Not such a very long time ago, many of us in the West thought that all Wing Chun descended from the sole, late Grandmaster of wing chun, Yip Man. However, in recent years, through the research efforts of people like Rene Ritchie and Robert Chu, the opening of Mainland China, and developments in new forms of communication, many different systems, branches, or lineages of wing chun have come to light. Some of these lineages appear very similar to the familiar Yip Man branch; other wing chun systems, however, look completely alien to the casual observer. Yet, all call themselves wing chun. Which lineage is right? What is the correct way to do wing chun? Which branch or lineage truly represents the original, traditional, or true line of wing chun? In my opinion, all the different branches of wing chun are right, true, and original — and yet none is “the” correct way. Lineage is superficial.
Wing chun is a southern chinese martial art that descended from the Red Junk Opera (Hung Suen Hei Ban). And, while there is no conclusive evidence of Wing Chun’s earlier history - before Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tai, Dai Fa Min Kam, Go Lo Chung - there is plenty of speculation and myths. We do know, however, that in the last half of the 19th century wing chun moved off the boats and settled in Foshan. From there it grew, spread, and gave birth to a myriad number of modern branches, including - but not limited to - lineages descending from Yip Man, the Cho family, Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So, Pan Nam, Sum Nung, Pao Fa Lien, and Gu Lao village. Some of these lineages, like Sum Nung’s, Pan Nam’s, and Yip Man’s that descend from Wong Wah Bo, have variations of the three forms which are normally associated with wing chun. Other lineages, like Gu Lao, have no forms at all. And others, like Cho Ga and Pao Fa Lien have a differing number of forms. Most have only two weapons in their curriculum, the double knives and pole. Some others, like Pao Fa Lien, have numerous weapons.
Keep reading »