Eternal Spring institute Internal Wing Chun-Snake&Crane

09/24/2026

Regarding the recent guided voice message featuring sifu Law Chiu Wing: does he actually say that Wong Kwun Lun did not do Bai Si with him? No, In fact, he admits that he taught him and gave him corrections during the conversation, furthermore at moments it is quite clear that the questioning is deliberately leading him in a particular direction.

Furthermore, Wong Sifu himself has stated in interviews that he received much of his basic training from Lee Yuen, and he has always spoken proudly of that. The skills of Lee Yuen were clearly of a very high level, which is also reflected in the fact that he was selected to take over Sifu Law Chiu Wing’s classes for several years when Law Sifu himself was too busy to teach.

And ultimately, is that not what Kung Fu should be about? Acquiring a special skill through hard work, dedication, and years of training.

I have personally touched hands with Wayne Yung, and have witnessed him teach his students in his Kwoon on other occasions. From my own experience, the difference with the Kung Fu skill of Wong Kwun Lun is night and day. Therefore Rather than arguing endlessly about this, I would prefer to let the Kung Fu speak for itself. We will release more videos in the future so that people can see the skills for themselves and form their own opinions.

Furthermore, we have video interviews with Sifu Law Chiu Wing’s nephew, as well as accounts from other direct students of Sifu Law Chiu Wing, including John Yuen, who testify that Sifu Law Chiu Wing taught Wong Kwun Lun in Tsim Sha Tsui, in a building owned by Wong Kwun Lun’s family.

Personally, I could not care less whether Wong Sifu learned most of his Kung Fu from Sifu Lee Yuen or from Sifu Law Chiu Wing, as it’s the same lineage. For me, the question is ultimately about the quality of the Kung Fu.

We have seen similar controversies before. In the 1970s, there was a major Wing Chun dispute surrounding Sifu Leung Ting and whether he was a direct disciple of Ip Man. What eventually became known was that Leung Ting had received approximately six months of private instruction from Ip Man at the home of Kwok Keung. It took decades before this information became widely accepted within the Wing Chun community, particularly after Kwok Keung, Wang Kiu and other evidence supported Leung Ting’s account.

For me, and for the Eternal Spring Institute, the quality and standard of the Kung Fu will always be of the utmost importance.

During Wayne Yung Sifu’s recent historical lecture at the Eternal Spring institute, he asked me to let him conduct a practical session. I decided not to do so for the obvious reason, and instead allowed the event to remain focused on his lecture on Wing Chun history, a thesis with which I personally agree and stand behind.

I will leave the practical discussion there for now. Anyone who is interested can look at the evidence, watch the material we release, and make up their own mind.

I have far too much to do during the final quarter of the year to spend more time engaging in what I consider to be unnecessary arguments. I am looking forward to my upcoming seminars in Germany and Italy, followed by my second trip to China this year and then a visit to Hong Kong, where I have some important meetings.

More on that later.

For now, let the Kung Fu speak.

09/23/2026

A Clarification on Snake Crane Wing Chun

When the first edition of my book was published 12 years ago, I suggested that Snake Crane Wing Chun was probably an offshoot of Yuen Kay San Wing Chun.

Having researched the subject much more deeply since then, I now know that this was an error. In the latest edition of my book, I have corrected this, and several months ago I also made a YouTube video explaining and acknowledging my mistake to the Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun.

For me, the Secret Note is a key piece of evidence. It was recorded by Law Tai Wan in 1890 at a time when Yuen Kay San was only nine years old. This alone raises serious questions about the idea that Snake Crane Wing Chun developed from Yuen Kay San Wing Chun and renders it pretty much impossible.

Furthermore, when you look carefully at the indoor form of Snake Crane Wing Chun, there are significant differences in both choreography (The Yuen Kay San Version for example in the second section has the Sap Yi Sao 十字手 (Character 10 hands) but is missing the following cobra head like Sae Ying Sao (Snake Shape hand) and the type of Ging being expressed. Assuming that one system simply came from the other does not adequately explain these differences.

That said, both versions are fantastic in their own right.

Personally, I have a great love for the Sum Nung / Yuen Kay San Siu Nim Tau, just as I deeply appreciate the indoor Siu Nim Tau of Snake Crane Wing Chun, as taught to me by my Sifu, Wong Kwong Lun.

I also want to make one thing absolutely clear regarding the recent short clips I have shared of Wong Kwong Lun Sifu performing Siu Nim Tau.

and also the footage currently circulating online of Sifu Wong Kwong Lun as this concerns the public/basic version only.

It does not show the second layer, which contains additional choreography ( like the Crane Beak technique as seen on the photo) and a more intense expression of Taan Ging and Faat Ging.

And it certainly does not show the third layer the deeper internal layer.

It is this deeper training that is one of the reasons we refer to our lineage as Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun.

There is much more to this system than what can be seen in a short public clip.

🙏 Respect to all lineages and practitioners.

09/22/2026

There has been considerable discussion recently concerning the so-called “Secret Note,” its different handwritten copies, and the relationship between the various Foshan Wing Chun lineages. I believe it is important to put the facts, the evidence I have personally examined, and the results of my own research clearly on record.

-The Relationship Between the Lineages-

Our Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun, as taught through the Eternal Spring Institute and inherited through Sifu Wong Kwong Lun, contains forms whose choreography at times resembles that of the Yuen Kay San and Yuen Chai Wan lineages. This should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that one lineage copied another.

In my research, the more logical explanation is that these lineages ultimately share a common source. The same applies to the Yiu Choi lineage.

If we trace the respective transmission traditions, we find, according to the lineage history I have been researching, connections going back through figures such as Fok Bo Chuen and Law Man Gung in the Yuen Kay San tradition, while our own transmission goes through Law Chiu Wing, Law Ting Chau, Law Tai Wan and San Gam.

My research has also led me to investigate whether San Gam may have been the Red Boat Opera identity of Law Man Gung. I have presented this as a research possibility, not as something that should simply be accepted without further examination.

The forms themselves contain differences. The choreography of Yuen Kay San, Yuen Chai Wan and Yiu Choi is not exactly identical, and neither is the choreography of our Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun. There are also differences in the way energy is transferred and expressed.

These differences are precisely what one might expect when a body of knowledge is transmitted through different individuals and branches over generations, particularly when one of those lineages was maintained secretly as part of a Mun a closed-door family transmission.

I have already shown portions of our forms in several YouTube videos and Instagram reels. Because there have been requests for more information, I intend to publish additional footage showing sections of our forms in the future.

-The 1890 Secret Note-

I have also spoken extensively about the Secret Note attributed to Law Tai Wan and dated to 1890 in my YouTube videos.

Following my meeting with Sifu Wong Kwong Lun (Rick Wong) in Toronto, I was given additional information concerning the history of the document and, importantly, the way it was traditionally transmitted.

According to what Sifu Wong Kwong Lun explained to me, students in the past were required to hand-copy the Secret Note from the original.

The original was written on sheep skin in 1890. Over the decades, the combination of age and the humid conditions of Hong Kong particularly before the era of modern air conditioning caused the original to deteriorate to the point where the writing became extremely difficult to read.

According to the account I received, Law Chiu Wing ultimately decided that the original should be discarded and that the information should instead be completely rewritten from it.

This was also consistent with the fact that the material was regarded as belonging to the closed-door Mun and was never originally intended to be released publicly.

This history is extremely important when discussing the existence of different handwritten versions today.

A handwritten transmission document is not necessarily expected to look identical in every surviving copy. The further back in time a handwritten copy was made, the greater its potential historical significance. At the same time, small discrepancies can naturally arise through handwriting, copying, interpretation and the individual Chinese-language ability of the person making the copy.

-The Copies I Have Personally Examined-

I have personally seen four versions of the Secret Note.

I own two versions myself. One of these was given to me by Wayne Yung.

The other version,in my opinion is highly significant because it contains material concerning the Bamboo Dummy form.

Some pages from this version have appeared in my reels and YouTube videos. Those pages are now being used by some people to argue that this version is a copy of the Yuen Kay San Kuen Kuit.

I believe that conclusion is premature and, quite simply, based on an incomplete examination of the document.

Anyone who had access to the complete version rather than selected pages would be able to see that there is considerably more to the document than the portions I have chosen to make public.

This particular version is also significant because it does not contain the later additional material that Law Chiu Wing added, such as personal notes concerning Taijiquan and, at times, even the use of Western Roman characters for page numbering.

In this respect, it is comparable to the version submitted to the Intangible Cultural Heritage protection program of the Foshan Museum, which likewise does not contain these later additions.

Most importantly, I have personally had the privilege of seeing the handwritten copy belonging to Sifu Wong Kwong Lun.

I do not possess a copy of this document. It remains the private property of Sifu Wong Kwong Lun, who has no intention at this moment of making this particular version publicly available.

This copy is also briefly shown in my YouTube material, in Part 1 and Part 2.

Therefore, when I speak about multiple versions of the Secret Note, I am not speaking theoretically. I have personally examined multiple handwritten versions and compared their contents.

-The Bamboo Dummy Question-

For me, one of the most interesting discoveries concerns the Bamboo Dummy form.

For some time, one question remained in my mind:

If the Snake Crane Wing Chun tradition represents the earliest branch of the Wing Chun transmission, why does the Secret Note apparently not contain the Bamboo Dummy, despite the fact that, for example, the Yiu Choi lineage preserves a Bamboo Dummy tradition?

Did the Yiu Choi lineage introduce or develop the Bamboo Dummy independently?

That was a genuine question in my mind.

I was therefore very pleased when I finally obtained access to a version of the Secret Note in which the Bamboo Dummy is actually described.

That discovery does not, by itself, prove every aspect of the lineage history. But it does demonstrate that the assertion that the Secret Note necessarily excludes the Bamboo Dummy is incorrect.

-The Foshan Museum Submission-

There has also been considerable discussion concerning the copy submitted by Sifu Wayne Yung to the Intangible Cultural Heritage protection program of the Foshan Museum.

There has been a debate over whether the document submitted by Wayne Yung should be identified with the Yuen Kay San Kuen Kuit and whether it represents the relevant historical version of the Secret Note.

From my examination of the material available to me, I believe this issue has been substantially clarified.

The version submitted to the museum should not simply be dismissed as a copy of the Yuen Kay San Kuen Kuit. There are important reasons to regard it as an older handwritten version of the Secret Note, and the comparison needs to be made against the complete documents rather than selected pages.

Sifu Wong Chi Ming of the Yuen Kay San/Mai Gei Wong lineage has also addressed this matter publicly and affirmed this position in the relevant YouTube material.

It is also important to acknowledge a fact that nobody should dispute: the version submitted by Sifu Wayne Yung to the Intangible Cultural Heritage protection program was formally accepted, and the museum curator personally came on stage to present the acceptance certificate an unusual and, to my knowledge, unprecedented public recognition of the submission.

Footage has also been released of Miss Cheung Suet Lin, who was head of the research team at the time, in which she agrees with aspects of the historical research presented by Sifu Wayne Yung.

These are facts that should be acknowledged, regardless of anyone’s personal position concerning the different versions of the Secret Note.

One Important Point Concerning the Bamboo Dummy and the Museum Version

Having said that, there is an important distinction between what I know and what I suspect.

In my personal examination of the version submitted to the museum, I do not see the Bamboo Dummy section that appears in the version in my possession.

I have my own suspicions concerning why this may be the case. However, I will not present those suspicions as established fact.

I have heard two separate oral accounts one from a direct student of Law Chiu Wing and another from a grand-student of Sifu Law Chiu Wing both of which suggest that Law Chiu Wing may at some point have decided to remove the Bamboo Dummy section from the Secret Note.

These are oral accounts that I have received. They are not documentary proof, and therefore I will leave them exactly where they belong: as information worthy of further investigation, rather than as established historical fact.

This distinction is important.

There is a major difference between saying:

“This is what the document shows.”

“This is what I was told by someone within the transmission.”

and

“This is my personal suspicion.”

I believe historical research becomes stronger, not weaker, when these three categories are kept separate.

-A Necessary Clarification-

I want to make one thing absolutely clear:

The existence of multiple handwritten versions does not mean that one of them must automatically be “fake.”

On the contrary, if the historical account is that the original was hand-copied by successive students, then the existence of multiple handwritten copies is precisely what we might expect.

The correct historical question is therefore not simply:

“Which person possesses the original?”

If the original 1890 document no longer survives, then nobody today can honestly present a later handwritten copy as though it were physically the original 1890 manuscript.

The relevant questions are:

Which copies exist?

What do they contain?

How do they compare with one another?

What is their documented or claimed provenance?

What can be established through handwriting, language, content and lineage history?

And most importantly:

What does the evidence actually show?

That is the standard I believe should be applied to every version, regardless of who owns it.

Our Position

At the Eternal Spring Institute, we are fortunate to possess two versions of the Secret Note as recorded by Law Tai Wan in 1890, while I have also personally examined other versions, including the private handwritten copy belonging to Sifu Wong Kwong Lun.

I therefore reject the simplistic claim that there is one publicly relevant “true” copy and that every other version must consequently be false.

The documentary evidence is considerably more interesting and considerably more complex than that.

And to be absolutely clear: I am not claiming that my own copies are automatically authentic simply because I possess them.

The documents should be compared.

The Chinese text should be examined.

The handwriting should be examined.

The provenance should be examined.

The contents should be compared in their entirety rather than through selected pages.

And where there are unanswered questions, those questions should remain open until sufficient evidence exists to answer them.

I will continue to present the material I have, show the forms of our lineage, explain what I have personally witnessed, distinguish documented evidence from oral history and personal interpretation, and allow people to examine the evidence for themselves.

History should be established through evidence, not ownership.

09/15/2026

To Whom It May Concern,

The Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun Department of the Eternal Spring Institute wishes to clarify its position concerning Sifu Wayne Yung and his Snake Crane Wing Chun Association in Hong Kong.

Two distinct matters must not be confused: historical research concerning Wing Chun Kuen and the practical teaching and transmission of Snake Crane Wing Chun.

1. Regarding the History of Wing Chun Kuen

There is substantial common ground between the historical research of Sifu Wayne Yung and that of Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola. The Eternal Spring Institute has recognised the value of Sifu Wayne Yung’s historical work; indeed, Sifu Wayne Yung was invited to give a lecture at the Institute concerning the history of Wing Chun Kuen.

In this specific field, Sifu Wayne Yung’s research broadly aligns with a considerable part of Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola’s own historical research and understanding.

However, this historical common ground must not be interpreted as evidence of practical affiliation, technical agreement, shared transmission, teaching cooperation, or lineage connection concerning the practice of Snake Crane Wing Chun.

Historical agreement does not establish technical identity.

2. Regarding the Practical Art of Snake Crane Wing Chun

For the avoidance of doubt, the Eternal Spring Institute and its Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun Department have no practical, technical, organisational, teaching, or lineage affiliation with the Wing Chun taught by Sifu Wayne Yung.

Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola has known Sifu Wayne Yung since 2014. During that time, he has not studied Sifu Wayne Yung’s practical Wing Chun, nor incorporated Sifu Wayne Yung’s method into his own training or teaching.

Had Sifu Iadarola wished to study, adopt, or integrate that method, he would have had ample opportunity to do so. He chose not to do so for clear and well-considered reasons.

The practical understanding of Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun within the Eternal Spring Institute is fundamentally different from the practical interpretation presented by Sifu Wayne Yung.

Our Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun follows the teachings and transmission of Sifu Wong Kwong Lun, who studied during the 1960s and early 1970s under GM Law Chiu Wing and his sihing Lee Yuen and was part of a small and select group within this particular transmission.

Accordingly, any suggestion that the practical Snake Crane Wing Chun of the Eternal Spring Institute is the same as, derived from, affiliated with, represented by, or technically connected to Sifu Wayne Yung’s practical Wing Chun is incorrect.

At the same time, we have no difficulty acknowledging the area in which common ground does exist:

Historically, there is considerable overlap.

Practically, the two approaches are fundamentally different.

3. Our Technical Position

Based on our study, training, and understanding of the principles preserved within our transmission, we consider the practical material publicly demonstrated by Sifu Wayne Yung to differ substantially from the Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun taught at the Eternal Spring Institute.

In particular, based upon the practical material available to us, it is our considered opinion that Sifu Wayne Yung does not demonstrate a sufficient practical understanding of the following principles as they are preserved within our transmission:

諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging
彈勁 Taan Ging
發勁 Faat Ging

Our position is not merely that Sifu Wayne Yung uses different terminology or expresses these principles in a different style.

We do not recognise in his publicly demonstrated method the understanding, training, or functional expression of 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging, 彈勁 Taan Ging, and 發勁 Faat Ging as these principles are preserved within our transmission.

These are not minor details, supplementary concepts, or optional interpretations. They are major structural, energetic, and functional components of Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun.

In our assessment, Sifu Wayne Yung’s practical expression of 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging differs fundamentally from ours, and we do not believe his demonstrations show a sufficient grasp of 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging as understood within our system.

Likewise, we do not recognise in his publicly available practical material the expression of 彈勁 Taan Ging or 發勁 Faat Ging as these principles are preserved, trained, and applied within our transmission.

These principles are assessed through structure, timing, body connection, issuing and receiving methods, control of force, and the ability to apply them under genuine contact, not merely through appearance, terminology, or theoretical explanation.

Our position is therefore that Sifu Wayne Yung’s practical Wing Chun does not demonstrate the 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging, 彈勁 Taan Ging, and 發勁 Faat Ging that form essential parts of our Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun.

4. We Encourage Direct Comparison

We encourage anyone genuinely interested in Snake Crane Wing Chun to investigate the matter independently.

Watch Sifu Wayne Yung’s practical demonstrations and compare them carefully with the demonstrations and training material of the Eternal Spring Institute.

Examine the structure, body mechanics, movement principles, training methods, applications, generation and transmission of force, and overall technical approach.

In particular, consider whether 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging, 彈勁 Taan Ging, and 發勁 Faat Ging are genuinely understood, trained, and expressed, rather than merely named or claimed.

Where possible, experience both approaches directly. Compare the practical methods, training principles, and applications through genuine contact with practitioners representing each approach.

We are confident that the practical differences will become apparent to experienced practitioners who make a genuine and informed comparison.

5. Why We Are Making This Statement

We would ordinarily have no reason to comment publicly on another practitioner’s method.

However, private messages written by Sifu Wayne Yung concerning Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola and the Eternal Spring Institute were subsequently made public by a third party in a YouTube video.

Those messages included direct criticism of our Chi Sau, our understanding of internal martial arts, the practical effectiveness of Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola’s methods, and aspects of our understanding of terminology and transmission.

Because these remarks are now in the public domain, they may create confusion regarding the nature of our relationship with Sifu Wayne Yung and may give the impression that our practical method derives from, depends upon, or should be understood through his interpretation of Snake Crane Wing Chun.

That impression would be incorrect.

We therefore consider it necessary to clarify our position openly and respectfully.

Our intention is not to reproduce private correspondence unnecessarily, nor to answer personal criticism with personal criticism. Our purpose is to make clear what we teach, where our transmission comes from, the technical principles upon which it is based, and the areas in which our understanding differs fundamentally from that of Sifu Wayne Yung.

The fact that historical research may overlap does not give any individual authority over another practitioner’s practical transmission, nor does historical agreement establish technical dependence.

Where criticism concerns the practical quality, technical understanding, or effectiveness of our method, we believe the most appropriate response is not personal argument, but transparent comparison.

The material of both sides can be examined.

The methods can be experienced.

The results can be judged.

6. Our Position

Our position is straightforward:

Historically, there is significant common ground between the research of Sifu Wayne Yung and Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola.

Practically, the Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun of the Eternal Spring Institute is fundamentally different from the Wing Chun taught by Sifu Wayne Yung.

The Eternal Spring Institute has no practical, technical, organisational, teaching, or lineage affiliation with Sifu Wayne Yung’s Snake Crane Wing Chun Association.

Based upon the practical material available to us, it is our considered opinion that Sifu Wayne Yung misunderstands 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging as it is understood and preserved within our transmission. More importantly, we do not recognise 彈勁 Taan Ging or 發勁 Faat Ging within his publicly demonstrated method at all.

This distinction is particularly relevant because Sifu Wayne Yung has criticised Sifu Sergio Pascal Iadarola by suggesting that 彈勁 Taan Ging and 發勁 Faat Ging were taken from Tai Chi and Fujian White Crane. Our position is precisely the opposite. Within our transmission, 諸/堵勁 Jyu Ging, 彈勁 Taan Ging, and 發勁 Faat Ging are essential and integral concepts of Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun itself. They are not borrowed additions, but principles that must be correctly understood, preserved, trained, applied, and transmitted as part of the art.

These distinctions are not contradictory:

Historical research may overlap, while practical transmission remains fundamentally different.

We encourage everyone to investigate for themselves, compare the material objectively, experience the training directly where possible, and make their own informed judgment.

Sincerely,

The Eternal Spring Institute
Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun Department

08/27/2026

☯️

08/27/2026

Sometimes, things simply need time before they are fully understood and accepted by the majority.

The realisation that the Secret Note, recorded by Law Tai Wan in 1890, is genuine and authentic was not only a shock for me personally, but also something that naturally faced resistance from parts of the Wing Chun community.

But the tides are turning.

I want to sincerely thank everyone in the Wing Chun community for the incredible support surrounding my last two videos, in which I interviewed Sifu Wong Kwong Lun. These are, without doubt, two of the most important videos I have ever published on my channel. I believe that, in the years to come, people will understand even more clearly just how significant those interviews were.

Today, I present another bombshell interview, this time with a Sifu from another lineage, connected to both Sum Nung Wing Chun and Mai Gei Wong Wing Chun.

Sifu Wong holds important positions within the Guangzhou Wing Chun community. He is the Sihing of Wong Nim Yi, the son of Mai Gei Wong, and a direct student of the late Grandmaster Sum Nung, successor to Yuen Kay San.

Please listen carefully to what he has to say.

At this point, I will simply rest my case.

More and more people are beginning to realise that what I have been saying all along deserves serious consideration. For that, I am genuinely grateful.

I have always believed that, in the end, the truth will always find its way to the surface.

👉🏼 https://youtu.be/YQM-d3_6HmY?is=3xpiv2q7vRtvYMp_

🙏 Thank you all for your support.

Ps. Tradition matters!

Sifu Sergio presents a visit to the Yiu Choi Lineage of Wing Chun P...

08/22/2026

THE LAST MASTER Part 2! The Secret Snake Crane Wing Chun lineage, see the complete interview on “Sifu Sergio Iadarola’s Kung Fu world” on YouTube 👉🏼 https://youtu.be/ZtNCX_Lh3Os?is=SWzCA5kAd7dZ1bLs

08/20/2026

THE PART MOST PEOPLE WILL MISS

Part 1 introduced the story.

Part 2 goes deeper.

This is the more important part of the interview and it contains material you simply cannot get from a short introduction.

In Part 2, Sifu Wong Kwong Lun shares more unique footage of the art, deeper information about the transmission, and details that bring the history and practice of Snake Crane Wing Chun into much greater focus.

Some of what is shown and discussed here may challenge what you already believe about Wing Chun.

That is exactly why I ask you to watch it carefully.

And then watch it again.

There are details, movements and pieces of information that are easy to miss the first time.

This is not a video to watch once and scroll past.

It is documentation.

It is testimony.

And for anyone genuinely interested in the history and preservation of Wing Chun, Part 2 may be the most important record in this series.

Don’t watch it looking for something that confirms what you already know.

Watch it with an open mind.

Listen.

Look closely.

And come back to it a second time.

Because years from now, we may understand the significance of this footage very differently.

👉🏼 Watch Part 2 on YouTube⁠ https://youtu.be/ZtNCX_Lh3Os?is=R27l_kKwcx3Vsxjq

Learn online with Sifu Sergio:https://experienceinternalwingchun.c...