# Is Wing Chun taught backwards?



## Poor Uke (Feb 21, 2011)

During my normal morning trawl through martial arts forums (in a vain attempt to put off starting work) I came across a post that suggested that Wing Chun was initially a weapons based system and developed backwards to an empty hand system.

This is a great idea and in some ways makes sense to me. What d'y'all think?

The idea that actually the Knives where taught first and that the wooden dumby and pole were actually training tools for knife work?


----------



## geezer (Feb 21, 2011)

I spoke to one knowledgeable guy that claimed that some aspects of the art, including Biu Tze form were originally "reverse engineered" from the Bart Cham Dao. But I think it would be a huge stretch to further apply that "reverse engineering" theory to the fundamental empty hands system and the SNT or Chum Kiu movements. 

As for the pole, most authorities agree that that was a separate weapon unto itself adapted to Wing Chun. Even the "legendary history" of the style supports that. If I remember the story, Leung Yee Tai was supposedly a sailor on the "Red Junk" who learned his original pole technique from the Shaolin abbott Chee Shin (or his lineage). Leung shared his pole skills with WC inheritor, Wong Wah Bo. Together, they developed the Chi-Kwun techniques _from the empty handed system_ and the pole from then on remained part of WC. 

I think a close examination of the techniques would support the general thesis that is contained in the story. That is to say that pole was a widely practiced weapon art in the region and when brought into WC took on some of the unique characteristics of the system such as the sensitivity training or "sticking" aspects. By contrast, the knives do not stick.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 21, 2011)

Poor Uke said:


> During my normal morning trawl through martial arts forums (in a vain attempt to put off starting work) I came across a post that suggested that Wing Chun was initially a weapons based system and developed backwards to an empty hand system.
> 
> This is a great idea and in some ways makes sense to me. What d'y'all think?
> 
> The idea that actually the Knives where taught first and that the wooden dumby and pole were actually training tools for knife work?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not think that thesis is correct-both historically and from the perspective of layered skill development. All kinds of views are out there- not worth chasing.

joy c


----------



## Victor Parlati (Feb 21, 2011)

I guess nothing is worth chasing if it upsets the appple cart, huh? 

But although it's true that butterfly sword techniques can be found all through bil gee and in the wooden dummy set, I don't believe that wing chun was reverse engineered. I believe that the weapons (ie.- sword techniques) were placed within bil jee and the WD to both hide them and preserve them.


----------



## geezer (Feb 21, 2011)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I do not think that thesis is correct-both historically and from the perspective of layered skill development. All kinds of views are out there- not worth chasing.
> 
> joy c



Joy is so succinct. There are aspects of WC history that, whether true or folk-tales, are important as they inform our understanding of our art. Then there are the unknowable speculations... the second gunman on the rocky knoll, the 911 "truthers", the anti-Obama "birthers", the Illuminati, and WC stories such as this! LOL


----------



## Victor Parlati (Feb 21, 2011)

I've been discussing and debating issues on the internet with Joy since 2002. 

My background is now that of going on 36 years of wing chun: direct student of Moy Yat from 1975-1983; and a direct student (I now wear a red sash) with William Cheung from 1983 to the present. Ran a school in NYC non stop from September, 1984 until I moved to Virginia Beach 5 months ago - left my top student to run a school in NYC - and I return once every 10 weeks to teach a class - but the school is now his.

But I believe that stating a logical position with real clarification and detailed explanation always trumps succintness.

I've also heard that the dragon pole was basically grafted onto the system - and if you look carefully at all the differences - it makes a lot of sense. One "weapon" instead of two, a veerrrrry log weapon at that, a totally different stance - although the centerline is in play along the shoulder line, completely different footwork, but yes...straight line striking. 

All the theories about someone essentially bringing his dragon pole to the wing chun table and adapting his techniques along the lines of the wing chun principles of centerline and straight line striking seems perfectly logical if you look carefully.

The butterfly swords, on the other hand - do seem to fit right into the wing chun principles, strategies, and techniques like a glove.


----------



## profesormental (Feb 21, 2011)

Greetings.

Most Chinese martial arts have weapons, and yet the weapons training is different in many aspects to the Empty hand training.


----------



## Poor Uke (Feb 22, 2011)

Great posts so far thanks y'all.

It is my contention that the Dragon pole was brought in as another training tool for the knives.

Although I get where you're (geezer) comming from with the knives dont stick thing. I would disagree when it comes to fighting against something like the Dragon pole or indeed any other long range weapon (the good lord know traditional Chinese martila arts has enough of them).

One final point, if you look at the forms backwards then you begin to see a progressive distilation of technique......

I dont nessesaraly (jeez how do you spell that word) agree with myself, just thought it would be a nice thought provoking discussion, as such I will attempt to play Devils advocate as long as possible (or until y'all get tired of the thread anyways)


----------



## geezer (Feb 22, 2011)

Poor Uke said:


> I dont nessesaraly (jeez how do you spell that word)...


 
And now for something completely different... (and more than a bit off topic) imagine what you could do if you reverse engineered English spelling according to WC principles such as efficiency, economy, straightline, and so forth. For example, what if you used a purely phonetic spelling, substituted a ' sign for all unstressed vowels, and eliminated redundant letters such as the letter "C" k'mpleetly usng onlee "S" r "K", n eel'm'naat'd al unstresd vowlz tuu. Then spel'ng wud bee soo m'ch simplr. Nes'sr'ly. WC ruulz!


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 22, 2011)

geezer said:


> And now for something completely different... (and more than a bit off topic) imagine what you could do if you reverse engineered English spelling according to WC principles such as efficiency, economy, straightline, and so forth. For example, what if you used a purely phonetic spelling, substituted a ' sign for all unstressed vowels, and eliminated redundant letters such as the letter "C" k'mpleetly usng onlee "S" r "K", n eel'm'naat'd al unstresd vowlz tuu. Then spel'ng wud bee soo m'ch simplr. Nes'sr'ly. WC ruulz!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have known students who write that way! Shudder!!

joy chaudhuri


----------



## zepedawingchun (Feb 22, 2011)

Poor Uke said:


> During my normal morning trawl through martial arts forums (in a vain attempt to put off starting work) I came across a post that suggested that Wing Chun was initially a weapons based system and developed backwards to an empty hand system.
> 
> This is a great idea and in some ways makes sense to me. What d'y'all think?
> 
> The idea that actually the Knives where taught first and that the wooden dumby and pole were actually training tools for knife work?


 
In most true combat martial arts systems with a weapon, a or the weapon was taught first (good example is Kali, the blade is first then empty hands).

Maybe in the Shaolin temple, the butterfly swords (as taught in Wing Chun) were first and then the Wing Chun empty hands was devised around or for them.  It's hard to know now what came first since it has been close to 350 years since WCs inception.


----------



## hunt1 (Feb 22, 2011)

Not going on what I was told but looking at things objectively the Knife form itself was developed sometime after wing chun moved off the red boats and may even be family specific.

 Some wing chun groups Like Cho family. which split from others back when wing chun left the red boats, and Pan Nam wing chun preserve a general southern knife form. Other groups Like Yip Man for example have a form that directly relates to the wing chun hands. Some styles dont have a set form but use a system of separate techniques.

 In addition you have the which are the correct knives question. Some use the front end weighted chopper knives others a thinner stabbing knife. The knife you use will make a difference in the techniques and form structure you use. 

 The variety in form and knife tells me that formalized knife form came after the overall system was developed.


----------



## wtxs (Feb 22, 2011)

zepedawingchun said:


> In most true combat martial arts systems with a weapon, a or the weapon was taught first (good example is Kali, the blade is first then empty hands).
> 
> Maybe in the Shaolin temple, the butterfly swords (as taught in Wing Chun) were first and then the Wing Chun empty hands was devised around or for them.  *It's hard to know now what came first since it has been close to 350 years since WCs inception*.



All of the assumptions and speculations brought up some good discussion, but however ... the question remains.

Like the mystery of which comes first, the chicken ... or the egg?:hmm:


----------



## Haris Lamboo Faisal (Feb 22, 2011)

though we have no way of knowing for sure to summarise things my best guess would be that the long pole could not have been reverse engineered that much we know for sure but the question arises would developing a hand to hand system based on weapons such as the butterfly knives be as effective as the wing chun we learn today?


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 22, 2011)

It depends on which type of History you buy, but really in the end, it's not super relevant. I imagine that the pole would have been taught first as it gives rise to gate theory - one of the tenants of WC. That and historically you'd rather be fighting with a weapon vs your hands if possible.

In the Yip Man system, I'm pretty sure that what they have of the long pole fighting (Luk Dim Buhn Gwan) was influenced by Yip Man training and exchanging with Chi Sim folks. Not to say that his WC training before then didn't have pole stuff, it clearly did, but stories hold that's partially what happened. You can see that Chi Sim has it's own form of Pole Dummy training as well (doesn't use the mook yan jong like we do, it's a specialized dummy).

In HFY I'm not sure the history of our long pole, I'll have to ask. We have a short pole, the Lung Fu Gwan which has a form, a wooden dummy set and of course application training. I don't know if it's similar to the Chi Gwan of Yip Man WC, haven't gotten that far yet.


----------



## geezer (Feb 22, 2011)

hunt1 said:


> . The variety in form and knife tells me that formalized knife form came after the overall system was developed.


 
That's good logic. I also suspect that a lot of the variety, even within the Yip Man lineages, comes from the fact tha GM Yip taught so few the complete Bart Cham Dao set, often charging so much, and apparently teaching somewhat differently in different periods. You probably know more about this than I. Regardless, many of Yip Man's student's were forced to cobble together whatever they managed to get of the set along with their own additions, and then typically claimed it to be the true and "authentic" version. Some are quite obviously "expanded" in this manner... the William Cheung version, for example. I no longer take any Sifu purely at his word on this matter....even my own former sifu. His Bart Cham Dao _did_ come from Yip Man, but by what nefarious avenues, I couldn't say. We use the more slender "stabbing" swords over the choppers. That speaks for their authenticity, as WC is certainly _marked by backstabbing!_ LOL. 

At any rate, I'm personally quite confident that WC began as an empty-handed system, heir to many older southern Chinese "short-bridge" empty handed arts like southern crane and so on in the southern Shaolin tradition. Certainly empty handed "Chinese Boxing" in general is many centuries older than WC in particular, and everything about the folklore of our origins stresses the empty handed arts.


----------



## hunt1 (Feb 22, 2011)

We use the more slender "stabbing" swords over the choppers. That speaks for their authenticity, as WC is certainly _marked by backstabbing!_ LOL. 

 Have to agree with that!


 Just a story about how easily Yip man changed things. At dinner in 1996 in Chicago I think maybe 97 with Yip Ching the question came up as to why his form  has some differences from his brother. In reference to section 6 maybe 7   he said that Yip Chun was having trouble getting it so his father just changed it and said 'OK,just do it this way then". 

That was that no big deal.  Of course now everyone has to argue over every little thing.


----------

