# Origins of Wing Chun?



## KPM (Dec 14, 2015)

This came up on another thread and got me curious.  So just an informal survey here.   Who amongst you (martialtalk forum readers) was taught that (or believes that) the Wing Chun empty-hand methods were based upon and derived from the Pole methods?


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> This came up on another thread and got me curious.  So just an informal survey here.   Who amongst you (martialtalk forum readers) was taught that (or believes that) the Wing Chun empty-hand methods were based upon and derived from the Pole methods?


---------------------------------------Sheesh. Elementary,Development of the structure,fundamentals of motion came and comes first. Weapons came and comes later to enhance development and power.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> This came up on another thread and got me curious.  So just an informal survey here.   Who amongst you (martialtalk forum readers) was taught that (or believes that) the Wing Chun empty-hand methods were based upon and derived from the Pole methods?



I was not taught that, but I do believe the empty hands and WC weapons have a lot in common and mutually benefit the WC practitioner


----------



## Danny T (Dec 14, 2015)

Wasn't there and don't really care.
Good training and development is form (structures, presentation), moving of the body unit while maintaining the structures, experimentation for application development vs as many different situations one may need to use one's skills against. Weapons are a part of that development.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 14, 2015)

You are attempting to claim victory by collecting votes?


----------



## yak sao (Dec 14, 2015)

nah, he's just taking a poll....poll, get it?....(tap, tap, tap)...is this thing on?


----------



## KPM (Dec 14, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You are attempting to claim victory by collecting votes?



Nope.  I said it was an odd idea and you seemed to think it was standard knowledge.  I could very well be wrong, so I'm asking if anyone else learned it that way.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 14, 2015)

That makes literally no sense.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 15, 2015)

If it was, shouldn't the pole form be complete when being a core part of WC? Since it is most definitively not, how could it be our main foundation? Does that mean that a way to fight empty handed was derived from a form that was only partially known/kept?

Rather than the fact that parts of pole form were added because it emphasized core aspects of WC empty handed fighting?

Seems just like raising a statement such as WC was the supreme martial art from which all other arts were derived and western boxing was an evolution made by a westerner that saw Siu Nim Tao and has since evolved to another martial art due to its isolation from other martial arts.

That and I am Bruce Lee spirit resurrected.

Or it is just a statement having no solid ground and of little to no interest due to its impact being none.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 16, 2015)

Weapons came first, though it's harder to believe that as much from the perspective of YM lines. The sword and pole work I've seen there is very simplified. I'm betting that as a reductionist YM only kept what he felt benefitted his empty hand work.


----------



## KPM (Dec 16, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> Weapons came first, though it's harder to believe that as much from the perspective of YM lines. The sword and pole work I've seen there is very simplified. I'm betting that as a reductionist YM only kept what he felt benefitted his empty hand work.


 
For anything "Battlefield" oriented, weapons would definitely be the first priority in training!  But that still wouldn't say that Wing Chun is derived from and based upon the Pole.  It would only suggest that the Pole method may have predated the empty-hand method before they came together in one system.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

Phobius said:


> If it was, shouldn't the pole form be complete when being a core part of WC? Since it is most definitively not, how could it be our main foundation? Does that mean that a way to fight empty handed was derived from a form that was only partially known/kept?



Superfluous parts removed I would guess. Or superfluous parts added elsewhere. 



> Seems just like raising a statement such as WC was the supreme martial art from which all other arts were derived and western boxing was an evolution made by a westerner that saw Siu Nim Tao and has since evolved to another martial art due to its isolation from other martial arts.



I wouldn't say that


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> For anything "Battlefield" oriented, weapons would definitely be the first priority in training!  But that still wouldn't say that Wing Chun is derived from and based upon the Pole.  It would only suggest that the Pole method may have predated the empty-hand method before they came together in one system.



Pole contains the seeds of the system. Since it is older, this is difficult to explain any other way apart from system came from pole


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Pole contains the seeds of the system. Since it is older, this is difficult to explain any other way apart from system came from pole


 
The alternate explanation is that the core of Wing Chun empty hands already existed when the Pole was added.  Then elements of the Pole method were used to refine and develop the empty hand method and likewise the empty hand method probably had influence on changes in the Pole method.  And this explanation matches the historical legends told by many Wing Chun lineages that Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai met on the Red Boats and exchanged information, with Wong contributing empty hand Wing Chun and Leung contributing the Pole methods he had learned from Chi Sim.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> The alternate explanation is that the core of Wing Chun empty hands already existed when the Pole was added.  Then elements of the Pole method were used to refine and develop the empty hand method and likewise the empty hand method probably had influence on changes in the Pole method.  And this explanation matches the historical legends told by many Wing Chun lineages that Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai met on the Red Boats and exchanged information, with Wong contributing empty hand Wing Chun and Leung contributing the Pole methods he had learned from Chi Sim.



This wouldn't make sense unless the pole and empty hands evolved to use the same principles and concepts independently (seems unlikely), or the pole so influenced the empty handed core that it completely transformed it.

I don't believe in legends. I think wing chun was created in current form around mid 19th C. at the earliest. Leung Jan is the first verifiable real person who knew wing chun.


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> This wouldn't make sense unless the pole and empty hands evolved to use the same principles and concepts independently (seems unlikely), or the pole so influenced the empty handed core that it completely transformed it.
> 
> I don't believe in legends. I think wing chun was created in current form around mid 19th C. at the earliest. Leung Jan is the first verifiable real person who knew wing chun.


 
I think it makes good sense.  You seem to be the only one that sees this strong Pole-based "principles and concepts" in the empty hands.  I see no reason at all to think that the empty hands wouldn't have developed the principles and concepts we use independently.  They may have been "fleshed out" a bit from concepts from the Pole, but I see no reason to believe that they are based entirely on the Pole.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> I think it makes good sense.  You seem to be the only one that sees this strong Pole-based "principles and concepts" in the empty hands.



It's a point of logic, again not a popularity contest



> I see no reason at all to think that the empty hands wouldn't have developed the principles and concepts we use independently.  They may have been "fleshed out" a bit from concepts from the Pole, but I see no reason to believe that they are based entirely on the Pole.



See above. The pole contains the system. As it came first it is logical to conclude that all or most of the system was based on the pole.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> I think it makes good sense.  You seem to be the only one that sees this strong Pole-based "principles and concepts" in the empty hands.  I see no reason at all to think that the empty hands wouldn't have developed the principles and concepts we use independently.  They may have been "fleshed out" a bit from concepts from the Pole, but I see no reason to believe that they are based entirely on the Pole.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 22, 2015)

The kwan is an inert object. Many Filipino ma-s begin with weapons then move on to hands. Wc is the opposite- you master empty hands,
then with guidance and appropriate wc principles  go to weapons.
Other southern styles also use the kwan and the do bot how wing chun uses them are different.
Poles and knives were already available in south China by  many styles. Wing chun artists changed  shapes and purposes for their own usage,.


----------



## geezer (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> This wouldn't make sense unless the pole and empty hands evolved to use the same principles and concepts independently (seems unlikely), or the pole so influenced the empty handed core that it completely transformed it.
> 
> I don't believe in legends. I think wing chun was created in current form around mid 19th C. at the earliest. Leung Jan is the first verifiable real person who knew wing chun.



I don't take the legends literally either and agree with what you say about Leung Jan being the first historically verifiable WC master. But WC has roots that go back well before Leung Jan as do the other related systems of Southern Chinese Short-Bridge boxing.

The pole system is not the core of the WC I train. It does share core principles and is useful for training, but it is not the core and like KPM, I believe it was a 19 Century addition to the early empty-handed art. The fact that the two, pole and empty-hands, have been combined for nearly two centuries would explain how they integrate so tightly. I don't believe you have to assert that one produced the other. 

Consider this: I teach Escrima and WC and have been working both arts since the early 1980s, although I started WC a little earlier. To me they are still separate arts, but even so, it's gotten to the point where I can explain almost anything I do in my Escrima in terms of WC principles. That's after just a few decades. As noted above, WC has included the pole for nearly two centuries, perhaps longer. Wouldn't you expect the pole and empty hands to share core principles by now?


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> It's a point of logic, again not a popularity contest
> See above. The pole contains the system. As it came first it is logical to conclude that all or most of the system was based on the pole.



Your logic seems to be that:

1.  The Pole came before the empty hands
2.  The empty hands and Pole share concepts and principles
3.  Therefore the empty hands must be derived from the Pole

But this is not necessarily true, and is based on your view that the Pole contains everything found in the empty hands, which I disagree with.  It is also perfectly logical to say that:

1.  The Pole and the Empty Hands existed independently.
2.  The Pole and the Empty Hands came together at some point.
3.  Each influenced the development of the other and have been taught together long enough that they have naturally come to share concepts and principles.

The idea that one is derived from the other is only one possible logical conclusion.  I see enough difference between the Pole and the Empty Hands to lead me to believe that they were two independent methods that came together.  Much like the Empty Hands and the Knives were two independent methods that came together.  I don't see any closer relationship between the Pole and the Empty Hands than I do between the Knives and the Empty Hands. 

It is possible you are seeing more than is really there and making a "stretch" to connect everything from the Empty Hands to the Pole.  It is also possible that I am missing something or not seeing something that you are seeing.  No.  Its not a popularity vote.  But seeing that my view is in the majority and yours in the minority leads me to believe that I am not the one that is missing something.  But you can go on believing anything you want.  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> I don't take the legends literally either and agree with what you say about Leung Jan being the first historically verifiable WC master. But WC has roots that go back well before Leung Jan as do the other related systems of Southern Chinese Short-Bridge boxing.



How would you know that if Leung Jan is the first real person we have any knowledge of? Who is to say that Leung Jan didn't create it himself? What we can be pretty sure about is that the shaolin stuff, the ng mui legend, is pure BS most likely stolen from a trashy MA novel by YM.



> The pole system is not the core of the WC I train. It does share core principles and is useful for training, but it is not the core and like KPM, I believe it was a 19 Century addition to the early empty-handed art.



Chances are that wng chun was created in the 19th century, had nothing to do with shaolin temples, red boats or opera performers, and was an amalgamation of native village boxing and military pole methods taught to the militias. Knives grafted on later by YM because the knives and methods used are 20th C ones, not militia era. 



> The fact that the two, pole and empty-hands, have been combined for nearly two centuries would explain how they integrate so tightly. I don't believe you have to assert that one produced the other.



Consider that Lam Sai Wing is said to have added 6.5 point pole to hung gar, and that he apparently lived 1860 to 1943. Set is a bit different, but close to exactly the same in usage. Same goes for a multitude of other south chinese MA, e.g. Chow Gar Bai Gua Kwan, Lung Ying heart penetrating pole. None of these other systems have the same idea for idea mapping of pole to hand that is found in wing chun. Wing chun has a unique relationship to the pole compared to all of the other systems that came out of that militia era Southern China. And blatantly the pole isn't anything to do with opera performers or river barges, exposure to it is much too wide. It is a militia weapon from mid 19th C and standard methods were taught to conscripts who already had village boxing experience, which have since been messed with and had legends attached. 



> Wouldn't you expect the pole and empty hands to share core principles by now?



Why don't hung ga, dragon, southern mantis, bak mei, and choy lay fut all share principles with the pole and look like wing chun? Wing chun looks unique among these, it is a reworking from the ground up of those village boxing methods. One thing that wing chun does share with all the others is legends that are a work of total fiction. Fact is that none of these "styles" existed as distinct entities until mid 19th C. Up until then they were just a continuum of southern Chinese village boxing.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2015)

@guy b. 
Guy, just curious...have you already learned the entire WSL lineage curriculum, or are learning pole now?


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

Consider that Lam Sai Wing is said to have added 6.5 point pole to hung gar, and that he apparently lived 1860 to 1943. Set is a bit different, but close to exactly the same in usage. Same goes for a multitude of other south chinese MA, e.g. Chow Gar Bai Gua Kwan, Lung Ying heart penetrating pole. None of these other systems have the same idea for idea mapping of pole to hand that is found in wing chun. Wing chun has a unique relationship to the pole compared to all of the other systems that came out of that militia era Southern China.

---But here is where you let your bias color your conclusions.  You've already decided that Wing Chun empty hands comes from the Pole.  The fact that other systems have such similar poles but dissimilar empty hands does not prove your point.  Because it is not established nor widely accepted that the empty hands come from the pole.  I have seen nothing yet to make me even start to believe that.


----------



## geezer (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---But here is where you let your bias color your conclusions.  You've already decided that Wing Chun empty hands comes from the Pole.  The fact that other systems have such similar poles but dissimilar empty hands does not prove your point...



Keith, I fully agree with your point above. The pole did not precede the hands. Guy himself already stated that WC probably evolved from earlier southern village boxing systems. Something else was at play too, since WC does have a distinct character. Some, such as LT have  pointed to Western Chinese influences, many have suggested a connection with Fukien Yongchun Baihe. A few insist on an early, bare-knuckle Western Boxing connection. Others, perhaps Guy among them, believe that perhaps Leung Jan himself initiated this transformation. 

I don't pretend to know the answer. But as you pointed out, there was more to it than joining the pole set to the empty hands. Otherwise, all the other Southern systems that have similar pole fighting would have developed similar hand techniques.

In short, Guy's argument in the previous post (#22) seems to work against his own thesis. Either way I find his idea interesting. I'm just not sold!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> @guy b.
> Guy, just curious...have you already learned the entire WSL lineage curriculum, or are learning pole now?



I have learned pole but not knives. I am in the process of learning knives.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> But here is where you let your bias color your conclusions.  You've already decided that Wing Chun empty hands comes from the Pole.  The fact that other systems have such similar poles but dissimilar empty hands does not prove your point.  Because it is not established nor widely accepted that the empty hands come from the pole.  I have seen nothing yet to make me even start to believe that.



You have already agreed that pole and empty hand share a large amount of principles and concepts, even though you disagree that there is an exact correspondence. If wing chun has nothing to do with the militia pole method that was being taught mid 19th C., then why does this correspondence between pole and empty hand occur in wing chun but not in all of the other styles which were created around the same time and which contain the same pole method?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

geezer said:


> Keith, I fully agree with your point above. The pole did not precede the hands.



There is no reason to say this. There is good reason not to say it, see response to KPM above.



> Guy himself already stated that WC probably evolved from earlier southern village boxing systems.



Things don't appear in a vacuum. All of the styles discussed above appeared around the same time from Southern Chinese village boxing. I don't think that this was systematised in any way before the mid 19th C. Most current systems probably originated with the first guy we have a picture of, i.e. Leung Bik for wing chun, Lam Sai Wing for Hung Ga, and so on.These guys made up the foundation stories about legendary fighters, often couching it in popular anti qing rhetoric. Later (when the styles went to HK), founder stories were added, like the female monk Ng Mui in WC. 

The fact is that despite very similar conditions around the time of their creation, wing chun ended up looking very distinct from these other styles and with a close correspondence to the pole method that the others share but do not integrate anywhere near as completely. 



> Something else was at play too, since WC does have a distinct character. Some, such as LT have  pointed to Western Chinese influences, many have suggested a connection with Fukien Yongchun Baihe. A few insist on an early, bare-knuckle Western Boxing connection. Others, perhaps Guy among them, believe that perhaps Leung Jan himself initiated this transformation.



I think almost certainly that Leung Jan or someone immediately preceding him created wing chun. Mid 19th C was when all of these styles began. Before that none of them have anything but legends. Wing chun is very different to the others, has a close correspondence to the pole method which was in use by the militias at the time, and I don't see any reason to postulate any influence which lacks similar evidence. 

When was the first historically verifiable person in white crane recorded? I bet it was some time around the mid 19th C. when all of these styles were created as styles. Before that they were just boxing. 

Why postulate western boxing- there are only so many ways to hit someone with hands. Unsystematised western boxing around mid 19th C. probably looked a lot like village boxing in southern China, boxing in Thailand, Burma, or anywhere else. Silly theories, origin legends, and secret methods only get added when things become styles. Wing chun does look quite a bit like old western boxing- but that is probably because hitting looks that way when you don't wear gloves to protect your hands. 



> I don't pretend to know the answer. But as you pointed out, there was more to it than joining the pole set to the empty hands. Otherwise, all the other Southern systems that have similar pole fighting would have developed similar hand techniques.



What happened was that wing chun was thoroughly based on the weapon usage system of pole fighting, whereas other similar systems included but did not systematically base themselves upon pole fighting methods. How does wing chun emerge as a system with such a close correspondence to pole fighting if not based upon it? Mere inclusion of pole into an already existing style is not an option when other systems did the same and end up looking nothing like wing chun.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

Hung ga 6.5 point pole sparring


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You have already agreed that pole and empty hand share a large amount of principles and concepts, even though you disagree that there is an exact correspondence. If wing chun has nothing to do with the militia pole method that was being taught mid 19th C., then why does this correspondence between pole and empty hand occur in wing chun but not in all of the other styles which were created around the same time and which contain the same pole method?


 
I didn't say that Wing Chun has nothing to do with the mid 19th C. pole method.  That might very well be what was combined with the empty hand methods.   Maybe there is a closer correspondence between Wing Chun and Pole than between other systems empty hand and their Pole method simply because the person that initially united the WIng Chun empty hands and Pole methods chose to make the correspondence.   Maybe he was particularly impressed with the Pole and the empty hands were not a fully developed "tradition" yet, so he did some innovating.  We've already said that it is likely that the Pole influenced the empty hands, and probably vice versa as well.  And besides, I'll state again, you seem to be the only one seeing such a CLOSE correspondence between Wing Chun empty hands and Pole.  And Wing Chun is not that unique.  Lots of southern CMAs share some similarities, especially the Hakka arts.  Southern Mantis in particular has some similarities to Wing Chun such as use of the centerline, 4 quadrant defense, simultaneous attack and defense, etc.  Did they learn this from the Pole as well?


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

. Most current systems probably originated with the first guy we have a picture of, i.e. Leung Bik for wing chun,

---You do realize that a good percentage of people think Leung Bik was also a myth?


The fact is that despite very similar conditions around the time of their creation, wing chun ended up looking very distinct from these other styles and with a close correspondence to the pole method that the others share but do not integrate anywhere near as completely.

---Again, you seem to be the only one seeing the "close correspondence to the pole method."   And as I noted before, Wing Chun is not necessarily "very distinct".   Other southern CMAs share similarities.  I've even seen it postulated that Wing Chun and Southern Mantis were connected in some way.   And of course, many people connect Wing Chun and Fujian White Crane because of some strong similarites.  I see nothing to suggest anything other than the developer or developers of Wing Chun simply innovated along their own creativity and inclination to vary from the typical southern village boxing styles.  Some of this innovation may very well have been due to input from studying the Pole methods.  But that still does not prove that Wing Chun is simply the Pole methods adapted to empty hand and that the  empty hands are based entirely on the Pole.  Wing Chun empty hands shares enough similarities to other southern boxing styles to suggest it was from the same root.



  Wing chun is very different to the others, has a close correspondence to the pole method which was in use by the militias at the time, and I don't see any reason to postulate any influence which lacks similar evidence.

---Again.  You conclusions are based on your own bias.   I certainly don't think there is such a "close correspondence to the pole method" nor that "Wing Chun is very different to the others."



Why postulate western boxing- there are only so many ways to hit someone with hands. Unsystematised western boxing around mid 19th C. probably looked a lot like village boxing in southern China, boxing in Thailand, Burma, or anywhere else.

---Ah!  You are wrong there!   Here is a theory that is just as valid as yours.   British Merchant Marines in the 19 Century sailed some of the same waters and put into some of the same ports as the Red Boats carrying the Opera performers.   Amongst those Merchant Marines were men good at western bare knuckle boxing ala John L. Sullivan.  Obviously they would meet and have altercations with the locals and more often than not came out on top.  Some members of the Opera troupe saw this and watched closely.  The picked up things from the westerners and started incorporating it into their own empty hand methods.   This "old school" western pugilism used a relatively upright stance, footwork similar to modern fencing, a 4 quadrant system of defense, centerline punching with a vertical fist, a "straight up the middle" attitude with lots of forward pressure, a forearm parry that looks like Biu Sau, a "rolling elbow" parry that looks like a Bong Sau,  a "cuff" that looks like a Pak Sau, etc.   When the Red Boat members saw these things they copied it and this is what lead to Wing Chun looking relatively distinct from other southern village boxing methods.  I've already pointed out that much of the things you attribute to the Pole are also found in western fencing.  Western sword methods had a big influence on old school western pugilism.  So some these "pole specific" things you are seeing in Wing Chun empty hands might very well have come from western pugilism!   Again, just a theory.  But also just as valid as yours.


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)




----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Maybe there is a closer correspondence between Wing Chun and Pole than between other systems empty hand and their Pole method simply because the person that initially united the WIng Chun empty hands and Pole methods chose to make the correspondence.



Absolutely there is a close correspondence, and it explains why wing chun looks different to all of the other systems which arose at that place and time. Unfortunately there was no wing chun empty hands before mid 19th C. because there was no wing chun. There was just southern Chinese boxing. The other systems that arose from this time and place don't look or work anything like wing chun. Pole explains why wing chun is different.   



> Maybe he was particularly impressed with the Pole and the empty hands were not a fully developed "tradition" yet, so he did some innovating.  We've already said that it is likely that the Pole influenced the empty hands, and probably vice versa as well.  And besides, I'll state again, you seem to be the only one seeing such a CLOSE correspondence between Wing Chun empty hands and Pole.  And Wing Chun is not that unique.  Lots of southern CMAs share some similarities, especially the Hakka arts.  Southern Mantis in particular has some similarities to Wing Chun such as use of the centerline, 4 quadrant defense, simultaneous attack and defense, etc.  Did they learn this from the Pole as well?



Having studied quite a lot of chow gar, I can tell you that it is quite different from wing chun. It is a completely different tradition, and in fact the way it works is almost directly opposed to wing chun. Of course it has long pole because of when and where it appeared, but there is no close mapping of empty hand to pole usage and principle as you find in wing chun. Chow Gar is not based on or influenced much by the long pole.


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

The other systems that arose from this time and place don't look or work anything like wing chun. Pole explains why wing chun is different.  

---Pole may have influenced the further evolution and development of Wing Chun empty hands.  But that doesn't mean that everything in Wing Chun empty hands is based on the Pole.   Southern Mantis and Fujian White Crane don't look or work like each other either, and they are both southern village systems.  I keep showing the logical flaws in your conclusion, but you just keep repeating the same thing.  Restating it over and over doesn't make it true.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> . You do realize that a good percentage of people think Leung Bik was also a myth?



I personally think Leung Bik a myth. I mean Leung Jan


The fact is that despite very similar conditions around the time of their creation, wing chun ended up looking very distinct from these other styles and with a close correspondence to the pole method that the others share but do not integrate anywhere near as completely.



> Again, you seem to be the only one seeing the "close correspondence to the pole method."



You yourself agreed that the hands and pole agree very closely in terms of concepts and related physical shapes. But again what other people think is not relevant in terms of the truth.



> And as I noted before, Wing Chun is not necessarily "very distinct".   Other southern CMAs share similarities.  I've even seen it postulated that Wing Chun and Southern Mantis were connected in some way.



Either you don't know much about SPM, or you don't know much about wing chun, or both. These systems are very distinct, both in terms of the ideas behind them and the physical manifestation of those ideas. The only similarity is that they originated in the South of China around the same time and they are striking systems.



> Of course, many people connect Wing Chun and Fujian White Crane because of some strong similarites.



Again ridiculous based on the main forms and body mechanics of these systems.   



> I see nothing to suggest anything other than the developer or developers of Wing Chun simply innovated along their own creativity and inclination to vary from the typical southern village boxing styles.



The original southern village boxing is represented in SPM, Bak Mei, White Crane, Lung Ying, in a catch all way as Hung Ga, and in many other styles. They all share the same or very similar basic platforms. Wing chun is very different to these. The most simple explanation for this is because WC is based upon pole or spear work, while these others are not. The force generation differences are the most obvious place to look for this pretty glaring difference. See my thread about tension for a hint. 



> Some of this innovation may very well have been due to input from studying the Pole methods.  But that still does not prove that Wing Chun is simply the Pole methods adapted to empty hand and that the  empty hands are based entirely on the Pole



The majority of people believe fairy tales regarding the origins of wing chun and think they received a complete system when probably on average 50% was made up or misunderstood, Modelling the system on pole is the best explanation for the differences we see comparing wing chun and the other systems with the same pole from the same time and place.



> Wing Chun empty hands shares enough similarities to other southern boxing styles to suggest it was from the same root.



It really doesn't.



> Ah!  You are wrong there!   Here is a theory that is just as valid as yours.   British Merchant Marines in the 19 Century sailed some of the same waters and put into some of the same ports as the Red Boats carrying the Opera performers.   Amongst those Merchant Marines were men good at western bare knuckle boxing ala John L. Sullivan.  Obviously they would meet and have altercations with the locals and more often than not came out on top.  Some members of the Opera troupe saw this and watched closely.  The picked up things from the westerners and started incorporating it into their own empty hand methods.   This "old school" western pugilism used a relatively upright stance, footwork similar to modern fencing, a 4 quadrant system of defense, centerline punching with a vertical fist, a "straight up the middle" attitude with lots of forward pressure, a forearm parry that looks like Biu Sau, a "rolling elbow" parry that looks like a Bong Sau,  a "cuff" that looks like a Pak Sau, etc.   When the Red Boat members saw these things they copied it and this is what lead to Wing Chun looking relatively distinct from other southern village boxing methods.  I've already pointed out that much of the things you attribute to the Pole are also found in western fencing.  Western sword methods had a big influence on old school western pugilism.  So some these "pole specific" things you are seeing in Wing Chun empty hands might very well have come from western pugilism!   Again, just a theory.  But also just as valid as yours.



It is certainly a theory, and probably the second best one I have heard after the pole theory. However Occams razor means pole is the better theory for what we see because fewer assumptions are required, until we receive more information.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Pole may have influenced the further evolution and development of Wing Chun empty hands.  But that doesn't mean that everything in Wing Chun empty hands is based on the Pole.   Southern Mantis and Fujian White Crane don't look or work like each other either, and they are both southern village systems.  I keep showing the logical flaws in your conclusion, but you just keep repeating the same thing.  Restating it over and over doesn't make it true.



Your assumptions are wrong and so no logical flaw is pointed out


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Your assumptions are wrong and so no logical flaw is pointed out



Whatever dude.  You are obviously are in your own little world.  You go on thinking whatever you want!  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

Explain to me the similarities between SMP and wing chun


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Explain to me the similarities between SMP and wing chun



I'm not explaining anything to you because you've already proven that your mind is made up and you don't listen.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

I am prepared to listen and very sorry if I have offended you.


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 23, 2015)

IMO, this discussion is a lot more complicated than it needs to be, even if it's not simply a chicken or egg thing. Sure, people have been using long and short poles as weapons _long_ before WC came along. But that doesn't immediately mean WC comes from pole fighting either
I agree, there are clear indications that some strategies of weapons fighting have been integrated into the WC system during it's creation. And it goes beyond just the pole. In HFY WC, some of our Kiu Sau bridging methods see direct ties to spear fighting strategies and tactics. But that then doesn't then mean that all of HFY WC now comes from spear fighting either.

As I see it, WC is simply a hand fighting system that is based on sound principles, concepts, strategies and tactics with a goal of reaching maximum efficiency/effectiveness. And these ideas aren't constrained only to hand fighting. These ideas can be applied to many areas of combat, weapons, etc - as well as aspects of life outside of combat. So, they are also not exclusive only to combat. I see many times where I'm able to apply WC principles to every day life interactions.

Point is, these WC principles can easily be applied to any weapon fighting system to increase efficiency. The WC system stands on it's own and can be applied to all areas of combat and life in general (within reason I guess). So it makes sense that if some WC practitioner applied them to using a pole as a weapon, there would be direct relations to the hand fighting part of the system. Same with the knives. Or anything other weapon.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Point is, these WC principles can easily be applied to any weapon fighting system to increase efficiency. The WC system stands on it's own and can be applied to all areas of combat and life in general (within reason I guess). So it makes sense that if some WC practitioner applied them to using a pole as a weapon, there would be direct relations to the hand fighting part of the system. Same with the knives. Or anything other weapon.



Which wing chun principles?

Do you apply the same principles to hands, knives and pole?


----------



## geezer (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Which wing chun principles? ...Do you apply the same principles to hands, knives and pole?



Don't know about what JP thinks. But I do know that certain common core principles apply to empty hands, to stick, staff, pole and blade in _my_ WC, and also in the _Escrima_ I train. There are also important differences. Some folks focus on the differences, I pay more attention to the commonalities. 

In _Latosa Escrima_ this is referred to as the "concept of transition", that is the ability to make seamless transition from range to range, weapon to weapon, and situation to situation, still applying the core concepts while making the essential adjustments necessary to function effectively regardless of mode.

In Escrima and WC we define our concepts a bit differently. Different lineages of WC define these things differently. Who cares. They are just mental concepts designed to get a physical result, namely effective fighting skills. This outlook works for me. If your outlook works for you, I say great. _That's _what really matters.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

That's fine with me. 



geezer said:


> that is the ability to make seamless transition from range to range, weapon to weapon, and situation to situation, still applying the core concepts while making the essential adjustments necessary



Which core concepts?


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 26, 2015)

Pole is not 100% related to WC while butterfly knife is 
but usually learn during the last stage of WC training


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> Pole is not 100% related to WC while butterfly knife is
> but usually learn during the last stage of WC training



Can you describe how knives are related to wing chun (I assume you mean wing chun hands)?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

Guy, for someone who is short on answers, you sure ask a lot of question!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Guy, for someone who is short on answers, you sure ask a lot of question!



Questions are a necessary part of discussion


----------



## geezer (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> That's fine with me. ...Which core concepts?



"Concepts" is a funny word. People use it to mean different things. But your question is important, so I'll give it a go.

My first Escrima instructor was Rene Latosa. In the 80s and 90s he taught a system called _PMAS Comabat Escrima _which later became reduced to_ Latosa Escrima Concepts. _The five concepts, areas or attributes of combat that he identifies are: Speed (time and distance), Power, Focus (awareness and attitude), Balance, and Transition.

Whether or not these categories equate to the term "concept" as others might use them is irrelevant to their applicability. Competence in each of these areas is necessary to fight effectively. The concept of _transition_, or the ability to seamlessly adjust and adapt to changes in fighting mode was touched on in my post above. In WC terms that could be seen as adapting to different ranges, such as kicking, punching, elbows and clinch, to throws, etc., and even (in my WC) to basic ground work (although that may not be traditional). Being able to transition to weapons such as the long pole or bart cham dao, or whatever else is at hand would also fall into this category. So "transition"  is something that applies to the entire system, empty-hands, pole and knives.



Currently, I'm expanding my training (when time permits) working with a group called DTE /MMA(Direct Torres Escrima). The head of the system, Martin Torres, has a background as a boxer, but also in various other martial arts including judo, kenpo, wing tsun, Latosa escrima, and so on. He trained escrima with some well-known, and some nearly unknown people, and is truly a master at that art. He says that never earned a black belt in anything, but nearly all of his students have previously reached black-belt or its equivalent rank in other arts before coming to him.

If I can be excused for over-simplifying, DTE can really be boiled down to three "concepts": _Angle, Forward Intent and Diamond-point. 

T_he first of these_ "getting an angle"_ is a concept well understood by boxers and many other martial artists, _including WC._ Some may have heard the WC expression "Yau pin, yap ching" or "Come from the side through the center". If you can deflect or side step your opponent's attack so that he is not aligned on your center, while you align and attack his center, you are at an advantage. This concept applies to our empty-hands, the pole, and the knives.

The second core concept of DTE,_  "forward intent" _should already be understood by any WC audience. It is one of our core concepts and applies _both_ to empty-hands and weapons. It is also a core component of many other arts and can be applied to everything from fencing to grappling.

Lastly, _diamond-point _ is the DTE term for instantaneously changing from one movement to the next with absolute efficiency and economy of motion. So when deflecting a frontal thrust with baston or blade, you complete the deflection or evasion with minimal movement then redirect on a "diamondpoint" applying forward intent to attack your opponent, covering the least distance in the shortest time possible. This too applies to WC hands and weapons. We just use terms like "efficiency" and "economy of motion".



Finally, my core art is, of course, WC. Some of our core principles are: _simplicity, efficiency, economy of motion, straight-line/smallest circle (or shortest path), forward intent, borrowing your opponent's force, and using flexible, springy energy_, rather than heavy, overwhelming force. Most of these relate to what was discussed above, and all apply to our empty hands, long pole, and bart cham dao. Or at least. that is my understanding.

_Which_ of these principles or concepts would you _not_ apply to all aspects of WC?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

That's for the run-down Steve.  I'd also like to point out that JKD shares a lot of core concepts and principles and even techniques with Wing Chun.  Yet no one says that  JKD and WCK are "exactly the same" or the same system.


----------



## geezer (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Can you describe how knives are related to wing chun (I assume you mean wing chun hands)?



Well, one thing that comes to mind is this one student I know who is rather sloppy about his hygiene and neglects to trim his fingernails...


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Can you describe how knives are related to wing chun (I assume you mean wing chun hands)?



@guy b, do you practice wing chun, and yes I meant wing chun hand


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> "Concepts" is a funny word. People use it to mean different things.



A concept as I am using it is an idea that does not contain judgement. For example the idea of the centre line. A principle necessarily contains judgement. Lat sau jik chung would be an example. 



> The five concepts, areas or attributes of combat that he identifies are: Speed (time and distance), Power, Focus (awareness and attitude), Balance, and Transition



These are concepts, but I would say very loose ones. Not that useful for combat application?



> If I can be excused for over-simplifying, DTE can really be boiled down to three "concepts": _Angle, Forward Intent and Diamond-point._




Yes I would agree these are concepts



> The first of these_ "getting an angle"_ is a concept well understood by boxers and many other martial artists, _including WC._ Some may have heard the WC expression "Yau pin, yap ching" or "Come from the side through the center". If you can deflect or side step your opponent's attack so that he is not aligned on your center, while you align and attack his center, you are at an advantage. This concept applies to our empty-hands, the pole, and the knives.



I would disagree that hand, pole and knives approach angles in the same way. Hands and pole much more about closing, taking initiative, chasing centre, eating up space and options, hitting immediately and aggressively when opportunity arises. Knives much more about avoiding facing, angling off, safety, taking shortcuts for speed, hitting hands first, being outside. 



> The second core concept of DTE,_  "forward intent" _should already be understood by any WC audience. It is one of our core concepts and applies _both_ to empty-hands and weapons. It is also a core component of many other arts and can be applied to everything from fencing to grappling.



I would say that forward intent has a wing chun specific meaning that doesn't apply to something like grappling in anything like the same way, and that doesn't apply to knives and empty hands in anything like the same way. 



> Lastly, _diamond-point _ is the DTE term for instantaneously changing from one movement to the next with absolute efficiency and economy of motion. So when deflecting a frontal thrust with baston or blade, you complete the deflection or evasion with minimal movement then redirect on a "diamondpoint" applying forward intent to attack your opponent, covering the least distance in the shortest time possible. This too applies to WC hands and weapons. We just use terms like "efficiency" and "economy of motion".



I would say that hands and pole do not function in this way, but that knives sometimes does. Hands and pole is about hitting in a way that covers, it is about initiative, it is about timing, it is not about cover then respond. Knives prioritises covering first and may sometimes do so before responding, although simultaneous cover and respond is preferable. 



> Finally, my core art is, of course, WC. Some of our core principles are: _simplicity, efficiency, economy of motion, straight-line/smallest circle (or shortest path), forward intent, borrowing your opponent's force, and using flexible, springy energy_, rather than heavy, overwhelming force. Most of these relate to what was discussed above, and all apply to our empty hands, long pole, and bart cham dao. Or at least. that is my understanding.



Not sure I would categorise all of those as principles; some are concepts. To take one example, lat sau jik chung is a principle, but "forward intent" is a concept. Continuing with this particular example, LSJC does not apply to knives, but does apply to hands and pole.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> @guy b, do you practice wing chun, and yes I meant wing chun hand



yes


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 26, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> Pole is not 100% related to WC while butterfly knife is
> but usually learn during the last stage of WC training





guy b. said:


> Can you describe how knives are related to wing chun (I assume you mean wing chun hands)?





kakkattekoi said:


> @guy b, do you practice wing chun, and yes I meant wing chun hand





guy b. said:


> yes


the move/form and the foot work of the butterfly knife are all related to wing chun
eventually you will understand it when you are at the stage of practicing the knife


----------



## LFJ (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> I'd also like to point out that JKD shares a lot of core concepts and principles and even techniques with Wing Chun.  Yet no one says that  JKD and WCK are "exactly the same" or the same system.



They also share contradictory ideas in their core strategies meaning they are not complimentary or meant to be trained together. 

VT pole and empty-hand share the same core concepts and strategies and are meant to be trained in unison at an early stage when learning the system's theory and developing the basics. They are clearly the same system.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 26, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> the move/form and the foot work of the butterfly knife are all related to wing chun
> eventually you will understand it when you are at the stage of practicing the knife



In WSLVT, knife work is related to _Biu-ji_ thinking which is in conflict with the core empty-hand strategy, while pole and core empty-hand strategy are the same. So, your "100%" comment is inaccurate from a WSLVT point of view.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 27, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> the move/form and the foot work of the butterfly knife are all related to wing chun
> eventually you will understand it when you are at the stage of practicing the knife



So you aren't going to explain?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 27, 2015)

LFJ said:


> They also share contradictory ideas in their core strategies meaning they are not complimentary or meant to be trained together.
> 
> VT pole and empty-hand share the same core concepts and strategies and are meant to be trained in unison at an early stage when learning the system's theory and developing the basics. They are clearly the same system.



Consistency (i.e. lack of contradictory ideas) is essential in a functional system. Consistency is probably the best reason for choosing WSLVT over other types of wing chun that I have seen.


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 27, 2015)

LFJ said:


> In WSLVT, knife work is related to _Biu-ji_ thinking which is in conflict with the core empty-hand strategy, while pole and core empty-hand strategy are the same. So, your "100%" comment is inaccurate from a WSLVT point of view.



WSLVT stand for wong shun leung wing chun? 
if i understand correctly, you mean in the wong lineage knife is not related to empty hand while pole is ?


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 27, 2015)

guy b. said:


> So you aren't going to explain?



i am not a sifu nor at a sifu level so it would be inappropriate for me to explain, however, in knife form there are moves like tan sau and gang sau which it's concept is taken from the empty hand


----------



## Danny T (Dec 27, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> Pole is not 100% related to WC while butterfly knife is
> but usually learn during the last stage of WC training





kakkattekoi said:


> the move/form and the foot work of the butterfly knife are all related to wing chun eventually you will understand it when you are at the stage of practicing the knife


You state these opinions and when asked to explain you say it is inappropriate to explain because you aren't a sifu.???
If it is inappropriate for one to discuss and explain then would it not also be inappropriate for one to even enter the discussion? This is a discussion forum and when done in an honest respectful manner anyone can discuss and explain their opinions regardless of one's rank, title, length of time training, or whatever. This is not a forum for only high level practitioners, all are welcome. Explain your non sifu opinion as a non sifu.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 27, 2015)

Oh and if something you state is simply what was told to you by your sifu.

Feel free to point out that it is the opinion told to you rather than the opinion you have yourself. Both in my view are valid but should be clarified if possible. And don't take things told to you for granted. WC if any art to me shows that what you learn and how you learn it is different from person to person. If two people study the same art in the same way they both come out completely different in most cases.

We need to learn and act differently or otherwise there would only be one single art in the whole world and all would have mastered it. Imagine the dullness of fights when all behave the same way.


----------



## KPM (Dec 27, 2015)

Not to pile onto kakka, please take this as a general statement that applies to anyone.......be careful when posting something and stating it like it was the gospel truth that applies to all Wing Chun.   Things should be prefaced with..."in my opinion" or "based on my experience", or "from what I have seen", etc.........  When things are stated with such finality and confidence, it just invites people to challenge what you have  said and disagree.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 27, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> WSLVT stand for wong shun leung wing chun?
> if i understand correctly, you mean in the wong lineage knife is not related to empty hand while pole is ?



Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun.

Knife is related to _Biu-ji_ ideas - not core strategy.
Pole is related to _Cham-kiu_ ideas - core strategy.

In some lineages, CK and BJ forms are related and complimentary. In WSLVT, they are entirely different thinking for different circumstances.


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 28, 2015)

Danny T said:


> You state these opinions and when asked to explain you say it is inappropriate to explain because you aren't a sifu.???
> If it is inappropriate for one to discuss and explain then would it not also be inappropriate for one to even enter the discussion? This is a discussion forum and when done in an honest respectful manner anyone can discuss and explain their opinions regardless of one's rank, title, length of time training, or whatever. This is not a forum for only high level practitioners, all are welcome. Explain your non sifu opinion as a non sifu.



Thank you 
and apologize sincerely as Im new to this forum


----------



## kakkattekoi (Dec 28, 2015)

KPM said:


> Not to pile onto kakka, please take this as a general statement that applies to anyone.......be careful when posting something and stating it like it was the gospel truth that applies to all Wing Chun.   Things should be prefaced with..."in my opinion" or "based on my experience", or "from what I have seen", etc.........  When things are stated with such finality and confidence, it just invites people to challenge what you have  said and disagree.



thank you for your sugguestion


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 28, 2015)

KPM said:


> Not to pile onto kakka, please take this as a general statement that applies to anyone.......be careful when posting something and stating it like it was the gospel truth that applies to all Wing Chun.   Things should be prefaced with..."in my opinion" or "based on my experience", or "from what I have seen", etc.........  When things are stated with such finality and confidence, it just invites people to challenge what you have  said and disagree.



While I agree it's nice to preface those things, it would also be a good step if others simply assumed this to be the case without having to say it every single time lol


----------



## Danny T (Dec 28, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> Thank you
> and apologize sincerely as Im new to this forum


No need to apologize. Share your opinions and thoughts, explain them, and be respectful of others ideas & views. You'll do fine.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 28, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------Sheesh. Elementary,Development of the structure,fundamentals of motion came and comes first. Weapons came and comes later to enhance development and power.


------------------------- 



On wing Chun and history. books and you tube

Competent scholarly historians have been under involved in dealing with Chinese martial arts. Specially true for wing chun which is full of self serving lineage stories.

But the search for history is not irrelevant.. One has to have a sense of the subject, of reliable,  translations and watching out for metaphors rather than  one to one dictionary definitions.



There is no question that Ip Man has made the singular and greatest contribution in making the world aware of  wing chun, Yet he did not write a book about wing chun or it’s “history”.. A brief statement on ng mui, yim wing chun  two key  boat people and leing jan, chan wa shun and then the magazine interview where he mentions the role of Leung Bik in his training. There are many reports on his conversations and his encounters



It  was my great good fortune to be living in Tucson. And beginning my wing chun journey with Sifu Augustine Fong, attending Ho Kam Ming seminars in Arizona and taking lessons from him in Canada..



There is no good systematic written history of wing chun. Finding a decent and knowledgeable teacher and learning how to learn is much better than learning from books or the you tube.



A case in point is the relatively recently published book-”The Creation of Wing Chun”by Benjamin Judkins and Jon Nielson.Half the book involves  a Cook’s tour of the Southern Chinese Martial arts-too general to shed muchlight on the depth of wing chun..The second half  deals with “contemporary’ wing chun- no real insight on principles or concepts and is based on a few self serving  interviews with people like Hawkins Cheung. Yet the search for history is not unimportant because it can give chance insights in addition to training and development.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 28, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> While I agree it's nice to preface those things, it would also be a good step if others simply assumed this to be the case without having to say it every single time lol



I would tend to agree


----------



## guy b. (Dec 28, 2015)

kakkattekoi said:


> i am not a sifu nor at a sifu level so it would be inappropriate for me to explain, however, in knife form there are moves like tan sau and gang sau which it's concept is taken from the empty hand



Just explain as you understand it. Obviously it is your opinion, no matter who you are


----------



## guy b. (Dec 28, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you get 10 different wing chun people in a room and all disagree on what the ideas of wing chun mean, reaching back into history merely generates 10 different versions of that history irreversibly tainted with survivor bias and cherrypicking to fit. Given what wing chun is, its history, while interesting to whoever has the real wing chun, is irrelevant in terms of wing chun as a whole. 

The only way we can reliably judge what we have today is to test it. 

It is odd that you bemoan the lack of serious research into wing chun and then denigrate about the only person who is a serious researcher on the subject


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 28, 2015)

guy b. said:


> If you get 10 different wing chun people in a room and all disagree on what the ideas of wing chun mean, reaching back into history merely generates 10 different versions of that history irreversibly tainted with survivor bias and cherrypicking to fit. Given what wing chun is, its history, while interesting to whoever has the real wing chun, is irrelevant in terms of wing chun as a whole.
> 
> The only way we can reliably judge what we have today is to test it.
> 
> It is odd that you bemoan the lack of serious research into wing chun and then denigrate about the only person who is a serious researcher on the subject


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Reading the book and commenting on it is not denigration. I welcome comments from readers


----------



## Danny T (Dec 28, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------
> 
> There is no good systematic written history of wing chun. Finding a decent and knowledgeable teacher and learning how to learn is much better than learning from books or the you tube.





guy b. said:


> The only way we can reliably judge what we have today is to test it.



There is a saying "Wing Chun can not be taught but it can be learned".
We can discuss and argue over every aspect of the system but it means little. Train, practice, & test with a decent and knowledgeable instructor. Ask questions, keep an open mind and test in numerous situations vs numerous persons. Test vs other martial artists, test vs fighters, test vs weapons, test vs whatever. Something doesn't work for you find out for yourself why it doesn't work for you, correct it and test again. It is a constant learning, developing, testing, & refining experience. In reality it doesn't matter who did what, when they did it or why. It is about you understanding for yourself what you are doing, why you are doing it and that you actually do it not just talk about it.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

Danny T said:


> In reality it doesn't matter who did what, when they did it or why. It is about you understanding for yourself what you are doing, why you are doing it and that you actually do it not just talk about it.



People can believe whatever they like- the end point of whatever did happen in history (which none of us can ever know for certain) is what we have ended up with today. And it is that present day wing chun which we should be evaluating. History can often be used as a way to deflect honest examination of reality in the present. 

On the other hand history can give great insight into why certain things are done or the connections between things, but it is pretty unimportant if those talking about it do not have a common agreement of what constitutes the reality of wing chun  in the present day. So I think history is very relevant within groups, but probably irrelevant between them, unless there is a lot of common thinking and common ideas. The temptation within groups to make just-so stories with history can be very high though, and it is important to treat it sceptically.

I don't agree that everything is as valid as everything else, both in terms of historical evidence and (much more importantly) present day effectiveness and coherence. It is meaningless to say that someone else's wing chun reality is just as valid as mine when I think that their wing chun doesn't work very well. But people have different criteria for judging things and at the end of the day it is their business what they believe.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reading the book and commenting on it is not denigration. I welcome comments from readers



The "cooks tour" part of Judkins' blog provides many interesting insights into the likely reality of many wing chun stories if one connects the dots, which he sometimes doesn't do, maybe intentionally, maybe not. Details of knife patters at different times in Chinese history is one such interesting nugget that gives the lie to many tales told today.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> People can believe whatever they like- the end point of whatever did happen in history (which none of us can ever know for certain) is what we have ended up with today. And it is that present day wing chun which we should be evaluating. History can often be used as a way to deflect honest examination of reality in the present.


Yeap



guy b. said:


> On the other hand history can give great insight into why certain things are done or the connections between things, but it is pretty unimportant if those talking about it do not have a common agreement of what constitutes the reality of wing chun  in the present day. So I think history is very relevant within groups, but probably irrelevant between them, unless there is a lot of common thinking and common ideas. The temptation within groups to make just-so stories with history can be very high though, and it is important to treat it sceptically.


Yeap.




guy b. said:


> I don't agree that everything is as valid as everything else, both in terms of historical evidence and (much more importantly) present day effectiveness and coherence. It is meaningless to say that someone else's wing chun reality is just as valid as mine when I think that their wing chun doesn't work very well. But people have different criteria for judging things and at the end of the day it is their business what they believe.


The major problem with wing chun history is most all of it is legend, conjecture, and personal assumptions. Fun to discuss, foolish to argue over and even more foolish to argue over how the arguments are made.LOL
The wing chun training system is excellent. In my opinion if one uses the training for empty hands and then must retrain for weapons then you have wasted a lot of time and energy..., mental & physical. Now this is my conjecture based upon my understanding of other training and that the time it takes to respond in an attack came be the difference in life or death. I simply don't believe those training for defense were not concerned about weapon attacks and that the system takes that in mind with even the foundations. This can be a sticking point for many but does that make my use of wing chun poor/invalid compared to others or theirs to invalid? Especially when they can apply it effectively. Take a look at boxing. How many different styles of boxing are there? Some people are very effective with a particular style and others aren't, does that make the style invalid even when individuals disagree with them?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Take a look at boxing. How many different styles of boxing are there? Some people are very effective with a particular style and others aren't, does that make the style invalid even when individuals disagree with them?



The problem with wing chun is that most people are ineffective with it. The vast majority. 

And it is a concept/principle based system; doing whatever you like with it is not an option if it is to remain wing chun.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> The problem with wing chun is that most people are ineffective with it. The vast majority.
> 
> And it is a concept/principle based system; doing whatever you like with it is not an option if it is to remain wing chun.



Big problem with all arts are that most people are ineffective with them. Only way to increase the ratio of effective practitioners is to sort through the weed and select who to train. Wing chun I believe to be an art where most people start and continue to train, enjoying their time. As such most people tend to believe they should become effective with the art. In truth it requires you to be dedicated to what you train and constantly push your thresholds.

Take boxing, how many ineffective practitioners do you think will continue to train after having being hit in the head one too many times? Many of course may say no to all fighting and just punch a bag and they will never be seen on videos or in forums because they are afraid or non-believer of their own skillset. Same goes for MMA, and in some cases BJJ since they sort out the good from the bad as best as they can. Whether they lose some good people or not in the works is another discussion.

Wing chun you can be ineffective and do your chi sau all relaxed without a doubt in the world, it takes someone to push himself and challenge himself to find flaws and become even better by perfecting them.

Sorry for a long reply to your comment.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Big problem with all arts are that most people are ineffective with them. Only way to increase the ratio of effective practitioners is to sort through the weed and select who to train. Wing chun I believe to be an art where most people start and continue to train, enjoying their time. As such most people tend to believe they should become effective with the art. In truth it requires you to be dedicated to what you train and constantly push your thresholds.
> 
> Take boxing, how many ineffective practitioners do you think will continue to train after having being hit in the head one too many times? Many of course may say no to all fighting and just punch a bag and they will never be seen on videos or in forums because they are afraid or non-believer of their own skillset. Same goes for MMA, and in some cases BJJ since they sort out the good from the bad as best as they can. Whether they lose some good people or not in the works is another discussion.
> 
> ...



Don't be sorry, I think you are generally correct


----------

