygkym…its main punch is a verticle punch that is totaly straightened upon punching…it also has an individual form for each of the 5 animals where the canton version has the animals mixed up together..like the shaolin 5 animal of doc fai wong…could this older method of hung gar been an ancestor of wc?

3

Sandman did the right thing in closing the original thread.
Its become quite unproductive.

4

I think if you see some of the other WCK.

Hello Beyond1,

<snip> chango— well i see the connection between shaolin and chan… i, as of yet, dont see a “direct” connection between wc and shaolin…i believe the only way of comparing kung fu systems is by examinging the ging patterns…this is something rene and hendrik have been looking at and i believe will eventually lead to finding our origins…shaolin is differant than wc…now white crane weng chun and some of the hakka arts resemble wc…very closely if you ask me

Having studied various Shaolin based arts (Tan tui, Lo Han etc..) from age 5. I would probrably agree with you before I exposed to a few less public versions of WCK. If you get a chance to see and understand the basis of HFY and Chi Sim I think you would absolutly change your mind about the " direct" connection. I hope you can visit the VTM sometime. I bet you find things pretty enlightening.
:cool:

5

Kwan Jong-Yuen Sifu

Planetwc Wrote>

What else do you need to know that a google search could not provide?

The searches you performed I did a long time ago, there doesn’t seem to be much info available on Robert Chu’s website!!!

Rene Wrote>

Planet WC is correct that this should be easily accessible information for anyone not brainwashed into culthood and in possession of at least a third grade reading level.

Please see above!!!

Rene Wrote>

40 points,

Is this in Gu Lao/Koo Lo:confused: because I could only find reference to the #36:confused:

Googles great but the only reference to Tam Yeung, was on kindergarten:confused:

OK, I don’t see how this is in any way different to the questions being asked by other people:confused: I once again expect this to be locked down or erased:(
It’s amazing the VTM don’t seem to call foul:confused: when they’re questioned constantly they seem to answer any questions to the best of they’re ability;)

Sheldon

6

Eh?

As everyone is unhappy with everyone elses answers to someone elses questions… why does this topic keep surfacing? Even when the aforementioned book is published, everyone will argue about it. (sigh)

7

The Cover Of Complete Wing Chun!!!

This motion on the cover of Complete Wing Chun, is this from Gu Lao or Yuen Kay San:confused:

I’m just trying to do a bit of my own research and work with what is readily available;)

Sheldon

8

Hey Sheldon,

Because of its nature (San Sik), over the years, many different ways to “count” the core motions have come up, as have some “linked sets” as well. I have personally seen:

1 linked set (3 different ones)
2 linked sets
8 points
12 points
22 points
36 points
40 points
45 points

I have also seen points + extras (12+6, for example)

I understand it can be confusing if you aren’t familiar with the essance of the art, or with the history of its spread (not everyone would teach all the points, some blended them with other WCK, some split them further apart to sell more, etc.) For a parallel, take a look at the spread and eleboration of Baguazhang.

Anyway, I haven’t yet seen anyone claim Gulao was some secret Confucian enfused original, authentic, traditional, absolute version passed down directly by the Yellow Emperor, so it’s not on point (no pun intended), and just a cheap ‘never defend, always attack’ strategy to change the focus of a historical discussion anyway.

Chango - If you don’t include Hung Fa Yi or Jee Shim, do you think the same applies to Gulao, Yip Man, Sum Nung, etc.? Do they seem, to you, to use Shaolin forms and mechanics, or do you think they’re different?

RR

9

Hey Rene,

Why was the system refined so much? Through experience, Dr. Leung Jan determined that not many different movements were used to win real fights yet it was also the right amount to prepare the disciples for any aspect in a real fighting situation. Why did he choose thirty-six? Thirty-six, or three times twelve, was a lucky number in Chinese culture.

Rene wrote>

Because of its nature (San Sik), over the years, many different ways to “count” the core motions have come up, as have some “linked sets” as well. I have personally seen:

So they’ve gone from the original art and added to it:confused:

Rene Wrote>

so it’s not on point (no pun intended), and just a cheap ‘never defend, always attack’ strategy to change the focus of a historical discussion anyway.

Not Really, I just thought, “Hey” there seems to be some missing links in this, “why not ask some questions about it”:wink:

Sheldon

10

Hey Sheldon,

So they’ve gone from the original art and added to it

Mostly just rearranged. A few have less, a few repeat more. All arts are like this. Humans are not computers, after all, and the goal of many was to fight, not to collect or preserve, and some felt they didn’t need certain things, and others might have felt they needed them differently, and still others might have felt they needed more. Nature evolves. If not, we’d all be doing Mongolian Wrestling.

RR

11

Byond,
If people want to POLITELY discuss the history of Wing Chun Kuen, that’s fine. Threads get locked/removed when they degenerate into personal attacks.

Geezer,
Out of curiosity, who do you study under?

12

Sandman 2, Let Me Ask You A Question???

Sandman 2 Wrote>

Geezer,
Out of curiosity, who do you study under?

Out of curiosity, why do you ask:confused: and “who” sorry what has prompted the question:confused:

I’ll choose to keep who I study under, under my hat for the minute;)
If it’s a rule here, like the “WCML” that I must claim a clan, I once again choose not too;)
I was asked not too involve my Sifu in these open house forums and I will hold true too that until he says otherwise.:wink:

I don’t know if that makes my questions here any less valid:confused:

I can tell you it’s Yip Man WCK:p

Sheldon

13

You’re just bitter they closed down your marks’n’sparks gwoon. 8P

BTW- Our groceries have started selling weetabix…

14

Some might say…

I don’t know if that makes my questions here any less valid

Well, if you’re discussing lineage with people as in the thread that was closed, some might say it smacks of irony.

But personally I’m not bothered either way :stuck_out_tongue:

Rene,

I’m pleased for you with regard the breakfast munching, but please, please, don’t give us Swiss Chalet in return :smiley:

15

Hey Rene,

Renre Wrote>

Mostly just rearranged. A few have less, a few repeat more.

So who was it that added to Dr. Leung Jans Gu Lao when Robert Chu started training in it:confused: was this a change that robert made???.
Also on the front cover of Complete Wing Chun, is that Gu Lao or Yuen Kay San :confused:

Sheldon;)

16

Hi Rene,

Rene Ritchie wrote:

I understand it can be confusing if you aren’t familiar with the essance of the art, or with the history of its spread (not everyone would teach all the points, some blended them with other WCK, some split them further apart to sell more, etc.) For a parallel, take a look at the spread and eleboration of Baguazhang. RR

One problem that I’ve encountered with folks that haven’t encountered a san sik platform of WCK teaching is that they often tend to look at the shape of things instead of beyond the shape to grasp the yau dim (the important points or idea(s)) that the shape is trying to convey. In other words, the particular “technique” within san sik is being used to express certain specific ideas; and just as the same idea can be expressed using different words, it can be expressed using different shapes/techniques. So lineage 1 can have one shape/technique to express concept A and lineage 2 can have a different shape/technique to express the same concept. Lineage 3 may combine several concepts (A,B,C) and express them in a single shape/technique and thus have fewer total san sik in its curriculum. I don’t see this as “going from the original art” or “adding to it”, as Sheldon asked, but taking the same material (WCK) and teaching it in a different way (most probably in an attempt to make it more digestable to individual students). TN

I think we should all keep in mind that WCK is in the application; the curriculum is merely a vehicle or tool. TN

Terence

17

Blackandblue,

Balckandblue Wrote>

Well, if you’re discussing lineage with people as in the thread that was closed, some might say it smacks of irony.

No, what smacks of irony is, I think Terence is the only person I’ve asked that question of. :wink:
It just makes me laugh that he asks so many questions but when questioned himself, calls foul;)

There’s no point in commenting on other peoples back garden if yours doesn’t look that great:)

Sheldon

18

Re: Sandman 2, Let Me Ask You A Question???

Originally posted by Geezer
[B]Sandman 2 Wrote>

Out of curiosity, why do you ask:confused: [/B]

shrug Just wondering, didn’t see any info in your profile, and as vocal as you are on here I didn’t expect you’d mind telling me where you are coming from so I could better understand your point of view.

and “who” sorry what has prompted the question:confused:

Alright, there is absolutely no reason to get snippy with me. People don’t have “accidental slips of the tongue” in a written format so why don’t you just drop the insinuations. And don’t play stupid, it’s unbecoming.


I’ll choose to keep who I study under, under my hat for the minute;)
If it’s a rule here, like the “WCML” that I must claim a clan, I once again choose not too;)
I was asked not too involve my Sifu in these open house forums and I will hold true too that until he says otherwise.:wink:

There is absolutely no problem with that at all. It is completely your call as to what personal information you wish to divulge. We have several VERY regular posters who haven’t revealed the slightest information about themselves. (ie: Rolling_Hand, EnterTheWhip, etc…) I can certainly appreciate not placing ones name/address/misc. personal info into a public internet forum. Ultimatly it is your call, and I support forum users rights to choose for themselves what to share and what not to share, regardless of my own opinion on any given situation.


I don’t know if that makes my questions here any less valid:confused:

That’s a matter of opinion.

19

Hey Sheldon,

So who was it that added to Dr. Leung Jans Gu Lao when Robert Chu started training in it was this a change that robert made???.

Robert’s Gulao is as Kwan Jong-Yuen taught it (Kwan sifu kept very detailed notes which I was fortunate enough to see). I don’t believe he added anything much, if at all, but rather had the material spread over more points (instead of one point with 6 motions, for example, he might have had 3 with 2 each). Examples of adding are more common in other branches of Gulao. The only change Robert has made is that he expresses the points using his own body structure rather than the classic one seen in Gulao, Sum Nung, or Foshan Yip man WCK (but it seems few others use that any more anyway ;). He has very specific views on structure, as you’ve probably read in his articles. Maybe if he made up some story about secret Yuan dynasty origins, you’d find it more believable? :wink:

Also on the front cover of Complete Wing Chun, is that Gu Lao or Yuen Kay San

Robert does all his WCK with the same body structure, as numerous people have replied to you and your group before. On the cover, he’s demonstrating the Gulao Fu Fook point with his own structure.

It just makes me laugh that he asks so many questions but when questioned himself, calls foul

Maybe he’s waiting for you to tell him about your sifu and answer questions about why he’s doing what he’s doing now, and exactly what’s different from Leung Ting’s approach and why he changed?

B&B,

I’m pleased for you with regard the breakfast munching, but please, please, don’t give us Swiss Chalet in return

Swiss Chalet has closed down there restaurants where I live, (though Cote-St-Luc BBQ is still doing well) and the one near me is now an Outback Steakhouse. We would send you some Poutine, but we’re afraid you Brits would beer-batter it and stick it in the deep frier with your mars bars, yeah?

One problem that I’ve encountered with folks that haven’t encountered a san sik platform of WCK teaching is that they often tend to look at the shape of things instead of beyond the shape to grasp the yau dim (the important points or idea(s)) that the shape is trying to convey.

The one problem I’ve encountered is with folks that lack their own knowledge but have been told things by politically and or ego/financially motivated “sifu” and in good faith accepted them, and gone out and unfortunately acted as trolling agents for those “sifu”. Luckily, when some people catch on (usually by getting taken advantage of and burned themselves), they start to leak what’s really going on to the outside, and then it would just be funny if it wasn’t such a disservice to our art.

(Now watch as the annonymous trolls predictably come on here and VTAA with their bashing, made all the more noxious by the fact that they seldom, if ever contribute to any of the technical threads in discussion).

RR

20

Sheldon, BlackandBleu,

Sheldon Wrote>

quote:

Well, if you’re discussing lineage with people as in the thread that was closed, some might say it smacks of irony. BB

No, what smacks of irony is, I think Terence is the only person I’ve asked that question of.
It just makes me laugh that he asks so many questions but when questioned himself, calls foul. SG

I thought the moderator closed this discussion. Is this what you guys do, just start up another thread and try to continue it? :frowning: Perhaps, Sheldon, you could explain where I “called foul”? I didn’t respond to your obvious attempt to shift the focus from the discussion at hand, and besides, Rene fully answered your “question”. TN

There’s no point in commenting on other peoples back garden if yours doesn’t look that great. SG

Spoken like a true troll. So, what you are saying in effect is that there is no point in asking questions – like asking for their proof – of folks who claim to possess “the truth” about WCK history unless we have “back gardens” that are attractive to you? What does my “back garden” have to do with whether HFY’s oral tradition is factual or not? Couldn’t someone with no “back garden” in WCK ask the same, relevant questions of the VTM? TN

Terence