Wing Chun's New Heritage

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

Just wondering what you all think about the rewriting of WC history, inparticular the disappearance of NG Mui and Yim Wing Chun. Do you think its true? Do you not want to believe the new evidence? Does it make sence, or should we not really care at all?

Please feel free to reveal more evidence for or against these new revelations.

For me, in the lineage I belong to, we believed that WC was created by the 5 Grandmasters of Shaolin to counter all other styles as a way to create warriors for the revolution in a more timely fashion and to give them something different and more effective to use. We believe Ng Mui was the creator of the actual techniques but not the theories behind it. This makes sense since my beginnings as a teacher of this art I have found women pick up on the techniques much easier then most men.

Please share your thoughts…

sihing

2

Who’s concept of “re-writing history” are you referring to.

The book “Complete Wing Chun” is a very good source for the differing histories of Wing Chun/Weng Chun (Thanx Rene and Robert).

By process of comparing these histories reveals that all liniages refer to the Red Junk Opera company, so it can be reasonably assumed that WC was filtered throught it. Before then the histories are a mix of differing stories, most incluing one or more of the “Five Elders”. I do believe to some degree these earlier stories were probably made up to keep the knowledge of the art from the manchu and to create propaganda that because these famous monks/nuns were responsible for it that it carried some sort of magical property.

Anything prior to recorded history of WC can only be considered as legend. It’s kida like asking if I believe King Authur really existed and if he was the one who found the Holy Grail.

3

mostly Benny Meng’s version/investigation. I’ve read some things on the VTMA website, and a article in Inside Kung-fu author’d by Meng. Just wondering what others thought or if there was more information from someone on this forum.

Sihing

4

where to begin?

I haven’t read Benny Meng’s take on it yet, but like I said “Complete Wing Chun” by Rene Ritchie and Robert Chu - is an exellent collection of histories as well as training and techniques. In the final chapters they give a summery and state their theory of the truth. Also, you could check out “Roots of Wing Tsun” by Leung Ting as well, although it is limited to the divided schools of Ip Man liniage (should be called “Roots of Ip Man Wing Tsun”).

5

Although there is an answer out there somewhere - regarding what “really” happened way-back-when…in the early days of wing chun…

The thick, black smoke of politics continues to hold the true facts captive.

So don’t expect any lifting of the veil anytime soon!

6

I thought Wing Chun was just snake + crane. :slight_smile:

7

Uh…Bien! Good Ming sees otherwise…It dings my dear and sacred core a great deal to discover that my favorite ancestral “Long Beak” is not even mentioned in the new evidences. =)

8

The various versions of WCK legends as well as areas of research into things that may be closer to actual “history” has been hashed out in detail in many different threads in this forum. Just do a few searches and see what you come up with. Search for posts by “phenix.” He took part in the vast majority of them in one way or the other. :slight_smile:

Keith

9

There’s no ‘Re-Writing’ of WCK history, there’s just a maturing of Western WCK culture which allows for better discernment between history and legend (something the Chinese have known all along, even if at times they have not bothered to share the distinction).

To help understand, imagine the situation were reversed and you had Englishmen in China teaching martial arts, inlcuding the quarter-staff and bow, and as part of their tradition they passed along the story of Robin Hood and Little John.

Now, the story is very exiting, it gets people involved and motivates them, and it does draw on certain historical elements (Richard II), and reflect some of the feelings of injustice of the time, but it is not history. And almost any Westerner could explain to you the differece–it’s part of our cultural heritage.

The same goes for many/most of the Southern Chinese MA creation myths, drawn from legends that grew out of the High Qing era, and used by teachers trying to establish themselves in China, then the colonies, then the West.

Ask any native Chinese and they’ll likely understand these stories the way you understand Robin Hood, King Arthur, Heracles, etc.

And personally, I love the stories of Ng Mui and Yim Wing-Chun and all the rest. Much more compelling then something as commonplace as evolution of existing arts over time under stress.

10

well I do think its still a rewriting of the history, whether or not the original writing was fiction or not. Two of the main characters are now gone, so that’s a big change. Funny though I still look at it as a exciting past, most of the history is still the same, espeacially the whole purpose behind the creation of WC.

For those of you out there that are in communication with older lineage masters(for e.g. Yip’s first students, etc..) what do these masters think of the new evidence that has come about over the last couple of years. Victor/Phil, does GM Cheung believe what has been reported, how about Yip Chun and others?

Sihing

11

Originally posted by reneritchie
And personally, I love the stories of Ng Mui and Yim Wing-Chun and all the rest. Much more compelling then something as commonplace as evolution of existing arts over time under stress.

So do I.

I find it interesting that legends/myths are a better source for inspiration than cold historic detail.

My real facination comes with finding the truths to famous legends. Just as there was probably a real Celtic hero that inspired the King Arthur myths, there is probably some truth to the legends of the Five Elders - just don’t hold your breath for the History Channel to get around to that one!:cool:

12

The way I’ve heard it explained is that the true origins of Wing Chun will never be known for a certainty and at any rate are not entirely relevant at this point. Given how many variations have popped up just in the last 30 years, it’s almost guaranteed that the Wing Chun of today is much different than what it was at the turn of the century, let alone what it was during the Red Boat era.

I’ve heard it said that there was a big evolution of WC in Fatshan in the early 1940s, with some material having been greatly ‘refined’. This has resulted in modern variants that are more technical than previous variants that had come before. This is not to say that the previous lines necessarily disappeared or went extinct, only to say that there is more than one legitimate line of WC out there.

Nor was WC really uniform, even prior to the '40s. There were supposedly different groups of people receiving different levels of instruction depending on their affiliations and their respective roles in the clans. The stories go that many people received instruction up through about the 2nd form or so because that was a relatively quick and easy solution to the question of how to train a large group of people. Some people specialized for specific roles; some focused on the weapons, others were trained as bodyguards, etc. Some of those who showed more talent and work ethic got brought in a little closer to the inner circles and received extra training in a smaller and more intimate environment.

If you think about it, such a version of not-so-distant history could make a certain amount of sense. Not everyone would have had need of the more technical aspects of WC, nor would the amount of time and talent and affiliations amongst all the players have ever been equal. The most comprehensive instruction could only have been effective in very small groups.

Regardless, I wasn’t there and so I don’t know. All I can ‘know’ is what I see in the here and now. I’m certain I don’t study the WC of Ng Mui; I study a more modern version of WC as that version exists today. I don’t think it’s the only ‘real’ version of WC nor do I believe that other versions are wrong or incorrect. In my view, the correctness of a WC version is defined soley by it’s effectiveness. To whatever degree mixing other elements from other styles is effective, the WC lines that do it are also correct.

13

James Roller (sihing):

Rather than talk about what William Cheung thinks of the latest, shall we say…developments…theories…etc.

all of which has been covered MANY times on threads on this forum in the past - and almost always leads to nonstop bickering…

let me just say that, in my opinion, whether or not Ng Mui and Madame Wing Chun actually existed or not…is irrelevant.

Almost everyone agrees that - whoever the specific people in the beginning were - the origin of wing chun had to do with a movement begun in secret…the purpose of which was to come up with a new kung fu system meant to train a revolutionary army bent on overthrowing the Manchu’s.

14

For me, in the lineage I belong to, we believed that WC was created by the 5 Grandmasters of Shaolin to counter all other styles as a way to create warriors for the revolution in a more timely fashion and to give them something different and more effective to use.

My sifu tells pretty much the same story.

I myself am unsure what to believe, but the more I learn about wing chun every day, the more I become convinced of one thing: no way has just one person had invented wing chun! :smiley: I don’t care if your name is Ng Mui, or Yim Wing Chun, or whatever. This thing is so big, so complex, so wonderful, it couldn’t have been invented by an individual. :slight_smile:

Maybe the aliens left it here :smiley: …

15

quiet man

I agree with your thinking there too, WC wasn’t created by only one person. Its too sophisticated and is so different from other forms of Kung-Fu that something unusual happened when the art was being developed. I also agree with what some of the others have said, the WC of today is different than in the past, its always evolving each generation. Since this is a art of concepts then this is easily done. As to all this talk being “Irrelevant” I wouldn’t say that. It isn’t the most important thing to talk about that’s for sure but it would be nice to know the exact history of WC. This is a public forum on the subject right?

Sihing

16

It might be nice to know the true origin of WC, but in the end it’s like asking the question “who invented the fork?”, or to use a less euro-centric view, “who invented Dim Sum?” Sure there’s an answer somewhere out in the cosmos, but it’s only interesting in light of the utility of the results.

Besides, the question of the origins of Wing Chun just doesn’t have the same mystique as the question of “how did they do it?”. Wouldn’t you really rather know the answer to that one?

17

sihing

As to all this talk being “Irrelevant” I wouldn’t say that. It isn’t the most important thing to talk about that’s for sure but it would be nice to know the exact history of WC.

How would you suggest finding the exact history of WC?
It would take the History Channel a team of archeologists, a handful of “Experts” and last but not least some SPECULATION. Which this public forum does not have at it’s disposal.
This brings us to why we say it isn’t important (to our development of skills), not irrelevant, it doesn’t affect your training, it’s just a history lesson.

If anyone knows how to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the real history of WC, by all means tell us. Otherwise we can share in the legends and nail down the facts (like the furthest we can trace actual history is the Red Junk Opera).

18

Originally posted by JAFO
Besides, the question of the origins of Wing Chun just doesn’t have the same mystique as the question of “how did they do it?”. Wouldn’t you really rather know the answer to that one?

That, Observer, is an AWESOME question indeed!:cool:

19

Sihing,

The article you refer to makes no mention of re-writing Wing Chun History. Perhaps you missed that very first, bold faced paragraph? It simply says the article presents the VTM’s latest research, makes no conclusions, and presents them to the reader to make his/her own decision. It doesn’t say “We are now presenting the supreme facts about Wing Chun” or anything like that. of course, I also do not believe the article to be the only thing you’re referring to in this thread. Meng Sifu does not claim to be presenting the world with the hardest facts possible, only what the research of the VTM has lead him to find. As for Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun not being present, maybe you should re-read that article as those names are repeated a few times in the article.

AmanuJRY writes:
I haven’t read Benny Meng’s take on it yet, but like I said “Complete Wing Chun” by Rene Ritchie and Robert Chu - is an exellent collection of histories as well as training and techniques. In the final chapters they give a summery and state their theory of the truth.
Likewise, this article is simply the VTM’s theory of the truth regarding Wing Chun. Remember, the staff from the Museum have conducted a decade of research into the origins of Wing Chun, travelling to visit many families, train with them, and learn directly from them, not from what they heard about these families. These experiences have proabably allowed the VTM to come up with more objective data derived from collective, direct experiences and research. They have heard many origin stories and such and most likely have taken the collective similarities and researched them until exhaustion. No doubt the authors of Complete Wing Chun have conducted similar studies in order to present their theories of the truth.

PaulH writes,
Uh…Bien! Good Ming sees otherwise…It dings my dear and sacred core a great deal to discover that my favorite ancestral “Long Beak” is not even mentioned in the new evidences. =)

One, please be considerate and spell the Author’s name correctly, it’s Meng, not Ming. Second, the Sanke and Crane are mentioned in the article, check out the 3rd misconception a little closer.

Rene Ritchie writes:
There’s no ‘Re-Writing’ of WCK history, there’s just a maturing of Western WCK culture which allows for better discernment between history and legend (something the Chinese have known all along, even if at times they have not bothered to share the distinction).
Kudos to that. As people begin more and more to want to know the truth behind something, they need to look more objectively at things. That is all this article has done. As more consistent research is conducted by interested groups, the more unified it will most likely become. Keep in mind that historians and researchers do not have the luxury of accepting everything at face value, it’s in their nature. They seek to understand the facts of things.

As JAFO notes, the truth behind the history of Wing Chun may never be known in its entirety. Too many different styles of the art have evolved, each with its own flavor of uniqueness. Some similarities exist, and some differences. Different members of the Red Boat held different clearances so to speak. Keep in mind, it was a revolutionary organization. Depending on what they were privy to, their perspective of WC may have been different than someone else’ in the Opera. Hence, different styles and histories.

Besides, the question of the origins of Wing Chun just doesn’t have the same mystique as the question of “how did they do it?”. Wouldn’t you really rather know the answer to that one?

Nice question JAFO. Perhaps one for another thread?

20

Da Moose,

I think good Benny might have a chuckle or two. All in good humor. =) E_