Leung Jan's system(s)?

[Danny T]

There's another active thread right now titled "The problem with traditional martial arts." It's about sparring (or the lack thereof), but to my mind the fetishization of secrecy is a much bigger problem.

I've been training martial arts for 37 years and BJJ for 20+ years now. My knowledge has been paid for with plenty of hard work, money, broken bones, and so on. What information regarding my art do I hold back from my students? Nothing. What do I hold back from friends I work out with? Nothing. If any of you are ever in Lexington and drop by for a workout, I will be happy to share absolutely anything I know about BJJ or martial arts in general. If anyone on this forum has any questions regarding my art, I am happy to answer, although I am limited by the text medium and many subtle details are hard to communicate without physical demonstration.

Does this make it easy for pretenders to fraudulently claim knowledge of BJJ? Hasn't been a problem so far. When you step on to the mat, we can tell what you know.

Could someone gather all the technical details of BJJ that have been revealed online and use them to construct a fake online jiu-jitsu expert persona to fool the masses? That would actually be a difficult feat to pull off well. There's a ton of information in the art and you can't rely on any special secret detail to prove your authenticity. Every jiu-jiteiro does things a little differently. In order to be convincing you'd need to know why an individual might perform a technique this way or that way. I'd actually be impressed by anyone who did a good job of faking that knowledge without putting in the mat time. (But why bother? It's more fun training for real.)

^^^^^^^^ This.
Train, really train...against others who are more knowledgeable and with greater skills, spar...no I mean really spar vs other systems, have fun doing so and quit comparing styles. There are no secrets, just hard work learning to really use your skills.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

^^^^^^^^ This.
Train, really train...against others who are more knowledgeable and with greater skills, spar...no I mean really spar vs other systems, have fun doing so and quit comparing styles. There are no secrets, just hard work learning to really use your skills.

Damn, Danny, that's almost a pre-game "fire 'em up" speech! I want to go get owned by someone with more skill than me, and I'm here stuck at the car shop.

 

[APL76]

I can see both sides as well. I just think the "other side" is ridiculous in the 21st century.

Why? Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant? Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century? Why is it that now for some reason these values no longer apply?

For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity.

You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.

 

[KPM]

Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant?

---Yes it is. Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it. To do anything else is to do an art injustice.

Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century?

---No. It is an anachronism for a teacher to expect that of you in the 21st century!

For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity.

---It was not a statement made with authority. It was a statement made in a conversation on a discussion forum. If you aren't willing to actually discuss, then no comment was necessary. If you aren't willing to elaborate and want to simply say...."No that's wrong!"....that isn't really necessary. To me, integrity is to provide info when info is asked and it would clarify someone's misunderstanding. That isn't "teaching the system". That's simply being willing to discuss. Which is what we are here for.


You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.

---And it has everything to do with what is wrong with "traditional" martial arts and why they are likely to slowly die out. Additionally....I would suggest that if you are using one version of mechanics and pivoting when doing your Ip Man Wing Chun, but a different mechanics and pivoting when doing your Guangzhu Wing Chun.....and switching back and forth between them....you are likely not doing either one as well as you could because that would somewhat confuse things.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant?

---Yes it is. Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it. To do anything else is to do an art injustice.

Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century?

---No. It is an anachronism for a teacher to expect that of you in the 21st century!

For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity.

---It was not a statement made with authority. It was a statement made in a conversation on a discussion forum. If you aren't willing to actually discuss, then no comment was necessary. If you aren't willing to elaborate and want to simply say...."No that's wrong!"....that isn't really necessary. To me, integrity is to provide info when info is asked and it would clarify someone's misunderstanding. That isn't "teaching the system". That's simply being willing to discuss. Which is what we are here for.


You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.

---And it has everything to do with what is wrong with "traditional" martial arts and why they are likely to slowly die out. Additionally....I would suggest that if you are using one version of mechanics and pivoting when doing your Ip Man Wing Chun, but a different mechanics and pivoting when doing your Guangzhu Wing Chun.....and switching back and forth between them....you are likely not doing either one as well as you could because that would somewhat confuse things.

Keith, while I agree with the basic content of your argument, this post comes across as pretty strident. You're not so much discussing and debating here, as berating. For the two Guangzhu folks, their current situation is one they accepted to learn the style. I don't agree with the condition and - like you - think the instructor should dismiss it. But that's a different point. And if - which is possible - they promised to only teach/pass along the art under the same condition they learned it under, they bound themselves to that same issue. I agree it's an anachronism, and a shame, because that severely limits the ability of Guangzhu folks to impact and influence (to say nothing of learning from) the rest of the MA world. But if it's what they agreed to, then it's what they'll do.

 

[APL76]

Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant?

---Yes it is. Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it. To do anything else is to do an art injustice.

Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century?

---No. It is an anachronism for a teacher to expect that of you in the 21st century!

For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity.

---It was not a statement made with authority. It was a statement made in a conversation on a discussion forum. If you aren't willing to actually discuss, then no comment was necessary. If you aren't willing to elaborate and want to simply say...."No that's wrong!"....that isn't really necessary. To me, integrity is to provide info when info is asked and it would clarify someone's misunderstanding. That isn't "teaching the system". That's simply being willing to discuss. Which is what we are here for.


You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.

---And it has everything to do with what is wrong with "traditional" martial arts and why they are likely to slowly die out. Additionally....I would suggest that if you are using one version of mechanics and pivoting when doing your Ip Man Wing Chun, but a different mechanics and pivoting when doing your Guangzhu Wing Chun.....and switching back and forth between them....you are likely not doing either one as well as you could because that would somewhat confuse things.

We are having the art passed on to us, and one condition of that is that we keep it to ourselves. What right do you or anyone else have to demand that it be openly available to all and everyone? What right do you have to demand that a person who has it make it public just because you want it? It is being passed on. On our teachers terms, not yours.


Why is that an anachronism in the 21st century for a teacher to ask their students to keep an art to themselves only?, you simply assert it. its an anachronism just because you think it is it seems. Why would any master pass on anything to people who show they can't be trusted with it?

In terms of you comment, you made an incorrect statement about Guangzhou wing chun, now you know it was incorrect, we don't turn on the K1 point of the foot. What's wrong with that? I (or obijaunslami) wouldn't get my panties in a bunch if you pointed out something I said about Kulo wing chun was wrong (but then I wouldn't comment on details of Kulo wing chun in the first place). And I wouldn't get shirty if you decided that the correct information was to be kept to yourself for the reasons stated. I would accept that as your right and duty to your teacher. I wouldn't carry on as though I was entitled to an answer. And I disagree, integrity is to know where your loyalty lies and stick to it, not simply dish out information simply because someone thinks they are entitled to it.

Guangzhou wing chun isn't dying out its being passed on, but not to just anyone who thinks they should be able to simply demand it; indeed to walk up to someone who has it and demand it would be the quickest way to guarantee you will never get it.

And in regard to the turns. Though I teach primarily Yip Man wing chun in my school, I haven't trained in it (beyond simply insuring I can teach it effectively) for 17 years. I have no problems getting them mixed up. Besides, you don't do Guangzhou wing chun, its different to what you do, what do you care where on our foot we turn? You couldn't use it anyway.

 

[wckf92]

If memory serves...when a master accepts a student as a disciple...he is bound to teach that disciple the art in its entirety so that it doesn't die out. And isn't it tradition that the master must/shall pass on his knowledge to at least two disciples? So I guess in that sense, to the extent these traditions are true, an art will never degrade and never die out. And isn't that what a disciple is in CMA? A person of integrity and loyalty that is sworn to learn the ways of his master and eventually pass on his teachings?

 

[APL76]

Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant?

---Yes it is. Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it. To do anything else is to do an art injustice.

Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century?

---No. It is an anachronism for a teacher to expect that of you in the 21st century!

For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity.

---It was not a statement made with authority. It was a statement made in a conversation on a discussion forum. If you aren't willing to actually discuss, then no comment was necessary. If you aren't willing to elaborate and want to simply say...."No that's wrong!"....that isn't really necessary. To me, integrity is to provide info when info is asked and it would clarify someone's misunderstanding. That isn't "teaching the system". That's simply being willing to discuss. Which is what we are here for.


You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.

---And it has everything to do with what is wrong with "traditional" martial arts and why they are likely to slowly die out. Additionally....I would suggest that if you are using one version of mechanics and pivoting when doing your Ip Man Wing Chun, but a different mechanics and pivoting when doing your Guangzhu Wing Chun.....and switching back and forth between them....you are likely not doing either one as well as you could because that would somewhat confuse things.

And I will also add that myself and obijaunsalami are happy to discuss things, we are happy to go into absolutely anything concerning our Yip Man wing chun, and to a degree we are willing to discuss Guangzhou wing chun too, however we will reserve the right to not discuss details past the point of our duty and respect to our teacher. Its really that simple.

 

[KPM]

We are having the art passed on to us, and one condition of that is that we keep it to ourselves. What right do you or anyone else have to demand that it be openly available to all and everyone? What right do you have to demand that a person who has it make it public just because you want it? It is being passed on. On our teachers terms, not yours.

---I'm not demanding anything. I'm just pointing out why I think that is silly and an anachronism in the 21st century.


Why is that an anachronism in the 21st century for a teacher to ask their students to keep an art to themselves only?, you simply assert it. its an anachronism just because you think it is it seems. Why would any master pass on anything to people who show they can't be trusted with it?

---Are you saying we (members of this forum) have shown that we can't be trusted with knowing how Guangzhu Wing Chun does the pivot? Again, that's just silly!


not simply dish out information simply because someone thinks they are entitled to it.

---No one is "demanding" anything. No one is feeling "entitled" to anything. You are the one getting your panties all in a bunch simply because I pointed out that the attitude you are displaying is quite silly and anachronistic in this day and age. Making a simple statement on what area of the foot you pivot on is not "teaching the system" or making any grand revelations. You took an oath to your teacher. Ok. Good enough. End of story. But I still think requiring an oath like that is an anachronism in the 21st century. You can continue to debate that point if you want.


Besides, you don't do Guangzhou wing chun, its different to what you do, what do you care where on our foot we turn? You couldn't use it anyway.

----Because....we all come here to discuss and share and learn from each other. I like Wing Chun and learning about what others do regardless if it is something I am going to use myself. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Poppity]

Just to separate the entwining points. Tcma and the secretive nature and approach to teaching is simply the way things are. I am not looking to break the mold, but will say it as i see it which we are all entitled to do.

With regard to traditional arts dying out, there are plenty of articles which state this is the case and plenty of torch bearers who say it is not, so everyone can form their own view .

With regard ego . I accept that you think it was not, but the reason i feel it was, is because i can see no other purpose to say someone was wrong and not elucidate further. If it was to educate, it does not, it simply states that someones understanding is inadequate. The only thing it did was point to that and the fact the poster regards his understanding as superior. I am not saying you must reveal secrets, only that if you go round saying you are wrong because you dont know the secrets i know, it looks a lot like ego.

 

[VPT]

Ok, so on the FB WC forum there is an ongoing 'discussion' about who knows what and when etc etc but my questions are this:
1. Is Gulao wing chun the same as Pin Sun wing chun?
2. Is there a difference between the 12 point, 22 point, and 40 point "systems"?
3. Are the 12 and 22 contained within the 40?
4. Or, are each their own individual systems? And if so, are they all "Gulao" or "Pin Sun" or stem from Leung Jan's village / retirement years?

Thanks in advance for any clarifications.

Oh, and bonus question: do all three systems turn their horse on the front part of the foot vs the rear part?

1. Pin Sun Wing Chun, as much as I've been able to realize, is the style of Gulao Wing Chun passed on from Leung Jan to Wong Waa Sam specifically and then to the Fung family. The other lineages would thus not be "Pin Sun".
2.-3. I will check this out.
4. I guess it's a matter of whether one wants to treat Pin Sun as distinct style from Gulao or not. My view is at #1.

 

[APL76]

We are having the art passed on to us, and one condition of that is that we keep it to ourselves. What right do you or anyone else have to demand that it be openly available to all and everyone? What right do you have to demand that a person who has it make it public just because you want it? It is being passed on. On our teachers terms, not yours.

---I'm not demanding anything. I'm just pointing out why I think that is silly and an anachronism in the 21st century.


Why is that an anachronism in the 21st century for a teacher to ask their students to keep an art to themselves only?, you simply assert it. its an anachronism just because you think it is it seems. Why would any master pass on anything to people who show they can't be trusted with it?

---Are you saying we (members of this forum) have shown that we can't be trusted with knowing how Guangzhu Wing Chun does the pivot? Again, that's just silly!


not simply dish out information simply because someone thinks they are entitled to it.

---No one is "demanding" anything. No one is feeling "entitled" to anything. You are the one getting your panties all in a bunch simply because I pointed out that the attitude you are displaying is quite silly and anachronistic in this day and age. Making a simple statement on what area of the foot you pivot on is not "teaching the system" or making any grand revelations. You took an oath to your teacher. Ok. Good enough. End of story. But I still think requiring an oath like that is an anachronism in the 21st century. You can continue to debate that point if you want.


Besides, you don't do Guangzhou wing chun, its different to what you do, what do you care where on our foot we turn? You couldn't use it anyway.

----Because....we all come here to discuss and share and learn from each other. I like Wing Chun and learning about what others do regardless if it is something I am going to use myself. Is that so hard to understand?

I'd say you are/were demanding information. Nick pointed out that you were wrong, that's it, simply making a statement of fact, and then you and a few others wanted to know where on the foot one turns in Guangzhou wing chun. Nick then said something to the effect of that he was simply pointing out an error, and that he wasn't in a position to give out details. and that's when your panties bunched, I could almost hear the bunching from here.

For what its worth, I was in the process of figuring out how to private message wckf92 to tell him because a) he seemed genuinely interested, b) he was willing to accept that Nick wasn't in a position to elaborate, and lastly, c) because that little bit of information by itself one cant do much with unless one is trying to make claims to having learned Guangzhou wing chun that are a little less than truthful, which I have no doubt wckf92 is NOT doing (Which has, however, been happening in increasing amounts since Sum Nung died).

And no, I am not making a comment on the trust-worthiness of members of this forum. 1) its a forum, anyone can look at it and see the information, not just members. 2) what I AM saying is that it is utterly disrespectful, dishonest and lacking in integrity to give your word that you will keep something to yourself, that that is the condition on which you learn stuff, and then to go straight away and blab about stuff on a public internet forum, and to do so would rightly show that you are both totally untrustworthy and don't deserve to learn what you had/are being taught. Do you really think that we are going to jeopardise learning Guangzhou wing chun from a disciple of Sum Nung because you seem to think that sort of condition is out of date?

It is a matter of respect, and a matter of trust, that simple. And that sort of thing is as valuable now as ever.

Ask us anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, my teacher has told me to do whatever I like with that, but the Guangzhou style wing chun we are simply not in a position to discuss in the depth and detail that some people might like for the reasons I have gone over.

 

[yak sao]

If

Ask us anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, my teacher has told me to do whatever I like with that, but the Guangzhou style wing chun we are simply not in a position to discuss in the depth and detail that some people might like for the reasons I have gone over.

OK, let's use this as a jumping off point.
Where does your lineage of Yip Man come from?
What do you see as the major differences between the two different methods ?

Obviously in light of the ongoing discussion I'm not asking for details as much as I am generalities. Strengths, weaknesses...that sort of thing.

 

[APL76]

If


OK, let's use this as a jumping off point.
Where does your lineage of Yip Man come from?
What do you see as the major differences between the two different methods ?

Obviously in light of the ongoing discussion I'm not asking for details as much as I am generalities. Strengths, weaknesses...that sort of thing.

I learned both systems from my sifu. I wont name him here but for anyone interested the details are on our website.
My Sifu was a private student of Yip Chun. He learned Yip Man wing chun from him. Then, after going around meeting the heads of different lineages he eventually tracked down Sum Nung who, after a few years of training with him, took him as a disciple. I have seen photos of him doing the Bai Si ceremony with Sum Nung.

However, as my sifu went around seeing different types of wing chun he got to see a good portion of Yip Man's Fat San wing chun and kinda liked what he saw; Sum Nung also told him a lot about Yip Mans wing chun, Sum Nung knew yip man well and had seen a lot of his wing chun in Fat San. So, when my teacher started his school in the late 80/early 90s he incorporated some modifications from what he saw in china. So things like the low stance, resting arm being pulled up and back, position of the hands when doing things like Sam Bai Fat. So our HK style wing chun tends to have a mainland china kind of flavour to it, so

while t​

echnically, its Yip Chun wing chun, my sifu has modified it. My sifu always taught the Yip Man style openly; and for anyone he decided to teach it to, he might start teaching the Guangzhou style. If you were very lucky he might take you as a private student (I was very lucky). In that case you learned the Guangzhou style in the traditional way at his house.

I run my school the same way.

In terms of the differences between the systems, the Guangzhou style is much tighter, is structurally much more solid and has a much more sophisticated and sensitive control and manipulation of force. It also has a completely different understanding of what efficiency of movement means. This different idea about efficiency is coupled with the structure that the body takes and is why the structure is so much tighter in the Guangzhou style.

In terms of power generation we generate power generally (kind of) the same in both systems but the Guangzhou one is concentrated in the body in a different way which seems to make it hit a lot harder. The power generation is coupled with the structure and efficiency through the trajectory of the movements in a way that makes the Guangzhou style unspeakably more difficult than the Yip Man style, its more difficult to learn, to train at and to understand. However this different idea of efficiency gives the Guangzhou style a versatility that far out strips that of the Yip Man style.

In a case where you have someone who is dedicated, will train in the traditional manner, and can understand Guangzhou style wing chun (Obijaunsalami is one of these), that person will be very, very, difficult for someone trained only in Yip Man style to deal with. All of that is an enormous strength of the Guangzhou style. However, unfortunately, it is also its biggest weakness.

It is very hard to do it right, and if you cut corners, if you think "near enough is good enough", you just have mediocre Guangzhou style wing chun; by my estimation what you have will not just be useless but an absolute detriment. You would be better of defending yourself with no training at all. So essentially, unless you are willing to do the training in the traditional manner, which puts a huge emphasis on foundation training (Stance, punches, turns, sup yi sik) you won't actually have the wherewithal to deploy your wing chun.

And this is where I think the Yip Man style shines. It is relatively easy (though still difficult), but the more open structure, the simpler ideas of efficiency (so from point A to point B as fast and directly as possible), the simpler ways of using force and the more basic and easier system of power generation make it a much more accessible system of wing chun. And, given the amount of training the average person is interested in doing, or able to dedicate to, it is easier to become proficient, to actually pretty good at.

From my point of view as someone running a wing chun school, the Yip Man style is excellent, it is much more accessible for the average person who wants to learn a martial art and, if trained at properly, for that average person, has a level of effectiveness that should see them able to defend themselves (all things being considered).
In these terms, in my opinion, the Guangzhou style is no good as a style to teach in the context of a wing chun school (generally speaking). It is much better kept back and given to people who are dedicated and willing to train hard; that is the only way that they would make it work.

Far from holding it back as a bait, or as something to keep students paying fees in the hope that they will get it??? For me as a teacher its about giving a student a good solid system of self defence, that may one day save them from a beating; or giving them what they want and having them end up with a system of self defence that they don't actually have the physicality to use. they will cop a beating. Its better to have good, solid, functional Yip Man wing chun than mediocre Guangzhou style that they cant actually use.

That's a kind of general picture, sorry for the length, I'm happy to discuss an finer points anyone may have.

 

[yak sao]

So, do you think these differences come from innovations from YM himself, or would you say it is more of a distinction between Leung Jan's branch and Fok Bo Chuen's branch?

From everything I've read about Leung Jan, he was on a constant quest to simplify his WC.

 

[APL76]

So, do you think these differences come from innovations from YM himself, or would you say it is more of a distinction between Leung Jan's branch and Fok Bo Chuen's branch?

From everything I've read about Leung Jan, he was on a constant quest to simplify his WC.

I think its undoubtable that Yip Man made a lot of changes to his wing chun. His Fat San wing chun is quite different, there he was famous for having a very powerful and low stance and when he taught Yip Chun the first time round he had him train in something like the traditional way (from what Yip Chun told my sifu Yip Man had him do nothing but Jun Ma for ages so he gave up). But when he got to HK it became quite different. Who knows why? My suspicion is that in order to survive he stripped some of it back to make it commercially viable. If that is what he did, why he changed it, I'd say he did a pretty good job of finding a balance between accessibility for students and functionality and effectiveness. And by extension a viable way to keep a roof over his head.

I couldn't say what Leung Jan's wing chun was like. I have never experienced any of it. However my sifu always credits Leung Jan as having said something like, "the person who can reduce wing chun to one form without losing the essence of it, will take wing chun further than anyone before". So yeah, from that I'm not surprised to hear that he was trying to simplify it. And just another little bit of information about Leung Jan: he defeated Wong Fe Hung in a duel with the pole.

The gap between Guangzhou wing chun and Yip Man's wing chun I suspect closed a little with Yip Man. I would hazard a guess that back at Fok Bo Chun/Fung Sui Ching and Leung Jan's generation the styles were further apart. I know Yip Man learned a few fairly important things from Yuen Kay San, that's pretty common knowledge, and I don't think that's controversial for most people. I suspect that the gap between the two styles closed somewhat at about that generation.

 

[wckf92]

The gap between Guangzhou wing chun and Yip Man's wing chun I suspect closed a little with Yip Man. I would hazard a guess that back at Fok Bo Chun/Fung Sui Ching and Leung Jan's generation the styles were further apart. I know Yip Man learned a few fairly important things from Yuen Kay San, that's pretty common knowledge, and I don't think that's controversial for most people. I suspect that the gap between the two styles closed somewhat at about that generation.

Interesting! I've suspected this for many years. I've read somewhere that he learned rolling hands / chi sau from him. But I suspected there must have been other things. I also think YM picked up other WC items from other WC masters of his day. Wish I knew exactly what but sadly I think this knowledge will never be known in our times...

 

[APL76]

Yeah, the chi sao was at least a major part of it, I would suspect that he also got a lot more, perhaps not being taught necessarily, but simply by doing chi sao with the likes of Yuen Kay San, if you had your head screwed on right, you could potentially lean an enormous amount just through doing that with him, just from feeling how he moved.

 

[wckf92]

I think its undoubtable that Yip Man made a lot of changes to his wing chun.

I agree. It would account for all the differences in his students / disciples, etc.

 

[yak sao]

I've always kind of had the impression that the HK WC was kind of the stripped down version.
Like you said, I believe YM did what he did because of the situation/ culture he found himself in at that time.
I also think he may have been carrying Leung Jan's torch of trying to simplify his method. HK simply became the catalyst for change.