Just a question, since there are practitioners here from the Masters listed on the title of this thread. Each of the Masters listed have stated to be with Yip Man from either the early 50’ or 60’s to Yip’s death in 1972, learning everything the Old Man had to offer, so why is it that each lineage does things differently. For example, I have heard it said from the Moy Yat lineage that Yip Man didn’t chi-sao much with anyone and didn’t correct students much either. But Ho Kam Mind says he chi-sao’d with Yip Man lots (and other students of Yip have said the same thing). Also, the techniques and methods are different in the lineages, why would this be if the Master’s listed above were with Yip Man for most of his teaching career (WSL and HKM were with Yip from the 50’s on to his death, and Moy Yat later in the 60’s to Yip’s death, but all have different methods)?
I would find it odd if my Sihing was teaching things very different from me, if had Sifu died, since the both of us have been with him consistently for long periods of time over the last 16-17yrs, and presently together at the same time.
Just curious about why these types of differences would happen?
Just a question, since there are practitioners here from the Masters listed on the title of this thread. Each of the Masters listed have stated to be with Yip Man from either the early 50’ or 60’s to Yip’s death in 1972, learning everything the Old Man had to offer, so why is it that each lineage does things differently.
((Wong Shon Leung started before Ho kam Ming. HKM was part of the second wave after WSL.. HKM respects WSL- you will see key pictures of HKM(on his site) with key first generation students. WSL and HKM were both involved in the early days of VTAA-less so later.
Ip Man also evolved asa teacher… before getting old.
Without going too far a field…Moy Yat did not not do chi sao with Ip man- I know Tom will comment. Very few people finished the sytem with IM— HKM and WSL did- the two key versions of the bjd illustrates that. HKM had a little shy of 8 years regular instruction directly from IM and then kept in touch till Im’s death.. MY was not anywhere near as long with IM. There are pics on HKM’s site of IM visiting HKM’s school and his students, Augustine Fong is in one of them-the first one. Tam and others in a second pic.
WSL added his own experience to his wc. HKM added his many years of reflection analysis and teaching experience to his wing chun.Ditto for my sifu.
Why the differences? learning from IM at different times and for different durations. Plus it is natural to develop different ways to teach the same subject. Jung went off ina different direction from Freud. Aristotle from Plato after studying with him for 20 years.
I myself- with new insights- do things differently from 1976 with new insights. Diversity does not concern me- the reasons and the results do. True for physicists, chemists, dancers, artists- why not wing chun?? A bright PhD does not mechanically mimic his mentor.Ravi Shankar’s sitar music is different from Ali Akbar Khan. Nora Jones’s jazz(Come Away with me) different from her father’s (ravi Shanker. Life!! Same enlightenment (dhyan/zhan/Chan/Zen)- but you can sit on a cushion! Rather than the floor. Or a stool- if you have bad knees!))) Good night. Joy
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
[B]“…Moy Yat did not not do chi sao with Ip man- I know Tom will comment.” (Joy)
And so will I.
HE DID.
Not that often - just a handful of times…BUT HE DID.
But I’ve got a question…who really cares? [/B]
I do…Although the combat effectiveness of Wing Chun is vitally important to me, so is it’s history and speculation into why things are the way they are. I just find it interesting that people who were with Yip Man at relatively the same times, Wong, Ho and Moy, do things differently to a varying degree, that’s all.
Actually, no one here “knows” if moy yat did chi sau with yip man or not, unless they were there of course. In addition, it doesn’t really matter to that high of a degree (unless one is trying to dispute a claim made by moy yat). His skill in chi sao, as anyone else’s in YM’s line could have been increased through the chi sau with more senior students then himself, which from most people’s accounts happened with many students - but not with all.
Apparently the Moy Yat line, was an advocate of the “soft side” of wing chun, and from what I have read, Moy Yat was a skilled master of. It’s best to speak to someone of that line that had direct contact with someone who worked with the late Moy Yat, but again, history is simply a one sided story written by the ones who were/are in power. So it’s best to look at many accounts of the same time frame to make your assessment.
Originally posted by Vankuen I believe Kenneth Chung in Houston can attest to that.
What is the background of this Kenneth Chung in Houston? Was he a student of Moy Yat? Just curious to keep the Kenneth Chungs of Wing Chun straight; in addition to my sifu, I have heard of at least one other studying under a different teacher in California.
Well, I’m no expert on wing chun lineage, but I read about him a while back on some internet article, and then found his name again when I was looking for good places to train in my general area. I looked up wing chun in Houston, and found Kenneth Chung. Apparently from older article I read, If I remember correctly, he trained under Moy Yat. But I guess I’m wrong because I just looked it up again on the school page and it says Leung shueng/Ben Der. When I first read about him a long time ago in an article written by another individual that was at a seminar of his, I could’ve sworn it said he was of the Moy yat lineage. (There are a couple of articles running around the inet about his “soft” style. ) Maybe it’s a different guy I’m thinking of…not to get off the subject of the original post.
Originally posted by Vankuen Well, I’m no expert on wing chun lineage, but I recently read about him when I was looking for good places to train in my area. I looked up wing chun in houston, and found out about Kenneth Chung. Apparently from the Bio, If I remember correctly, he trained under Moy Yat. There are a couple of articles running around the inet about his “soft” style. Could it be the same guy?!
Is the Houston link on this site by chance the one you are referring to? If so, yes it is my teacher. He has a group in Houston, and visits there regularly to teach, though he himself is not from Houston. He trained under Leung Sheung, not Moy Yat.
**IMO everyone would do WCK a service by stopping the “master” language.
listed have stated to be with Yip Man from either the early 50’ or 60’s to Yip’s death in 1972, learning everything the Old Man had to offer,
**Improper assumption. How do you know – or anyone know – whether they “learned everything” Yip had to offer?
so why is it that each lineage does things differently.
**There are several reasons why folks teach and apply WCK differently. First, there are varying levels of understanding and skill. Second, any fighting art will by its very nature produce individuals and not clones (why boxers from the same gym are different). Third, these two things/situations are effective of both student and instructor, can change over time, and will interact. Put it all together, and you’ll see that teaching and learning is never a static or fixed process.
I would find it odd if my Sihing was teaching things very different from me, if had Sifu died, since the both of us have been with him consistently for long periods of time over the last 16-17yrs, and presently together at the same time.
**I would find it odd if you and your sihing didn’t “teach things very different”.
Originally posted by kj …Not sure if that helps or further muddies things.
Kathy Jo, if you think that muddies things, try figuring out what was meant by saying Moy Yat was an advocate of the “soft side” of wing chun, of which my teacher was supposedly a skilled master.
Disregard the second paragraph of the post. It was in reference to an article I read after doing a search on Moy Yat, and it brought up Kenneth Chung, so naturally I thought that it was talking about that line…apparently it was the leung sheung line. I’ve already clarified that I was wrong on that account, but then I also said to speak with someone of that line.
But then maybe I misread what you were questioning…are you questioning why I said it, or whether or not your teacher was a master in the soft aspect of wing chun? To be honest, all wing chun “masters” should have skill in it. If yours did not I’m sorry to have assumed so.
Originally posted by Vankuen
[B]Disregard the second paragraph of the post. It was in reference to an article I read after doing a search on Moy Yat, and it brought up Kenneth Chung, so naturally I thought that it was talking about that line…apparently it was the leung sheung line. I’ve already clarified that I was wrong on that account, but then I also said to speak with someone of that line.
But then maybe I misread what you were questioning…are you questioning why I said it, or whether or not your teacher was a master in the soft aspect of wing chun? To be honest, all wing chun “masters” should have skill in it. If yours did not I’m sorry to have assumed so. [/B]
No harm done, Van. I studied with Moy Yat for 8 years way back in the day.
And your description is not far from the truth. His take on Wing Chun was that of a very conservative approach…and one thing about that - he DID EMPHASIZE softness - in terms of a “stay relaxed but with power”…“stay relaxed but with energy” approach to things.
He constantly chided people for being too tense, too stiff, and too aggressive when doing chi sao, for example. This was a very big thing with him; and he himself had soft hands when I did chi sao with him. I learned quite a bit in this regard from Moy Yat.
And his basics and fundamentals were excellent.
In the final analysis…though…I found the overall training too relaxed - one of the reasons why I left in 1983 to become William Cheung’s student.
In the final analysis…though…I found the overall training too relaxed…one of the reasons why I left in 1983 to become William Cheung’s student. [/B]
This is one of the things about Wing Chun.All lineages and even individual schools have their own approaches. These approaches will not fit all,depending on many factors. Specially regarding more advanced students.(Beginners can’t really see the differences anyway or don’t really know what they want from Wing Chun) IMO,all lines can bring a serious practitioner to the goal and this is one of the “good” of Wing Chun.
Originally posted by Vankuen
[B]Disregard the second paragraph of the post. It was in reference to an article I read after doing a search on Moy Yat, and it brought up Kenneth Chung, so naturally I thought that it was talking about that line…apparently it was the leung sheung line. I’ve already clarified that I was wrong on that account, but then I also said to speak with someone of that line.
But then maybe I misread what you were questioning…are you questioning why I said it, or whether or not your teacher was a master in the soft aspect of wing chun? To be honest, all wing chun “masters” should have skill in it. If yours did not I’m sorry to have assumed so. [/B]
LOL!
Allright, I’ll give it to you: Touché.
Suppose my SiHing Victor’s definition of the soft side is correct: “stay relaxed but with power”, “stay relaxed but with energy” - that’s as good a frame of reference as any other. However, with that frame of reference for the “soft side”, what would an advocate of the “hard side” look like? Would they be advocating: “more power, but stay relaxed”, or, would they say “stay tense, but without energy” ? That’s why I thought your original comment was amusing.
Moy Yat did say that Ving Tsun method starts with soft, but ends with hard. He then added that the result of Ving Tsun, however, cannot be called hard or soft because that would be confusing the method with the nature.
To be honest the only time I believe “hard” should be applied is at the point of contact when applying a technique, other then that wing chun SHOULD be soft in application. What I believe a lot of the masters were saying when “advocating the soft side” was that one has to constantly remind oneself to stay soft in an arena that naturally the body wants to stay tense.
Too many practitioners rely on muscle still, and it’s necessary to remind oneself to not rely on muscle for power. There are wing chun lines that rely on hard movements almost to the point of blocking rather then deflecting…although they still contain bits of softness here and there.
So to elaborate, the soft side, is to rely on structure and timing rather then overpowering and muscle that you see so much of, even amongst “sifu’s”.
That’s why I thought your original comment was amusing.