How is William Cheung’s wing chun different from the classical style Yip Man taught to his students in Hong Kong? Any of William’s students on this message board that can answer the question?
Hmph! Only God Knows. It has been said that Yip Man taught several versions of wing chun. Who knows what’s real or what’s fake? On top of that some versions are superior to others…especially in terms of application.
it’s all real.
Seeing as Cheung was a long time student, Yip sifu likely shared more in depth knowledge of the broader Shaolin Kung Fu with him.
Wing Chun being but a facet in the Gem that is Shaolin Kung Fu 
peace
Kung Lek
Curious what Kung Lek means by “a long time student”. How long is long time? He was a teenager or close to it I believe when he moved from HK to Australia.
Kung Lek,
Stop trolling. 
Cheung’s wing chun has many differences, in fact his wing chun looks more like the wing chun Yip Man taught in China earlier on than the stuff he taught later in HK. Cheung’s Chum Kiu, Biu Tze and Sword forms are totally different than everybody else’s. True, everybody who learned under Yip Man has different forms practically but share common ground. Cheung’s look like another style!!!
As for structural differences, his tan sau has no angle at the wrist - it just goes diagonally up. His bong sau also has no angle at the wrist but is strictly diagonal. He does not believe in the pigeon toed stance but advocates a parallel stance. Most of his moves are very circular in motion and his concepts are slightly different. He favors attacking from outside gates, flanking his opponents. So even if he was inside, he would somehow do another five moves so that he can attack on the outside instead! He doesn’t like attacking and blocking simultaneuosly but blocks first and then attacks for the most part.
As for the whole “I was taught true wing chun” claim, let’s not go there now 
But I’ll just say that Yip Man didn’t teach EITHER of his sons Yip Ching or Yip Chun Cheung’s version…that should tell you something considering Yip Man was VERY old fashioned regarding his teachings…
Hey EC,
I don’t find Cheung’s WCK looks much like Yip Man’s Foshan students. Though both groups have developed their own distinctiveness since '49, I find Yip Man’s Foshan students look pretty much like his early HK students. More or less what you find in the rest of Foshan WCK.
Rgds,
RR
Rene…look at the Ving Tsun Athletic Association lineage book. The black one. Look at the article on “tradional” versus “reformed”. The structures of some of the blocks look a lot like William’s.
EC,
Will do (soon as I get home). In the meantime, check out this article, which includes a couple pictures of Lun Gai sifu.
Rgds,
RR
Cheung Style vs. Gu Lao
I was thinking, if the story Cheung tells has any truth to it, one would notice a similarity between Leung Bik’s Wing Chun and the Gu Lao style WC, taught by Leung Bik’s father Leung Jan to villagers in his native Gu Lao. I had a brief exposure to Cheung Style WC a few years ago, and all I know of Gu Lao style comes from the articles on Rene’s unequaled web site. I did notice the following two similarities:
- Both styles turn in the middle of the foot.
- Both sytles emphasize fighting from the sitting horse (turning) stance, rather than the forward stance.
Any comments from the more knowledgeable?
-FJ
Fa-jing,
I’ve seen several different branches of Gulao now and, format aside, they still strike me as much closer to Foshan WCK in most respects than to William Cheung’s system.
Rgds,
RR
I’ve read some articles from Robert Chu, who learned the Gu Lao style. If my memory serves correct, the Gu Lao was a collection of pre-fixed techniques into a system composed of 40 or so techniques. From what I’ve seen, they don’t look anything at all like William’s stuff. My sifu was a closed door student to Yip Man and got private lessons in HK. He said that Yip Man once told him 70% of the Wing Chun he did was from Leung Bik and not Chun Wa Shun. Chun’s line continues to this day and his wing chun is definitely different than HK style fast hands wing chun. Yip Man obviously changed many of the techniques. He altered the dummy and improved it as well as chi sau. He made that more aggressive. The flowery movements and tai chi like techniques he removed. The result was a faster, more linear and ultimately more aggressive wing chun. For certain the wing chun he taught in HK was ALREADY ALTERED. But altered because of Leung Bik, not the Chun Wa Shun version to hide Leung Bik’s version. Do you guys understand? William claimed that Yip Man taught everybody else the version he learned form Chun Wa Shun, the “inferior” version Leung Jan taught Chun. William claims that Yip Man passed down the “true traditional” version to him, the version that Leung Jan’s son, Leung Bik taught Yip Man. That is not true. The wing chun Yip Man taught in HK was predominately the LEUNG BIK version. That is also the wing chun he TAUGHT his sons.
Hi EC,
Basically, when Leung Jan retired to his hometown of Gulao, Heshan, he took on four or so students. 70 or so years old at the time, instead of teaching them kuen to (boxing sets), he taught them san sik (separate forms) which supposedly consisted of what he felt were the most important core movements from the 3 sets, and what experience had taught him were the most practical. These were then practiced solo (stationary and with steps), on the dummy, with a partner, and with the double knives, making it a fairly concise system to learn.
I’m not sure about % of what Yip sifu learned from whom. Some of his students have stories about that but then you look at the Chan descended lines in China and the stories aren’t consistent. To me, Yip Man’s WCK looks fairly consistent with the Chan Wah-Shun/Ng Jung-So lineage. The Chan family themselves, nowadays claim that Chan Wah-Shun learned a secret extra 3 palm forms from Leung Jan, extra fist sets, weapon sets, etc. but Chan Yiu-Min’s students (eg. Jiu Chao) also seem remarkably close to the Chan Wah-Shun/Ng Jung-So line (and Chan Wah-Shun/Yip Man line).
Personally, none of the stories about secret or altered this or that seem to ring true. WCK is more or less WCK. No big secrets or surprises.
I’d suspect Yip Man sifu pretty much taught what he learned, developed through his own experiences for the needs of his students.
Rgds,
RR
Logic?
When thinking about Sifu Cheung’s claims, I am stuck between two points:
- Chueng’s WC actually is not sooo different from Yip Man’s HK WC. But many (his students) say that it is more sophisticated. From what I’ve seen of the forms, they train more elements. I am guessing that Sifu Chueng did not make this stuff up, otherwise the style would have been debunked by its many would-be detractors. Either the style was Yip Man’s secret, or Chueng added existing WC techniques to the forms, or Cheung added elements from some other secret teacher he had, or Chueng was a creative genius - I am doubtful of the last possibility, seeing that WC was being developed over generations, I am doubting that one man could come up with such a distinctive variation.
Yet –
- I can’t think of any reason Yip Man would withold this information, from everyone he ever taught, from all the wing chun masters he knew in Fatshan, from his sons – then only teach one student, not even indicating that Cheung had the true style before Yip’s death. What possible motivation would Yip man have to do such a thing? Perhaps there is no one WC style, only several variations that exist. I heard a strange claim from my Chueng Style teacher that Yip Man didn’t want his sons to fight, thus did not teach them the true style – couldn’t Yip have found some other way to protect them? It is made to sound that knowledge of the secret true style of Wing Chun would invite death from the Triads - how would the Triads know the difference, anyway? And why, in fact, did Yip Man not name a successor upon his death? He must have known a controversy would ensue.
Chueng’s claim that his system is more for the smaller practitioner, maybe true. But how does that fit into Wing Chun history as the original style? I think it is very much in doubt that this style was created for women, to be able to defeat larger opponents. The legend of the nun and the Bean-curd seller, IMHO, is doubtful. While there are indications that this was a cover story for the real, anti-Qing revolutionary nature of the art.
We may never know the answers, but I remain hopeful. Someone outside of the known Wing Chun clans may come out of the woodwork, and share historical knowledge with the world. Until then, I leave the debate to others - I feel it is secondary to my training. What works for the individual is the most important.
-FJ
“Deadliest Man in the World”
I have this book and one of the chapters is named “The Deadliest Man in the World.” The whole chapter is about how Yip Man taught William CHeung traditional wing chun while teaching everyone else modified wing chun. The chapter went on to detail how William won the Hong Kong tournaments, or something like that, beating people with much more experience. The author acredited his success to the version of wing chun Yip Man taught him. AT the end of the chapter, it says, "Some people refer to William Cheung as the ‘deadliest man in the world.’
By the way, I heard that both of Yip Man’s sons dont know sh*t about Wing chun. Dont know if that’s true or not.
Out of curiosity
Does anybody know what Sifu Hawkins Chueng thinks of his cousin William’s claims?
-FJ
I never knew that Hawkins was William’s cousin!!! I’ll ask my sifu about that as he and the both of them go way back…especially Hawkins.
I heard a strange claim from my Chueng Style teacher that Yip Man didn’t want his sons to fight, thus did not teach them the true style
By the way, I heard that both of Yip Man’s sons dont know sh*t about Wing chun. Dont know if that’s true or not.
Hey, I heard from my grandmother’s second cousin’s aunt’s 3rd grade teacher’s mailman that the world was flat! I’m not sure what to believe about that. :rolleyes:
A Different Perspective
My Sifu (Derek Jones) trained at Victor Kans for 8 years, & is considered to be by many as Victor’s best ever student. In that period he fought many many times, including a series of bare-knuckle prise money fights against skilled & much larger fighters. He found he needed to make many major adjustments to the system he was being taught for it to work in reality, especially the Footwork.
After Derek left Victor’s he went to New York & took seminars with William Cheung, & found what William’s footwork patterns to be very similar to the working footwork patterns & principles he had developed himself. Derek also found that Williams’s forms were not only different, but also have direct application, which in Derek’s words is lacking in Victors teaching. Derek took Williams forms & improved on them using the filters of his own personal experience.
The facts are that Victor & William had the same Sifu, & Derek considered Williams technique i.e. structure & principles to be not only different, but also superior to Victors.
Martin Foot
Body Mind & Spirit Kung Fu