[Yes, I have seen an interview done with him but as I stated, the Timeline as put forth by Sum Nung does not fit. Fung siu Ching teaching Yuen at family home 1933 to 1936 Yuen Kay san would have been 44 to 47 when training and Yuen Chai wan was 12 years older? PARDON THE CAPITALS, I AM NOT SHOUTING!!! REMEMBER, IT IS NOT JUST SUM NUNG, WHO PUT OUT THIS STORY OR TIMELINE. ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER, IF WE GO INTO NITPICKING, FSC IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAUGHT THE YUEN BRO.S FOR TWO YEARS, SO CA. 1935-1936 OR 1934-1936, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT DATES HE WAS HIRED TO TEACH AND DIED. SO YES, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN YKS WAS IN HIS MID TO LATE 40S, YCW EVEN OLDER. NOW, THE BROTHERS DID NOT, AS YOU SAY, LEARN FROM FOK BO CHUEN FOR A LONG TIME, BUT A FEW YEARS WHEN YKS WAS YOUNG. FBC WAS NOT A WING CHUN EXPONENT, BUT A (FIVE PATTERN) HONG KUEN PRACTICIONER FROM YAMCHOW IN GONGSAI, SPECIALIZING IN THE SNAKE STYLE. SO THE STORY ABOUT HIM LEARNING FROM EITHER LAW MAN GONG OR EVEN DAI FA MIN GAM AND (AS SOME GROUPS PUT IN THEIR LINEAGE TREE) WONG WAH BOU, IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. UNLESS... BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY... HAHA FONG SIU CHING IS A MYSTERY, EVEN TO REAL NATIVE, FATSAAN MARTIAL ARTS RESEARCHERS, AS IT SUPPOSEDLY SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG OUT ANY TANGIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT HIM. GIVEN THE DATES OF THE OFFICIAL YUEN KEI SAAN ACCOUNT, HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR LAW BENG JEUNG (THE VICEROY OF SEICHUEN) AS THE LATTER DIED WHEN THE FORMER WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 YEARS OLDS OR SO. BUT GIVEN THAT HE IS NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME, HE SURELY EXISTED, BUT YKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT ...LIBERAL... WHEN IT CAME TO EXTOLL HIM. ACCORDING TO SOME SOURCES YUEN CHAI WAN AND YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T GROW UP TOGETHER, YUEN CHAI WAN CAME TO FATSAAN MUCH LATER AND STAYED THERE FOR A FEW YEARS (IT WAS DURING THIS PERIOD HE TAUGHT YIU CHOI) UNTIL HE WENT TO VIETNAM. IIRC SOME SN/YKS GUYS SAY THAT HE MOVED TO VIETNAM IN 1939, BUT - AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD - ACCORDING TO YCW'S SON (WHO IS STILL ALIVE) IT WAS IN 1936. GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, BOTH YUEN KEI SAAN AND HIS OLDER BROTHER HAVE QUITE LEARNT WING CHUN (FROM WHOEVER... ) IN FATSAAN, AND ALSO FROM FONG SIU CHING. ACCORDING TO YKS FAMILY LORE, HE JUST TAUGHT THEM SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS, NOT THE SAAM TOU KUEN. then his younger brother. If Fung Siu Ching was there at that time and they officiated at his funeral (as Sum said) why does no one know where Fung Siu Ching was buried? It also seems to be strange etiquette for the Yuen Brothers to spend so many years under Fok Bo Chun to then in their 40's and 50's claim Fung as Their wing chun Sifu (when they spent 3 years with him) Unless maybe Fok bo chun did not teach wing chun? IT IS VERY STRANGE INDEED THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHERE FONG SIU CHING IS BURIED, GIVEN THE YUENS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OFFICIATED, ETC. BUT WHO KNOWS IF THAT PART IS ACTUALLY TRUE. ALSO, GIVEN THE DIFFULTY FINDING THE GRAVES OF PEOPLE IN CHINA - THEY TEND TO MOVE THE GRAVES AROUND AND THE NAMES OF LOCATIONS GET LOST, AS IS THE CASE FOR LEUNG JAN'S GRAVE IN FATSAAN - THAT MAY VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THAT. LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT. Perhaps Snake set as some speculate? I don't know.... What is an interesting thought , now that I think of it is (Speculating out loud about wing chun history in general) According to the stories passed via Sum nung Fok Bo Chun taught the Yuen brothers for many years. Allegedly Fok taught them Wing Chun (not snake style sets) the three wing chun hand sets etc...etc.... then reffered them both to Fung siu Ching (who trained alongside him under Dai fa min Kam and who was doing the same system according to the story)... If Fung was 73 when he died in 1936 then he would only have been born around 1863 so he was not training on the Red Boats Dai fa min Kam prior to the uprising, so assuming Dai Fa min Kam brought Fung out of the tailor shop and to the red boat as an apprentice (let us guess as early as early age 10 years old) this would have been 1873. Fung reputedly learned 6 years before going out to teach so this would be around 1879 so we have a much later generation then Leung Jan learning in the mid 1850s by the mid 1870s Chan wah was likely learning the three sets of leung jan.... SEE ABOVE FOR SOME COMMENTS RELATING TO THIS. AS FAR AS CHAN WAH SHUN GOES, HE DIDN'T START LEARNING FROM LEUNG JAN UNTIL HE WAS 39 YEARS OLD (ACCORDING TO HIS FAMILY) THIS WAS CA. LATE 188OS, GIVEN THAT LEUNG JAN RETURNED TO GULAO - AND THEN TO FATSAAN AGAIN, WHERE HE DIED IN 1894 (ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGY OF HIS FAMILY), HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEARN TOO LONG UNDER LEUNG JAN. Not a criticism but just wondering,,,Why Fung siu Ching a later generation Never taught Siu Lim tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Tze to any of his first students (See lineages of Chu chong man, tang yik etc..or look up Tang family weng chun history which states Leung Jan lineage was only one using the three sets pao fa lien , Fung siu ching others all different)... IF YOU REFER TO THE SERIES OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MR. HOI (FOR THE HK NEWSPAPER) MANY MOONS AGO, YOU NEED TO APPLY A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING. IF YOU STUDY TANG YIK WENG CHUN, YOU WILL KNOW SOME OF THE PARTS I AM REFERRING TO IN PARTICULAR. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, THAT IT IS A MIX OF STORIES MR. HOI (HIMSELF A STUDENT OF NG CHUN SO) HAD HEARD IN FATSAAN AND THEN CREATED A VERY INTERESTING STORY OFF. SO SOME OF IT IS TRUE, OTHERS FICTICIOUS - CAVEAT EMPTOR... NOW, IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY FONG SIU CHING DIDN'T TEACH SAAM TOU KUEN - HE WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY. ACCORDING TO TANG YIK - AND OTHER SOURCES - HE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO TEACH, ACTUALLY. SO HIS EARLY STUDENTS LEARNT A WOODEN DUMMY FORM, A SORT OF "HONG JONG" CALLED "CHONG KUEN" AND MAYBE SOME SAN SAU. YUEN KEI SAAN DIDN'T LEARNE ANY OF THESE BUT RATHER SOME SPECIFIC SKILLS. but according to this Fung for some reason decided to learn and teach slt, chum kiu and biu tze in his 70's? Also IF ..Fung and Fok bo chun were allegedly doing same system why Fung early students do not have bamboo Dummy or pronounced snake hands motions? THEY DIDN'T, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. FOK BO CHUEN WAS NOT A WING CHUN GUY EITHER... SO THE GREAT MYSTERY IS: WHERE DID YKS GET THE SAAM TOU KUEN FROM? AND HIS BROTHER, TOO... THEY CAN ONLY HAVE GOTTEN THOSE FROM A VERY LIMITED GROUP OF PEOPLE EITHER FORMALLY, OR INFORMALLY (CURRENTLY, I AM OF THE OPPINION THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMAL LEARNING AND EXCHANGING GOING ON BETWEEN VARIOUS PEOPLE) Now forgive me, I do not mean to insult, There may be very good explanations I have over looked but I am always eager to learn more. Thank you in advance.[/QUOTE] INSULT? HOW DO YOU GET THAT IDEA? NOTHING INSULTING IN ANYTHING YOU WROTE - NOT TO ME, AT LEAST. SOMEONE WHO IS VERY PROUD ABOUT HIS LINEAGE AND TAKES THE HISTORY AS GOSPEL TRUTH WILL OBVIOUSLY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT I AM NOT IN THAT CATEGORY.