Again, none of this seems in any way relevant.
Last edited by pox; 9/02/2005 5:24am at .
You supported the argument for a DNA-type analysis of the style as the best indicator of why and how it evolved. Why do you now feel that an attempt to identify the common features in the various lineages, in an attempt to identify the core techniques and principles, as now being irrelevant?
Originally Posted by pox
The interaction between lineage and 'perceived history': probably not much. Different lineages probably emphasise different components. Lineage specific history (e.g. how Yip Man immigrated from Foshan to Hong Kong and his various feats) is probably distinct between lineages.
The important factor concerning history and lineage is more relevant in a modern setting. Some components of the probably fictional history are deliberately pushed as true by some WC organisations as it is a very good marketing ploy. E.g. the idea that a MA was invented by a woman/girl is used to push the idea that WC doesnot require strength, and is designed for weaker people to defeat bigger opponents. The logic doesn't immediately follow. For instance, Judo is said to have been invented with the same aim (to enable someone to take on bigger opponents) but no one would suggest that their aren't significant advantages to being heavier. Other components of the history are swept under the rug for the same marketing reasons -- e.g. the fact that WC is a close relative to White Crane.
I'm calling this irrelevant because I'm not seeing any analysis.
Originally Posted by Bil Gee
Is there that much difference between the lineages? So much so as to make different origin stories more likely?
Last edited by pox; 9/05/2005 4:35am at .
If you mean are different lineages so different as to give evidence for different origin stories. For example, the myth of Yim Wing Chun for one lineage and Red Junk Opera for another, the short answer is no.
Originally Posted by pox
Originally Posted by Lefty
That's what I thought.
Bil Gee, do you have any opinion on any of the origin stories that were posted earlier? Do you have any other stories you'd like to mention or have any theories that you'd like to get some feedback on?
Why are you asking for a list of core techniques and principles? Do you feel that the origin stories that were mentioned earlier are implausible because they contradict the fundamental principles of the style in some way?
At the moment it kind of comes across that you don't like the origin stories that were presented, and now you're trawling for information in an attempt to find something that will discredit them.
Last edited by pox; 9/05/2005 9:44am at .
Originally Posted by pox
I've no vested interest in confirming or discrediting any of the origin stories, whichever one it was will not affect the validity of my training today.
However, a small part of that training (miniscule) is knowing the origins of Wing Chun. I'm not keen on just accepting and passing on a story without giving it some scrutiny myself.
From what I've seen so far the origin stories that exist are probably the product of a number of factors including
- The inevitable distortion of information as it is passed down the generations by an oral tradition.
- Origin stories being used as a vehicle to explain principals and beliefs of the system. (e.g. small woman beats big bloke)
- A lot of common principals with many of the Southern Arts indicating that at some point they all had a common origin.
- Marketing, as it was done pre 20th century.
The different styles of wing chun are so signficantly different that it has obviously grown "organically" for quite some time which fits with the profile of it being a set of principals and techniques that could be modified in a way that probably wouldn't have happened in the formal settings of a temple.
My guess is that as temples where burned down, the monks would have merged into the population and shared some of their training and techniques.
The shorter training period and stripped down nature of Wing Chun again points to it having been developed to meet the needs of people who weren't able to train full time.
I'd still be interested to know a little about the politics of that period, and how they had a bearing on people learning MAs, also how the other southern styles evolved and whether they were products of the temples or the individual martial artists.
Ok, I will put a little wood on the fire.
In Tings book, “Roots of WT”, he goes through each origin story and points out the problems. Things like the birth dates being 100 years apart, so how could they have learned from each other or that the monastery never existed in that province or that the one mentioned did in fact burn down, in 1928!! :new_blowi
I will briefly give his OPINION of the origin, from page 52 of the book.
A key piece of the story is Yip Mans story of the origin, which he wrote down in 1965/66. In Yip Mans story he mentions that Ng Mui takes refugee in the Bak Hok Koon White crane temple on Mount Tai Leung. He also mentions that Leung Bok Chau, Yim Wing Tsuns husband, taught the art to Leung Lan Kwai, who teaches it to Wong Wa Bo. No other origin story mentions Leung Lan Kwai. Leung Ting feels these specifics are important signs that Yip man is repeating what Leung Bik told him, and that Leung Bik would be thought to know much more than many other sources.
Dr. Leung Ting's Origin legend
About 250 to 290 years ago Ng Mui was an expert of the Weng Chun Bak Hok Pai (White Crane of Weng Chun Precinct, Fukien). The Abbott Gee Sin was an expert of the Southern Siu Lam (shaolin) also of Fukien. Both were secret members of the Hung Moon Society. Political climate forced Ng Mui and Gee Sin as well as others to flee to other areas. Gee Sin went to hide on the red junks and Ng Mui went to hide out in the White Crane temple on Mt. Tai Leung, in the southern Border District between Yunnan and Szechwan.
Ng was always improving her Kung Fu and she saw some new style in this southern district, which is above Burma (edit: This refers to Ling Lom, the root style of Muy Thai, called Flying Monkey Stlye, which is 70% like Wing Chun). This little idea she had lead to some minor changes, which she later taught Yim Wing Tzun. Yim Ying Tzun was the daughter of Yim Yee, who had also escaped to the area due to political problems, and may have been a message contact for the Hung Moon. His curd stand may have been used for this and that would be why the Nun went to visit him often. Yim Wing Tzun learned These new modified techniques from the Nun and latertaught her husband, Leung Bok Chau. When he later taught Leung Lan Kwai, he would have said these are “Wing Tzun's” techniques, hence the naming. Yim Wing Tzuns father may have also learned from the Nun, so that some branches believed it was he that taught his daughter.
Tings research points to the Married couple being travelers, going to Foochow, Hupeh, Shantung, Kansu, Yunan, Kwangsi, and Kwangtung. Yim Wing Tzun seems to have died before her husband, and when he was very old, he retired taking the title, Tui Um, meaning “back to the cottage (a Buddhist/ Taoist thing)". The early techniques at this time may have been only the Siu Nim Tau form, some simple chi-sau, a few combat applications, and a few Bart-Cham-Dao knives techniques. This may be why the Law Marn Kung lineage has only that much material.
Leung Lan Kwai taught Wong Wa Bo in Kwangtung, who was a Opera troop member from the red junks. When Leung Lan Kwai was old he moved to Tung Koon district, and taught some techniques to a herbal doctor named Wong Lo Joh. These techniques for some reason where called Buddhist palms, or Fat-Cheung. (edit note: These today look very close to chi-sau)
Leung Yee Tai, a student of Gee Sin, was an expert of the Luk-Dim-Boon-Kwun-Fat (6 1/2 point long pole) techniques and wished to exchange them with Wong Wa Bo's Wing Tzun. Wong also wished to learn the long pole and they thus taught each other these styles. The 6 1/2 point long pole was modified to have clinging drills (chi-kwan), and was simplified to be more useful in fighting.
Sun Kam, nicknamed Dai Fa Min Kam was also a student of Gee Sin. Gee Sin's Weng Chun Kung Fu was not exactly the same as Ng Mui's modified system, but was very similar and from the same source in Fukien. The two looked very similar so that it would be hard to tell the difference. Wong Wa Bo and Leung Yee Tai would understand the difference but Dai Fa Min Kam, as a long student of Gee Sin, would think they had the same source. So when he started teaching students he named it Weng Chun as Gee Sin, his Sifu, had done. Gee Sin style had come from “Southern Siu Lam (shaolin) Kung Fu” from “The Hall of Weng Chun”.
To finish I quote Leung Ting, “perhaps, based on the above reasons, people later formed two or three versions of hearsay. (The above story is only my (leung tings) personal assumption. Believe it or not? Who Cares!)” :5sonar:
Ok, so that is just a brief account based on his collected evidence presented in the book. He goes on to state the stories from then on, from Wong Wa Bo to Leung Jan and past are well documented and not really disputed.
Weng Chun spelled with an “e” is on purpose to denote yet another lineage branch. Sifu Pang Nam spells it this way, as to a few White Crane influenced styles from Weng Chun Precinct. Also, it should be noted that several styles independently attribute the founder to be a nun, including some White Crane variety's.
Source: “Roots and Branches of Wing Tsun” by Prof. Leung Ting, Leung Publications, Hong Kong, 2000.
Last edited by Dr._Tzun_Tzu; 9/06/2005 12:38am at .
Didn't I cover this in my last post?
Originally Posted by pox
Basically Yip Man lineage WC will focus on Yip Man stories (recent history)
Almost all clubs are Yip Man lineage so its hard to analyse the differences between them based on lineage alone.
Commercialisation has led to the pushing of the Ng Mui/Wing Chun story as it is then used in this logic: invented by woman/girl == requires no strength == weak, unconditioned people can defeat larger fitter opponents based purely on skill..... obviously this is a large heap of bullshido but it sells well.
I just found this different account of the history of from a site from the Pan Nam lineage:
The Shaolin Temple monk, Yi Chum, was said by Pan Nam to be the true founder of Wing Chun. Yi Chum taught Tan Sau Ng, who taught Dai Fa Min Kam, Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tei (Leung Jan's teachers) and so on until Pan Nam.
The lineage chart is here: http://www.wingchunbakmei.com/pan-tree.jpg
Note that this , and other lineage charts, put the art at around a max of 200 years old.