Hello to all,
I want to introduce my self. My name is Jason and I have been practising Traditional Wing Chun by Grand master William Cheung for 25 years.
I was very happy to train this martial art for all thees years but along with internet and connection media like skype, facebook, and all, I find out the small truth and the BIG lies about lineage and the art of a Grandmaster William Cheung. Olso I find out that his story is fake and that he use some details from history only for his own marketing!
So, let me begin this little of truth and a pack of lies!
First I wanna say that this story is bad for him and i dont want to hurt his feelings, he is great wing chun master, he just not telling the truth always!
William did not learn his system from Ip Man, he learned it from Secret Society in Hong Kong.
He was a student of Ip man, but through his father a high rank police officer, he got contact with the triads and Secret Society in Hong Kong were he learned Red Flag wing chun.
After, he created his own system – The Traditional Wing Chun.
William Cheung learn like that from secret society and modified a little on his own.
Red Flag wing chun, its just better then the Ip Man system but Ip man is the famous one, so William uses it for his marketing.
Anyway, Wong Shun Leung went with his cousin to meet Ip Man, ...William didn't come to the school until almost Three
years after that event!
William was very unpopular with his seniors in Ip Man's school, and no one wanted to teach him.....only Wong Shun Leung gave him some of his time and allowed him to learn with him.
Even Ip Man did not like William Cheung or spend much time teaching him.....that story of William living with Ip Man is another lie....only Chu Shong Tin ever lived with Ip Man.
Sadly, he was mostly seen as a troublemaker and spent more time running with street gangs and causing problems, ....that's why his father sent him to Australia, to save him from the Triads and maybe...death.
In Hong Kong, Chu Shong Tin and Wong Shun Leung did nearly all of the teaching at Ip Man's school at that time!
Theese two students of Ip Man teach William Cheung as beginer and after his problems on the street and with the street gangs, nobady wanna teach him anymore!
As nobody at Ip Man's school wanted to train with him, he find instruction elsewhere and his father help him with Red Flag Secret Society.
His father was a high ranking police officer, ...and VERY corrupt! (he was actually thrown out of the police force in the 60s because he was so dirty), so his father had connections in the underworld and found someone to teach William.
But as it was a triad system, William couldn't name his teacher, so he waited until Ip Man had been dead for about 10 years and suddenly announced that Ip Man had taught him that stuff!
William is bound by an oath not to name his teacher, so he used Ip Man's name instead and made up that ridiculous story!
All of this can be varified in HK where I was.
Iteresting thing is, what William teaches is almost EXACTLY the same as the stuff that Garrett Gee teaches in the Hung Fa Yi system!
That is why more and more people are "seeing the light" and many are coming over to other systems as a result.
So, he can only lie to people for so long before the truth starts to emerge...
and the Internet has "killed" several big liars.
So, to be clear. Grand master William Cheuk Hing Cheung learn wing chun from Wong Shun Leung and
Chu Shong Tin (The first generation in HK) and later he learn from Secret Society Red Fllag Wing Chun, from Hong Kong. He was in Wing Chun from 1954 and go to Australia in 1959. After that is just practising and modificate the art and the truth.
For the end, Traditional William Cheungs Wing Chun is superior, but he is a liar cause he never was student of IP MAN. He learn from Ip Man's students!
THIS IS THE TRUTH AND ONCE MORE ALL OF THIS CAN BE VARIFIED IN HONG KONG IN MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS AND STATES EVIDENCE.
I was very sad cause I spent a lot of time with my sifu and with sigung William Cheung, and now I know that he spread just a pack of lies. I was angry and in the same moment I was happy cause I know the truth finally.
Through the years, most people told me about similar storys and I did not want to believe but now is clear, very clear. I will continue to train and to lead school
with my own understanding of wing chun kung fu or ving tsun kung fu, what ever, cause thees are just a words, and I will learn my students the whole truth about history because some things they must to know! Several master and sifu's already left William Cheung and World wing chun kung fu association because of this lies and because of his arrogance, vanity and condescension! His first master Dana Wong left him, and than Julian Deboers, first class sifu's. Now there is more and more in the other parts of the world, just, people had enough of his lies!
As an official successor to Yip Man was not named publicly, some Wing Chun exponents have been involved in the politics of claiming to be the rightful successor. Cheung himself claims to be the only one who was taught what he calls the "Traditional Wing Chun" style, which he says was previously a secret, purer version of wing chun only taught to those expected to become the style's standard bearers. Cheung claims that all the rest of Yip Man's students were taught what he calls the "Modified Wing Chun" system, alleged to be a simpler and less effective style taught to outsiders deemed unworthy to learn the true version. All the other senior students of Yip Man, including the directors of the Ving Tsun Athletic Association (VTAA) and Yip Man's two sons, have disputed Cheung’s claims.
In the 1980s, Cheung made these claims in a series of martial arts magazines, starting a published war of words with other Wing Chun organizations, especially the WingTsun group. He offered to demonstrate the practical (combat) superiority of his system against anybody who wished to try, and he was subsequently challenged to a fight unexpectedly in the midst of a seminar in Germany by a WingTsun fighter named Emin Boztepe. In taped footage of this fight, it appears the Boztepe was the clear winner of this conflict, though Cheung claims that the footage was edited. The incident has turned into something of an Internet phenomenon.
His claimed start date of 1951 with Yip Man is also controversial, as he (by his own admission) started after Wong Shun Leung. Wong said his own start date with Yip Man was early 1954, making the 1951 date impossible.
Cheung also claims to have been a live-in student of Yip Man between 1954-1958. Chu Shong Tin lived with Yip Man up until 1955 and there is no mention made in the literature of Cheung living there as well. Considering the start date controversy, it is possible he could have lived with him starting in late 1955 after Chu Shong Tin moved out. In contrast, the VTAA letter described his training as intermittent
I want to start learning Wing Chun and after find a school at Toronto, Canada (my new home), they announce techniques of William Cheung (the master trained 5 years with him).ОдговориИзбриши
So, as a good student, I did some research and I got surprised with all this facts (not only here, but everywhere).
I am looking for "Traditional" Wing Chun, where can I find information (maybe a directory) with schools that are in fact teaching the "right" Wing Chun techniques?
Thank you for this article. Please allow me to ask you a few questions:
1. Are you still teaching at William Cheung's school?
2. What made you to try to dig up the truth after all these years? Really, why bother?
3. If we put aside for a moment who said what, who claims what, the lies, the stories, the facts, at the end of the day - did he teach you bad kung fu all these years?
Аутор је уклонио коментар.ОдговориИзбриши
Those are great questions, Alexander. Evidently, Jason does not have the loyalty aspect in him.ОдговориИзбриши
Well, the purpose of my questions is not to point my finger and say "hey! you are not loyal", no no, its not about that.
I believe that William Cheung said what he said and claimed what he claimed over the years, only due to commercial and marketing reasons.
Thats why I asked about the skills, whether the skills taught over the years were bad skills? I think what WCheung teaches, for example the footwork is really dynamic. Am I not correct?
Sure there is a big buzz over the Internet about how big of a liar WC is, but what about the skills? Why no one speaks of that? This is what I want to know ...
Wing Chun is a modernisation/simplification of other forms of Kung Fu. It itself must have been continuously modified before Ip Man's school.ОдговориИзбриши
Continuing the legacy by further modification is a logical progression of the process of development of Wing Chun. This may even mean mistakes are made by over/under simplification of the art form.
True Kung Fu has no form and yet has form. It adapts to any situation or task - even making tea.
I understand the need for perfection in order to form a strong base however ho student is a blank canvas so the argument is a mute point.
I studied under Master Cheung however I also studied some Aikido and some Tai Chi. Further more I learnt Mountaineering, cooking, programming etc. Kung Fu is in everything I do and the friendships I make.
Thank you for the post.ОдговориИзбриши
I teach William Cheung style in my school.
My Sifu told me a simular story about Cheung, and you ar right , his behavior towards his own students is not honorable.
I would allso ask you a qestion ...
How do other styles work for you?
Put aside his personality, but I have to say that his way of Wing Chun Is more suitable for me than all the others I have tryed. So I don't care where he learned it , I never liked him as a person, but his system works for me.... The lies ar a burdon on his soul, I hope the money was worth it.
Wish you all the best
I am from Bulgaria and i have been in a traditional Wing Cheung in Australia with Grand Master William Cheung year 1997 and my Si-fu at that time was Dana Wong who is of the Grand Master first master which i love him so much and i will in all my life. What i hear here is surprised me because Grand Master William Cheung have helped me from my injury and many more for which no one will do it like him. My injury at that time was in the back, and I was almost immobile, and only a few exercises he picked me up and after about a week I felt nothing and went back to the workout and I was completely normal person. Just to say that to this day what he gave me worked and I have no more pain. I can only say that I am grateful that I had the honor to know him. And as to my teacher Dana Wong is indispensable, and I hope what I read is not true that he left the Grand Master William Cheung for the reason of his lie or anything about that.
Grand Master William Cheung was what he was. People wake up this style that he taught no one has done it. He repeatedly tried to persuade all the movements which he was held to be correct over the years and nobody wanted to hear it and now all schools use his way of the movement and do not want to admit this. Please do not be so negative towards this great man it can only be learned at all useful in our lives. Let prove his school with the other and then everyone will know he was right and unique.ОдговориИзбриши
Аутор је уклонио коментар.ОдговориИзбриши
It is interesting how people admit he is a liar but has superior wing Chun. Also how they have tried other styles but find this one to be the best.ОдговориИзбриши
I have practised 3 styles of WC. And continue to practice two of these styles. The first one I dropped because it was ineffectual. While not William Cheung style it was similar in many ways. I have practised with and seen many practitioners from other styles.
I find William's one to be one of the shallowest interpretations of this art. I have a friend that practised Williams WC for 10 years and then changed. He still can't believe the many years he wasted learning that system. He occasionally meets up with his old teacher and exchanges ideas and techniques. He said his old sifu has no clue about structure and no answer for moves or strikes with intention and structure behind them.
One of my best friends trains in another city under an exponent of Williams WC style and we sometimes exchange. Out of respect to him I don't put his style down. But I sure as hell don't see any indications of superior techniques or methods. I'm not faithful to any system. I train two wing Chun styles, BJJ, and another Japanese art. If Williams style was superior in any way, I would be doing it. One of the WC styles I do, I do for the internal aspects and the incredible power it can generate. The other one I do for the practicality and fighting aspect. I practice BJJ just in case I get into a grapple.
Williams style is technically flawed in many ways.
1. The T-Step is flawed because it creates a space behind the body. If the opponent was to change the direction of his punch towards the opponent doing the t-step (rather than just follow through in punching forward) the william cheung stylist will have no support and be forced backwards.
2. Another technical mistake that they make is punching the arm over a block trying to get a shot in. They will extend the elbow and straighten it instead of leaving the elbow bent and drive into the opponents structure. Due to leverage, it is very easy to push an extended elbow up in the air and strike.
3. The fact that Williams style does not use forward pressure in chi sao or techniques, cripples the style. Without forward pressure or the ability to deal with forward pressure the style lacks any real substance. You can't learn how to take pressure or redirect pressure to the ground. And of course you can't learn how to issue pressure effectively. My friend's understanding of the best shapes and structures to deal with pressure was almost non-existent.
In short their solution to everything is going around Which always puts them on the back foot.
4. Another fault, is the irrational need to be on the outside flank. This takes away from the idea of going straight in as they need to go around to get to the outside. Yes the outside flank has many advantages, but at what cost does it take to get there? A moving opponent is not going to make it easy for you to get to this position. You shouldnt force yourself on the outside it should happen as a result of what the opponent does. You go to the inside or outside based on the pressure put on you.
5. The fact that they take so long before they can learn chi sao is pretty lame. Chi sao is core and it should be done pretty soon after the student starts to learn. The first wing chun I learned was like this. I think I know why it is done this way. They will tell you it is because the fundamentals need to be enforced or trained. The truth is that they need to condition students to do chi sao the way they want them to do it so that when it is time to chi sao they can confidently chi sao their students with no surprises within a narrow confine of moves e.g. no forward pressure, tan/fok/bong to be in precise places etc. A good wing chunner could deal with anything a newbie does in chi sao and doesnt need to condition students. Students will soon find for themselves what works and what doesnt and will soon find the shapes and movements that work the best for himself without the teacher necessarily having to explain too much.ОдговориИзбриши
I could go on and on but I think you get the point. I have met many people from William's style change to a solid one, but I have never seen it happen the other way around. E.g. a WSL guy change to a William Cheung style.
William' s style heavily relies on speed, agility, strength and fitness to over come an opponent. These are of course very important things, and can win fights on their own. But I strongly believe that from a technical standpoint that art is flawed. Not to mention the fact that it is so heavily regimented that you have to do it the way you are told without room for argument or experimentation. One of the cool things about both the WC styles I do is that if it works, you do it that way. Telling your students that your elbow has to be exactly here or there at this or that angle is superficial bs.
Last point, people like to talk about how good a fighter he is. I dont see the relevance in this. Some people are naturally good fighters. Doesnt mean he has good wing chun. Mike Tyson is a good fighter. Probably not good at wing chun though is he? William Cheung could have been a good fighter before he started WC. So what?
And besides that, how do we even know he was a good fighter. There is some tails of him fighting on a boat on the way to Australia. Was this really in the newspaper? Can it be found in archives? What other evidence do we have of him winning fights? He was 18 when he left hong kong. What fights had he had in australia since then? In other words, what fights has he had since becoming an adult? But as I say even if he did win lots of fights, it wouldnt change much.
Аутор је уклонио коментар.ОдговориИзбриши
Аутор је уклонио коментар.ОдговориИзбриши
Mike, what you describe in your point#5 about Chi Sau was one of the reasons for me to switch to WSL school. The way WSL camp does chi sau made so much more sense to me the moment I saw it during my first trial lesson in one of the schools that follows WSL.ОдговориИзбриши
Regarding WC being a good fighter, there are evidence to that and apparently there is even Bruce Lee's acknowledgement. But was he actually using wing chun in his fights? - I think its unclear.
I have read a blog post of someone doing a research around wing chun controversy. I could dig up a link to that post, but I am afraid its going to be removed from here. Just google for "my take on wing chun controversy"
Exactly. I am similar as I changed from a Leung Ting school which had no forward pressure either. And it is amazing the difference in understanding of force vectors and so forth.ОдговориИзбриши
Yeah definitely sounds like he was a scrapper. But again all this happened before he was 18. So what? He was a kid. What has he done in his adulthood to prove he is a good fighter? Did he challenge other martial artists in Melbourne to bring recognition of his style. Or did he jump in a ring? I havent heard anything that suggests this.
On the positive of his style, he does seem to produce good fighters that DO enter competitions and do well. I think this is thanks to conditioning and so forth more than any great advantage in style or technique. And we should acknowledge these William Cheung people who actually get out there and pit their skills against others. THe only criticism I would have of the two styles I do is that people seem less willing to do that. And in at least one of them, it is quite normal to see overweight, physically weak, or unconditioned students. Even if they have excellent structure and power generation. Its a tough one. I like arts where your physical conditioning doesnt dictate how good you can be. Otherwise I would still be doing karate. But as we get older we cant rely on this conditioning any more. I think this is the point of Wing Chun. The idea of a weaker opponent being able to overcome a stronger one.
Mike. Having trained Cheung's style at his Melbourne headquarters for 3 years, much of it as a full time student under Sifu Dana Wong, it seems your comments about the flaws of the method are derived from experience with individuals with poor understanding of basic system principles.ОдговориИзбриши
For instance, Chi Sao does in fact have constant forward force and all 'Cheung style' practitioners should understand and apply this. Sometimes the flaws in a fighter/practitioner are due to poor instruction, other times they are due to a poor student and sometimes they are both. In this case I will say the issue is more with the business model than the fighting system.
While I was training through the mid 90s and again later in the early 2000s, just before Sifu Wong left the association, every student had the same opportunity to learn the system thoroughly, however, I can honestly say that most were happy to just learn the movements and grade for their next rank. Very few had the will to understand that hey were training a fighting system. To the vast majority it was all an intellectual exercise. That's all fine for the individual student if that's all they want and is common in a great many schools that operate as a sole commercial enterprise. In the end, though, it does a great disservice to any system by churning out 'belted' practitioners with an awe fully watered down understanding of the art. This in turn makes others feel the system is at fault when in fact it is really just the practitioner that is no good. I can still Cleary here Sifu driving this exact point into the class over and over again. Only some heard the message.
Justin, I agree with your points. Having recently started at Melbourne, after several years of authentic Wu style Tai Chi, it appears that TWC has a lot to recommend it.ОдговориИзбриши
I just stumbled on this post. Wow, what a head trip. You students are overly concerned about lineage, who's telling the truth, and which form or techniques is the best. Martial arts are about your own personal expression.ОдговориИзбриши
Theory won't help you in the moment of a real fight. Art is your expression of the martial form in every situation and in your daily life.
I trained with William Cheung in the 1980's in Los Angeles and Australia. I am a certified Traditional Wing Chun teacher. I participated as Sifu’s Cheung’s prop dummy on several magazine covers and most of his books. But that show biz.
Enjoy your art and be respectful to everyone no matter who they are. Be grateful for what you have learned and how fate has brought you teachers. Ken Teichmann
So Ip Man teach his sons modified version of Wing Chun but William, Ip Man teach original. Very convincing.ОдговориИзбриши