Wing Chun:Modified vs. Traditional?
Kirksey, Kenton Brett
developed these different systems?
Thank You,
Brett Kirksey (kk1...@conrad.appstate.edu)
Dept. of Exercise Science
Appalachian State University
Frank Crary
Kirksey, Kenton Brett <KK1...@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU> wrote:
>What is the difference between modified and traditional Wing Chun? Who
>developed these different systems?
I'm afraid I'm terrible with names, but...
The two styles were developed by the same person. He found out that
his lessons were being spied on by a guy he'd refused to teach. So
he started teaching a modified, inferior style and then correcting
the chnages when he was sure of privacy. But the matter gets
even more complex, since students of the original and modified
systems have gotten together and may or may not have shared notes.
So there are now two different versions of wing chung out there,
but it's very hard to say which is "original" or which is better...
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Bill Dowding
>Thank You,
Trad vs modified -
I have learned that this is a misnomer.There is only Wing Chun. There is no
modified or traditional, they've just been called that by people who don't
know the entire system. Since they only know part of the system, however
complete they think it is, the other guy's stuff looks modified. In the
complete system, all is explicable when viewed in this way. Of course, some
people have modified it on their own, and are at variance with the original
interpretations, but if the principles are strictly adhered to , then it is
still Wing Chun. (But I have noticed that most so called teachers do not
have any more than a superficial understanding of some of the most obvious
principles, and almost totally lacking knowledge of those underlying.
Unfortunately. In this country at least. (Oz))
In my own studies of Wing Chun, I have come to agree with this view.
Bill from Oz.
Toto lives with Paul Keating, and is recalcitrant.
Brian Lee
>Trad vs modified -
>I have learned that this is a misnomer.There is only Wing Chun. There is no
>modified or traditional, they've just been called that by people who don't
>know the entire system. Since they only know part of the system, however
>complete they think it is, the other guy's stuff looks modified.
<stuff deleted re: interpretations of WC>
I've heard another story (you'll like this, another urban legend).
Supposedly, one of the founding fathers of WC - the father of Leung Bik
& Leung Jan - was passing the art to his sons like all fathers did in
those days. A neighbor of theirs asked to be taught WC. The father
refused. One day he caught their nosey neighbor spying on them and
stealing their art. Without saying anything, he began teaching a
different form when he knew the neighbor would be watching. But to
his surprise, the nosey neighbor became proficient with the "wrong" form,
and was able to use it for self-defence. At that point, the father agreed
to take the neighbor on as a student (to control him), but continued to
teach him the modified form.
According to this story, the two forms of WC continued from that point.
Only sons and "inner circle" students were taught the traditional stuff.
The modified was taught to all else.
This "modified form" supposedly contains the aspects we most commonly
associate with WC: knock-kneed, pigeon-toed stance, everything focused
on the center-line, lower tan-sau & bong-sau positions, etc.
The "traditional form" has more open stance, higher tan-sau, and uses
what they consider a central-line (at more of an angle than the center-
line concept). There are also more hand variations: hooks, claws
beak-strikes, etc. which supposedly are derived more directly from
Shaolin.
There're more than this, but that's the reader's digest version.
The traditional form still is found in parts of Guangzou, China (Fushan region
to be exact).
--
Brian (meeting? what meeting?) Lee | "Eschew Obfuscation"
bl...@chiron.com | "My own babble. Chiron has
Emeryville (upscale toxic dump), CA | lawyers to take care of its own."
Marty
>bi...@scorch.hna.com.au (Bill Dowding) writes:
>
>>Trad vs modified -
>
>>I have learned that this is a misnomer.There is only Wing Chun. There is no
>>modified or traditional, they've just been called that by people who don't
>>know the entire system. Since they only know part of the system, however
>>complete they think it is, the other guy's stuff looks modified.
> <stuff deleted re: interpretations of WC>
However, a blanket statement like that does not cover the entire validity of
of the Wing Chun system and it's exponents. For example my system of wing chun
has nothing to do with "not knowing the entire system", but an entirely
different system. We access the tan tien differently, use 50/50 ballance,
and have different structures to our techniques.
>I've heard another story (you'll like this, another urban legend).
>Supposedly, one of the founding fathers of WC - the father of Leung Bik
>& Leung Jan - was passing the art to his sons like all fathers did in
>those days.
No, this would be Leung Jan. He was passing the art to his sons Leung Bik
and Leung Cheun.
>A neighbor of theirs asked to be taught WC. The father
>refused.
This would be the famous Chan Wah Soon, or money changer Chan who operated
a business next to Leung Jan's place.
>One day he caught their nosey neighbor spying on them and
>stealing their art.
Actually, Chan watched Leung Jan's lessons for a while and came back to
Leung Jan to show him what he had learned and prove he would be a dedicated
student. He then begged to be taken as a student again, which Leung Jan
finally accepted.
>Without saying anything, he began teaching a
>different form when he knew the neighbor would be watching. But to
>his surprise, the nosey neighbor became proficient with the "wrong" form,
>and was able to use it for self-defence.
Chan was about 6'2" and very muscular. As the saying goes, "same game,
same way, bigger guy always wins," and Leung was afraid Chan would use it
against his sons after he had passed away. However, because of his size
and physical characteristics he was able to use even the form Leung Jan
showed him.
>At that point, the father agreed
to take the neighbor on as a student (to control him), but continued to
>teach him the modified form.
>
>According to this story, the two forms of WC continued from that point.
>Only sons and "inner circle" students were taught the traditional stuff.
>The modified was taught to all else.
>
>This "modified form" supposedly contains the aspects we most commonly
>associate with WC: knock-kneed, pigeon-toed stance, everything focused
>on the center-line, lower tan-sau & bong-sau positions, etc.
>
>The "traditional form" has more open stance, higher tan-sau, and uses
>what they consider a central-line (at more of an angle than the center-
>line concept). There are also more hand variations: hooks, claws
>beak-strikes, etc. which supposedly are derived more directly from
>Shaolin.
I think you are confusing two different stories here. That of the
Pan Nam/Eddie Chong Traditional Wing Chun and that of the William Cheung
Traditional Wing Chun.
Pan Nam/Eddie Chong uses an entirely different linneage than the above story,
and even goes on to say that Yip Man never learned from Chan Wah Soon
or Leung Bak. It is also the version that uses more hooks, claws, beak
strikes and similar.
The William Cheung version uses the story you mentioned (along with the
minor corrections) and does indeed use a wider stance (50/50), higher tan
sau, different angled bon sau, different contact points and lines of
force, and different use of the tan tien. However it also uses the concept
of two path lines, the Center Line and Central Line, which is found in
many versions of Wing chun.
>There're more than this, but that's the reader's digest version.
>The traditional form still is found in parts of Guangzou, China (Fushan region
>to be exact).
Like I said, it depends which "Traditional" you mean. The actuall wording
Traditional Wing Chun is copyrighted by William to denote a different version
of Wing Chun, just as Leung Ting has copyrighted Wing Tsun. All the schools
use Traditional Wing Chun in their title, which is why there are some problems
now that Eddie Chong has come along and wants to use it.
What is interesting is the similarity in some aspects betwen the Pan Nam/Eddie
Chong version, and the William Cheung version. Both use 50/50 ballance,
and both use longer range techniques (for example the punches in both are
a bit longer than the "Hong Kong" version.)
>--
>Brian (meeting? what meeting?) Lee | "Eschew Obfuscation"
>bl...@chiron.com | "My own babble. Chiron has
>Emeryville (upscale toxic dump), CA | lawyers to take care of its own."
Marty
-----------------------------------
World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
===================================
Brian Lee
<corrections to Leung Jan story deleted>
Thanks for filling in the details. That's the problem with urban
legends: it's easy to lose details.
<stuff about Pan Nam / William Cheung styles deleted>
>What is interesting is the similarity in some aspects betwen the Pan Nam/Eddie
>Chong version, and the William Cheung version. Both use 50/50 ballance,
>and both use longer range techniques (for example the punches in both are
>a bit longer than the "Hong Kong" version.)
Just to confuse matters a bit more, there's a fellow named Garrett Gee out
here in San Francisco who claims yet another lineage. The style shares the
wider stance, different angles, different footwork, as with the previously
named versions. But he says it comes from something called the "Red Boat
Society". His style doesn't use the claws & beak strikes though.
rischmid
to answer a question for a friend in our WC school,
I am reproducing some text from Yip Chun/Danny Connor's
book "Wing Chun Martial Arts".
FYI, Yip Chun is Yip Man's eldest son and Danny Connor
is a student of Samuel Kwok in the UK. But I digress...
"Cheung Ng [also known as Tan-Sau Ng] brought his skills
to Fatshan during the reign of Yung Cheng... It was
almost a hundred years before the legend of Yim Wing Chun...
Cheung Ng actually taught martial arts in Fatshan Hung
Suen (Red Boat). And Fatshan was the breeding ground
of Wing Chun... Before the skills were handed down to
Leung Jan, the people connected... all belonged to the
Hung Suen (Red Boat)."
Essentially, Connor postulates that WC existed in a
more primitive form than today long before Yip Wing Chun
and Ng Mui whipped it into shape. He starts with
Cheung Ng simply because he was able to find written
records of the Chinese opera which made reference
to the Kung Fu skills of Cheung Ng and the Red Boat.
The implication, which seems entirely reasonable to me,
is that Wing Chun has existed for a very long time in
some form but was simply not documented.
I would strongly suspect that there are a myriad of
variations on the WC theme out there. The whole Bruce lee
thing simply put the spotlight on Yip Man's lineage
in a big way. OK, contestants, now on to the question:
I have heard of a WC teacher in San Jose and SF. Are
there opinions on those folks or others within driving
(preferably walking) distance of Stanford (Palo Alto)?
I'd appreciate e-mail if possible due to a truly bad
newsreader.
Thanks,
Rian
michael.e.adams
Undoubtedly there are several versions of this story. The one I have
heard is that Chan originally asked Leung Jan to teach him and that
Leung refused (money changers were not well liked...). Chan began
spying on the classes unbeknownst to Leung Jan. Also, a friend of his,
Wah "the wooden man," was a student of Leung Jan's, and would teach him
on the side.
After this went on for a while, Wah the wooden man one day brought Chan
to visit while Leung Jan was out of town and only his sons were home.
Chan crossed hands with the eldest son, Leung Tsun[Cheun]. It turned
out that Leung Tsun had not worked nearly so hard as Chan, because
Wing Tsun was not nearly so much his dream as it was Chan's. Leung
Tsun was knocked down onto his father's favorite chair, breaking the
leg of the chair and ending the encounter.
When Leung Jan returned and discovered the broken chair, the story came
out. He summoned Chan to him and was impressed by what he had learned
surreptitiously, so he accepted him as a student.
>>Without saying anything, he began teaching a
>>different form when he knew the neighbor would be watching. But to
>>his surprise, the nosey neighbor became proficient with the "wrong" form,
>>and was able to use it for self-defence.
>
>Chan was about 6'2" and very muscular. As the saying goes, "same game,
>same way, bigger guy always wins," and Leung was afraid Chan would use it
>against his sons after he had passed away. However, because of his size
>and physical characteristics he was able to use even the form Leung Jan
>showed him.
Other versions of the story say simply that he did not teach Chan some of
the higher level theory and concepts, so as to hold back an edge for his
sons, knowing that Chan would almost certainly one day contest with them
for the grandmastership. And still another version simply says that Chan
was more of a fighter and less of a technician, and simply never understood
the depths of some of the higher theories, but was one heck of a good
fighter (partly by virtue of his size). Certainly, what Chan had learned
up to this point had been the same as what was taught to everyone, since
he had also received training from Wah the wooden man.
>>At that point, the father agreed
>to take the neighbor on as a student (to control him), but continued to
>>teach him the modified form.
>>
>>According to this story, the two forms of WC continued from that point.
>>Only sons and "inner circle" students were taught the traditional stuff.
>>The modified was taught to all else.
>>
>>This "modified form" supposedly contains the aspects we most commonly
>>associate with WC: knock-kneed, pigeon-toed stance, everything focused
>>on the center-line, lower tan-sau & bong-sau positions, etc.
>>
>>The "traditional form" has more open stance, higher tan-sau, and uses
>>what they consider a central-line (at more of an angle than the center-
>>line concept). There are also more hand variations: hooks, claws
>>beak-strikes, etc. which supposedly are derived more directly from
>>Shaolin.
>
>I think you are confusing two different stories here. That of the
>Pan Nam/Eddie Chong Traditional Wing Chun and that of the William Cheung
>Traditional Wing Chun.
>
>Pan Nam/Eddie Chong uses an entirely different linneage than the above story,
>and even goes on to say that Yip Man never learned from Chan Wah Soon
>or Leung Bak. It is also the version that uses more hooks, claws, beak
>strikes and similar.
I recently discussed the whole thing about Pan Nam with Sifu Leung Ting.
He told me that he had just come from Fatshan (he has two manufacturers
there that provide equipment for his martial art supply business). While
there he visited Pan Nam, who he considers a friend and has known for some
years. He told Pan Nam of the articles in _Inside Kung Fu_ and the claims
that had been made. Sifu Leung Ting told me that Pan Nam became quite
upset and told him that he had never claimed the lineage stated in those
articles. In fact, Pan Nam states that he learned Wing Chun from the
late Grandmaster Yip Man prior to Yip Man's departure to Hong Kong in
1949. So, contrary to claims made in this country, Pan Nam is not from
a parallel lineage, but simply studied a pre-Hong Kong version from the
late Grandmaster Yip Man.
Pan Nam also stated that Eddie Chong had only visited him once, for about
one month. Now I know that this is in total conflict with what many
believe after reading the magazines. And since I recently made the
mistake of once saying something with only partial knowledge, let me
state that this was told to me by Sifu Leung Ting in October, in San
Antonio, Texas, USA. He said that Pan Nam wrote out a signed declaration
of all of the above and stamped it with his personal chop [seal], asking
Sifu Leung Ting to convey it for him to the magazines outside of China.
Sifu Leung Ting is now circulating it, and he *has* told _Inside Kung Fu_
magazine about it, though the document was elsewhere at the time. As
far as I know, IKF has agreed to publish it.
>The William Cheung version uses the story you mentioned (along with the
>minor corrections) and does indeed use a wider stance (50/50), higher tan
>sau, different angled bon sau, different contact points and lines of
>force, and different use of the tan tien. However it also uses the concept
>of two path lines, the Center Line and Central Line, which is found in
>many versions of Wing chun.
>
>>There're more than this, but that's the reader's digest version.
>>The traditional form still is found in parts of Guangzou, China (Fushan region
>>to be exact).
>
>Like I said, it depends which "Traditional" you mean. The actuall wording
>Traditional Wing Chun is copyrighted by William to denote a different version
>of Wing Chun, just as Leung Ting has copyrighted Wing Tsun. All the schools
>use Traditional Wing Chun in their title, which is why there are some problems
>now that Eddie Chong has come along and wants to use it.
>
>What is interesting is the similarity in some aspects betwen the Pan Nam/Eddie
>Chong version, and the William Cheung version. Both use 50/50 ballance,
>and both use longer range techniques (for example the punches in both are
>a bit longer than the "Hong Kong" version.)
Personally, I view Wing Tsun/WC/VT as a living, growing art. Certainly
it has changed over time, and is still doing so (at least some versions
are). I think that even more important than asking what is traditional,
it is most important to ask what works, and is there anything that
could possibly be done to make it even better?
>>--
>>Brian (meeting? what meeting?) Lee | "Eschew Obfuscation"
>>bl...@chiron.com | "My own babble. Chiron has
>>Emeryville (upscale toxic dump), CA | lawyers to take care of its own."
>
>
>Marty
>
>
>-----------------------------------
>World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
>===================================
>
Mike Adams
wing...@ihlpm.att.com
RVAN...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
the Leung Ting thing. Eddie told him that Leung Ting tricked the
"Old Man" Pan Nam into signing something and he had no idea what he was
signing. So it sounds like there will be a bit of controversy when Eddie
gets back. Several letters in the recent Inside Kung Fu magazine seem to
have some logical reasoning about how the dates in the original Pan Nam
article just can't be true. I haven't analyzed it myself yet.
* * *
Regards,
Ray Van Raamsdonk (389-3725)
BC Systems
michael.e.adams
<snip>
>One person I know got a phone call from Eddie Chong and asked him about
>the Leung Ting thing. Eddie told him that Leung Ting tricked the
>"Old Man" Pan Nam into signing something and he had no idea what he was
>signing. So it sounds like there will be a bit of controversy when Eddie
>gets back. Several letters in the recent Inside Kung Fu magazine seem to
>have some logical reasoning about how the dates in the original Pan Nam
>article just can't be true. I haven't analyzed it myself yet.
>
> * * *
> Regards,
> Ray Van Raamsdonk (389-3725)
> BC Systems
How do you "trick" someone into signing something? (And yes, I'm pretty
sure the original which Pan Nam signed and stamped was in Chinese.)
When I talked about Pan Nam with Sifu Leung Ting he was quite open about
the whole thing. He was at least a little concerned about how to regard
the truthfulness of Pan Nam about the issue, but said that he thought
that Pan Nam really was sincere in being upset about the claims Eddie
Chong was making and the lineage he was claiming that Pan Nam claimed.
Sifu Leung Ting seemed slightly concerned as to Pan Nam's role in the
whole controversy, but said that he thought that Pan Nam "seems like
he's okay," and that he was simply an innocent victim in the whole
situation. Apparently there was another guy in Hong Kong a few years
ago who claimed to be affiliated with Pan Nam, but later turned out
to have never met him.
I suppose there is the possibility that Pan Nam is shining them both on...
but Sifu Leung Ting seemed to think that was not the case.
My personal opinion is that Sifu Leung Ting would not try to "trick"
Pan Nam in such a way. He considers Pan Nam a friend. And even in
the past when I have asked about people in the Wing Tsun/WC/VT family,
he has always been careful about what he said, saying things like,
"These men are my friends, what would you have me say?" Certainly
there is a lot of oneupsmanship and politics in WT/WC/VT, but I find
this hard to believe.
Also, Sifu Leung Ting has a sincere interest in pursuing the roots of
Wing Tsun/WC/VT in terms of history, lineage, and comparative technique.
He has spent a great deal of time with some of the Wing Chun people in
Fatshan. He has published articles about his research and is currently
working on a book about the _Roots of Wing Tsun_. I think that if
Eddie Chong's version of Pan Nam's lineage, etc. was true, Sifu Leung
Ting would be every bit as enthusiastic about writing about it,
analyzing the technique and theory in comparison to Hong Kong versions,
etc. as Eddie Chong is.
I'm curious: I know there are other people out there in Kenneth Chung's
lineage. Eddie Chong's original Si-Fu was Kenneth Chung (who is supposed
to be excellent). Kenneth Chung was a student of Leung Sheung, Grandmaster
Yip Man's first student in Hong Kong (at least the first who stuck at it).
Apparently, Eddie Chong must have had some falling out with Kenneth
Chung. Sifu Leung Ting even told me that when Pan Nam asked if Eddie
Chong had learned Wing Chun before, and where, Eddie Chong told him yes,
"just from a guy that had studied with Leung Sheung," and would never
name his Si-Fu. Anybody know what Kenneth Chung has to say about this
whole matter of Eddie Chong, Pan Nam, the lineage, why Eddie split with
him, etc.?
As far as the dates go, I agree they're definitely implausible. I haven't
sat down yet and mapped it all out either...guess I'll have to do that.
Mike Adams
wing...@ihlpm.att.com
RVAN...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
wing...@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (michael.e.adams) writes:
>I'm curious: I know there are other people out there in Kenneth Chung's
>lineage. Eddie Chong's original Si-Fu was Kenneth Chung (who is supposed
>to be excellent). Kenneth Chung was a student of Leung Sheung, Grandmaster
>Yip Man's first student in Hong Kong (at least the first who stuck at it).
>Apparently, Eddie Chong must have had some falling out with Kenneth
>Chung. Sifu Leung Ting even told me that when Pan Nam asked if Eddie
>Chong had learned Wing Chun before, and where, Eddie Chong told him yes,
>"just from a guy that had studied with Leung Sheung," and would never
>name his Si-Fu. Anybody know what Kenneth Chung has to say about this
>whole matter of Eddie Chong, Pan Nam, the lineage, why Eddie split with
>him, etc.?
>
>As far as the dates go, I agree they're definitely implausible. I haven't
>sat down yet and mapped it all out either...guess I'll have to do that.
>
>Mike Adams
>wing...@ihlpm.att.com
who has a genuine Wing Chun style but that's it. He didn't research the
lineage and said because of Pan Nam's age you can't conclude much about
fighting effectiveness. The split between Eddie and Ken is probably something
personal which happened a long long time ago. Hopefully Leung Ting can
clear up some of the facts if noone else can. So far Ken Chun is the best
I have come across but I have not seen everything yet. For example I know
little about Emin Boztepe, or Frances Fong etc. and people like Wong
Shun Leung, Wong Kiu, Tsui Shan Tin are almost retired. Unless you
have studied and played with other Wing Chun instructors it is difficult
to judge accurately. We tend to be biased by whoever we study under, then
use those Rose colored glasses to judge everyone else. There are quite a
number of Wing Chun sifu who have value information and ideas to offer however.
Has anyone seen Chung K Chow's new video on freestyle sparring yet ? I just
heard it was available.
Peter C. Macko
> Certainly, what Chan had learned
>up to this point had been the same as what was taught to everyone, since
>he had also received training from Wah the wooden man.
According to William Cheung's Wing Chun family tree as published in
IKF a number of years ago, Fung Wah, Chu Yuk Kwal and Chan Wah Shun
all learned Wing Chun "without footwork". Only Leung Jan's 2 sons were
taught the complete system.
>Personally, I view Wing Tsun/WC/VT as a living, growing art. Certainly
>it has changed over time, and is still doing so (at least some versions
>are). I think that even more important than asking what is traditional,
>it is most important to ask what works, and is there anything that
>could possibly be done to make it even better?
I agree with you very strongly here.
-PCM
--
Peter C. Macko (ma...@pilot.njin.net)