# Which came first?



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2015)

Saw some mentioning (on another thread/forum) about WC being either "knife-based" or "hands-based" (with knives being taught last and altogether different usage from hand fighting). Thought this was quite interesting so figured I'd start a thread on it...

Just wondering what y'all think regarding this? Do you think WC is based around the knives or the other way around? Did WC empty-hand evolve from knife-based ideas or was WC already codified as a "system" and then somewhere along its history the knives were added and molded to fit the hands? 

Thanks!


----------



## guy b. (Oct 2, 2015)

I don't know if the knives were added later, but there are some fundamental differences in the use of the knives compred to the use of the hands (and the pole). I don't see the system as being knife based because of these differences. The knives are not fundamental to the functioning of the hands, and the system is functional without them. Hands come first rather than knives first. 

I do think that the knives build upon and integrate fully with the rest of the system (i.e. they are not just bolted on), but they are still different. Both pole and knives feed back into the empty hand parts of the system, i.e. it works both ways. Traditionally knives were only taught to very few people. This is in contrast to blade based systems like escrima or silat where blades are taught early and other skills build upon the blade skills. The analogue in wing chun would be the pole.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 2, 2015)

The 19th Century Hudiedao (Butterfly Sword) on Land and Sea

Through a Lens Darkly (8): Butterfly Swords, Dadaos and the Local Militias of Guangdong, 1840 vs. 1940.

A Social and Visual History of the Hudiedao (Butterfly Sword) in the Southern Chinese Martial Arts.

Butterfly Swords and Long Poles: A Glimpse into Singapore’s 19th Century Martial Landscape


Info here on how these weapons were used at the time wing chun was developing. Both were common


----------



## geezer (Oct 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Do you think WC is based around the knives or the other way around?



I feel certain that WC evolved as an empty-handed system of "Chinese boxing". However, a well informed source shared with me that the _Biu Tze form_ developed later than SNT and CK, and was essentially "reverse engineered for hands from principles used with the Bart Cham Dao. Considering the nature of the movements in the Biu Tze form, I find _this _very likely ...but that is speculation on my part. As for the rest, _the hands came first.
_
With blade rooted systems, such as some escrima, arnis, etc. the empy hands work reflects the blade orientation far more than what you see in WC. One of my DTE coaches spent a lot of time in Pekiti and this blade orientation permeates everything he does. The Latosa Escrima system I have my roots in, has a greater boxing influence --at least at the lower levels with a corresponding emphasis on impact/percussion and that also shows in the general character of the system.

With WC I feel it is the same. The general character of the system (in spite of some principles shared with Western fencing) does not show vestiges of once being primarily a blade art.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I don't know if the knives were added later, but there are some fundamental differences in the use of the knives compred to the use of the hands (and the pole). I don't see the system as being knife based because of these differences. The knives are not fundamental to the functioning of the hands, and the system is functional without them. Hands come first rather than knives first.



Hi Guy. Thx for responding.
To your point: Yes, hands come first, knives last... but do you think the hands are functional 'because' they were designed around the knives?



guy b. said:


> *I do think that the knives build upon and integrate fully with the rest of the system (i.e. they are not just bolted on), but they are still different. Both pole and knives feed back into the empty hand parts of the system, i.e. it works both ways.* Traditionally knives were only taught to very few people. This is in contrast to blade based systems like escrima or silat where blades are taught early and other skills build upon the blade skills. The analogue in wing chun would be the pole.



Agreed


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> I feel certain that WC evolved as an empty-handed system of "Chinese boxing". However, a well informed source shared with me that the _Biu Tze form_ developed later than SNT and CK, and was essentially "reverse engineered for hands from principles used with the Bart Cham Dao. Considering the nature of the movements in the Biu Tze form, I find _this _very likely ...but that is speculation on my part. As for the rest, _the hands came first.
> _
> With blade rooted systems, such as some escrima, arnis, etc. the empy hands work reflects the blade orientation far more than what you see in WC. One of my DTE coaches spent a lot of time in Pekiti and this blade orientation permeates everything he does. The Latosa Escrima system I have my roots in, has a greater boxing influence --at least at the lower levels with a corresponding emphasis on impact/percussion and that also shows in the general character of the system.
> 
> With WC I feel it is the same. The general character of the system (in spite of some principles shared with Western fencing) does not show vestiges of once being primarily a blade art.



Interesting. I also heard a similar story like the one you mention. I've also heard that they (the three forms) were constructed in reverse... and that is why (and how) the first form ended up with 'seeds' to all the rest. Oh well, I suppose we'll never know for sure.

As for FMA hands/weapons...my thinking is that there are too many repetitive moves in their unarmed version. Armed with knives, who knows if that stuff would work... but when I've seen and done FMA unarmed there appears to me at least to be less efficiency than WC. Just my .02


----------



## guy b. (Oct 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Hi Guy. Thx for responding.
> To your point: Yes, hands come first, knives last... but do you think the hands are functional 'because' they were designed around the knives?



We are all speculating but my guess would be no, due to the difference in approach between hands and knives. You need to modify the hand and footwork from hands to knives, and also the principles differ. Ergo knives are not the foundation of the stye in any meaningful way. They are often perceived as the pinnacle of the style, but that is a different thing. 

In reality village boxing styles probably picked up or had weapons training reinforced due to militia service in the 19th C. This may or may not have provoked style re-design around those weapons. In the case of wing chun I think it probably did to some extent, with pole (spear) being the main weapon of the style and very similar to the hands to the point where I would say influence is obvious. Since the same pole moves are not unique to wing chun, I think it looks like pole influenced the style, rather than vice versa.

Where pole was a ubiquitous weapon owned by everyone, double knives were a bit more prestigious and uncommon (although still very popular at the time). This may have lead to knives being the final pinacle of the system for elite students. Who knows?

So while I don't think wing chun is a system fundamentally based on blade combat but this is not to say that the knives don't have large benefits to someone who has reached the appropriate level. Most obviously they offer different footwork, they encourage a do or die attitude to combat, they encourage awareness of danger and also the ability not to hesitate in the face of danger, they provide conditioning benefits, and so on.


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2015)

When Fung Chun was alive he was interviewed and said that Leung Jan did not teach the knives.  Knives were added to Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun later.   There are no knives in Tang Yik Weng Chun and it is said that no one in the prior lineage taught knives...including Chi Sim and Fung Sui Ching.   In Sifu Sergio's new book he posits that Fok Bo Chuen was one person that added the knives and this is how it became part of the Yuen Kay Shan system.  Ip Man created his own knife set...implying he did not learn a formal knife set in his own training.  One way that the knives are now taught in Ku Lo Pin Sun is to simply adapt each of the short sets to an application with the knives in hand.  I definitely think the knives were an "add on" as time passed, and likely a mix of both direct adaptations of empty-hand Wing Chun techniques and dedicated knife techniques incorporated from other systems.   The double knives are pretty common in southern Chinese martial arts.   If you follow the historical evidence that says a lot of the primary Wing Chun players became involved in secret societies of a rebel nature, you'll find that one of the main ones was called the "Small Knife Society."  So lots of opportunities to get exposed to knife techniques and say "hey!  this would work great with Wing Chun!"  ;-) 

I've also been told this....note that when most lineages demonstrate the double knives in application they do so against the long pole, and they typically will show the long pole losing!  I've been told that this was because the knives were the "new" thing and to further their acceptance and show they were worthy of learning they were showed defeating the "old" thing....which for Wing Chun/Weng Chun was the long pole.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 3, 2015)

KPM said:


> When Fung Chun was alive he was interviewed and said that Leung Jan did not teach the knives.  Knives were added to Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun later.   There are no knives in Tang Yik Weng Chun and it is said that no one in the prior lineage taught knives...including Chi Sim and Fung Sui Ching.   In Sifu Sergio's new book he posits that Fok Bo Chuen was one person that added the knives and this is how it became part of the Yuen Kay Shan system.  Ip Man created his own knife set...implying he did not learn a formal knife set in his own training.  One way that the knives are now taught in Ku Lo Pin Sun is to simply adapt each of the short sets to an application with the knives in hand.  I definitely think the knives were an "add on" as time passed, and likely a mix of both direct adaptations of empty-hand Wing Chun techniques and dedicated knife techniques incorporated from other systems.   The double knives are pretty common in southern Chinese martial arts.   If you follow the historical evidence that says a lot of the primary Wing Chun players became involved in secret societies of a rebel nature, you'll find that one of the main ones was called the "Small Knife Society."  So lots of opportunities to get exposed to knife techniques and say "hey!  this would work great with Wing Chun!"  ;-



I'm not a huge believer in all of the secret society stuff. I bet the reality is much more mundane. But there is no doubt that wing chun as it is now called arose during a violent period of history. 

I also think that it is risky to construct events for named indiviuduals. How could Fung Chun (for example) know what Leung Jan did? He might have neen told that Leung Jan did something, but then so have all of us. The first identifiable and real person we have in YM lineage is Leung Jan, but he was dead before the system rose to prominence. Yip Man himself is the first person about whom we have much specific information. It may well be that Yip Man made up everything of the wing chun origin story from scratch (it seems possible that the story of ng mui was lifted from a 1930s martial arts adventure for example). 



> I've also been told this....note that when most lineages demonstrate the double knives in application they do so against the long pole, and they typically will show the long pole losing!  I've been told that this was because the knives were the "new" thing and to further their acceptance and show they were worthy of learning they were showed defeating the "old" thing....which for Wing Chun/Weng Chun was the long pole.



Makes sense


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I also think that it is risky to construct events for named indiviuduals. How could Fung Chun (for example) know what Leung Jan did? He might have neen told that Leung Jan did something, but then so have all of us.


 
Leung Jan was Fung Chun's Si Gung:   Leung Jan -- Wong Wah Sam -- Fung Chun.  So, at the time, he was the one living person with the closest connection to Leung Jan.  So I think his word holds a bit more weight than most, don't you?


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 3, 2015)

KPM said:


> When Fung Chun was alive he was interviewed and said that Leung Jan did not teach the knives.  Knives were added to Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun later.   There are no knives in Tang Yik Weng Chun and it is said that no one in the prior lineage taught knives...including Chi Sim and Fung Sui Ching.   In Sifu Sergio's new book he posits that Fok Bo Chuen was one person that added the knives and this is how it became part of the Yuen Kay Shan system.  Ip Man created his own knife set...implying he did not learn a formal knife set in his own training.  One way that the knives are now taught in Ku Lo Pin Sun is to simply adapt each of the short sets to an application with the knives in hand.  I definitely think the knives were an "add on" as time passed, and likely a mix of both direct adaptations of empty-hand Wing Chun techniques and dedicated knife techniques incorporated from other systems.   The double knives are pretty common in southern Chinese martial arts.   If you follow the historical evidence that says a lot of the primary Wing Chun players became involved in secret societies of a rebel nature, you'll find that one of the main ones was called the "Small Knife Society."  So lots of opportunities to get exposed to knife techniques and say "hey!  this would work great with Wing Chun!"  ;-)
> 
> I've also been told this....note that when most lineages demonstrate the double knives in application they do so against the long pole, and they typically will show the long pole losing!  I've been told that this was because the knives were the "new" thing and to further their acceptance and show they were worthy of learning they were showed defeating the "old" thing....which for Wing Chun/Weng Chun was the long pole.



KPM, do the Ku Lo Pin Sun knives have any specific shape or features to them? (i.e. lineage specific adaptations?)


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> KPM, do the Ku Lo Pin Sun knives have any specific shape or features to them? (i.e. lineage specific adaptations?)



No.  Like I said, they were an add on at least a generation after Fung Chun.  Not everyone in Pin Sun even practices the knives.


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2015)

Thought I would just provide a brief on my view on practicality. 

I don't think the double Wing Chun Knives are very practical.  They certainly aren't practical today, and I doubt they were even very practical a generation or two ago in China.  But back not so long ago in China along coastal and farming areas, poles were everywhere.  It wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect that if you were out and about and the **** was about to hit the fan, that you would be able to search the surrounding area and come up with something to use as a pole.  But people weren't strolling around routinely carrying swords...even relatively short ones like the Wing Chun knives!  Maybe you could find a big knife to substitute for your Wing Chun weapon laying around in the area....but TWO such knives?  Unlikely!  I certainly can't picture Ip Man or Yuen Kay Shan  routinely strolling around in public in Foshan with two big knives/short swords on their person.  Can you?

Now, it may have been practical for those involved in the rebel societies that were training  for battle with imperial forces.  But it is unclear how many Wing Chun people this applied to.  It certainly didn't apply to Leung Jan, Chan Wah Shun, Yuen Kay Shan and most of the more recent Wing Chun ancestors. 

I have trained the knives as part of my Pin Sun sets.  I can wield them fairly well.  But I don't put any emphasis on it at all.  Its just something that is fun to do on occasion.   I am more interested in how Michael Janich's "Martial Blade Concepts" method "cross-references" with my Pin Sun.  And in fact, it "cross-references" very well!    I think Janich's program is one of the very best blade methods out there.  And very practical!


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 3, 2015)

KPM said:


> I have trained the knives as part of my Pin Sun sets.  I can wield them fairly well.  But I don't put any emphasis on it at all.  Its just something that is fun to do on occasion.



Makes one wonder just how long the weapons will survive the passing of years...  Perhaps they are doomed to eventual deletion from WC...?


----------



## geezer (Oct 3, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Makes one wonder just how long the weapons will survive the passing of years...  Perhaps they are doomed to eventual deletion from WC...?


I think they will become irrelevent and die out unless more people are taught. The excessive secrecy about them has made them pretty superfluous. In my lineage only a few of the very top guys learn them, and fewer yet really train them in any meaningful way. If you want to learn to defend yourself practically with weapons forget waiting for decades and then spending a fortune to learn the BCD. Just learn a good system of Escrima/FMA. I did. I also learned about half the BCD. If I ever have to use sticks or blades to defend myself, I'll use the Escrima.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 3, 2015)

geezer said:


> I feel certain that WC evolved as an empty-handed system of "Chinese boxing". However, a well informed source shared with me that the _Biu Tze form_ developed later than SNT and CK, and was essentially "reverse engineered for hands from principles used with the Bart Cham Dao. Considering the nature of the movements in the Biu Tze form, I find _this _very likely ...but that is speculation on my part. As for the rest, _the hands came first.
> _
> With blade rooted systems, such as some escrima, arnis, etc. the empy hands work reflects the blade orientation far more than what you see in WC. One of my DTE coaches spent a lot of time in Pekiti and this blade orientation permeates everything he does. The Latosa Escrima system I have my roots in, has a greater boxing influence --at least at the lower levels with a corresponding emphasis on impact/percussion and that also shows in the general character of the system.
> 
> With WC I feel it is the same. The general character of the system (in spite of some principles shared with Western fencing) does not show vestiges of once being primarily a blade art.


---------------------------------------
The weapons were added later in the red boat period, Similarly now weapons come after empty hand training.


----------



## KPM (Oct 4, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Makes one wonder just how long the weapons will survive the passing of years...  Perhaps they are doomed to eventual deletion from WC...?



Certainly possible!  Especially how, even in the lineages that have the knives they teach them very sparingly.  They aren't really needed.  They aren't very practical.  Nowadays they would be illegal to carry around almost anywhere in the western world at least.   Some will say they will translate over to using a stick.  Ok.  If your end goal is to use a stick, then train with a stick...not the Wing Chun knives!!!   Some will say they add some footwork.  Ok.  Then take that footwork and apply it to your empty-hand drills independent of the knives so that the footwork becomes part of the empty-hand method.  Some will say they add some conditioning aspects.  Maybe so.  But you'll get more bang for your buck from something like kettlebell training.  So, unless the majority of people train Wing Chun as an interesting traditional Chinese past-time with an eye towards preserving a cultural treasure.....rather than training Wing Chun as a modern and practical fighting/self-defense method...then yeah, I think we will see less and less of the traditional Wing Chun knives.


----------



## geezer (Oct 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...So, unless the majority of people train Wing Chun as an interesting traditional Chinese past-time with an eye towards preserving a cultural treasure.....rather than training Wing Chun as a modern and practical fighting/self-defense method...then yeah, I think we will see less and less of the traditional Wing Chun knives.



Good to have another well thought out opinion. Especially ...since I agree completely!  --So where the heck have you been lately, Keith?

BTW the BCD _could_ become more popular if they were taught earlier and more widely, trained widely using the kinds of safely precautions used commonly in HEMA and FMA, and with greater emphasis placed on translating the techniques, including footwork, etc. to smaller blades (such as a Bowie) and empty hand applications. And can you imagine the _fun_ people would have regularly trying to pit their BCD skills against escrima baston or short stick, staff, long pole, and Dao or Chinese Saber, etc?


----------



## geezer (Oct 4, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------
> The weapons were added later in the red boat period, Similarly now weapons come after empty hand training.



Yes, but the question here is when was the Biu Tze form developed? Was it created later, perhaps the late19th Century, inspired by knife movements added in the Red Boat period?


----------



## guy b. (Oct 4, 2015)

Believing the wing chun story about Red Boats, revolutionary action, and especially the shaolin origins is an act of faith. All we really know about wing chun of the YM line is that a guy called Leung Jan existed in 19th C. Foshan who taught some people a method that was (maybe later) called wing chun. We don't know if knives were a part of this system or if they were added/made up later (maybe by YM). We do know that pole methods are older because the same exist in other MA from the region. We don't know how long they have been part of wing chun, or whatever it was called before. 



> Leung Jan was Fung Chun's Si Gung: Leung Jan -- Wong Wah Sam -- Fung Chun. So, at the time, he was the one living person with the closest connection to Leung Jan. So I think his word holds a bit more weight than most, don't you?



They were not contemporaries and so in many ways what Fung Chun said about Leung Jan is similar to what you or I might say. 



> Makes one wonder just how long the weapons will survive the passing of years... Perhaps they are doomed to eventual deletion from WC...?



I think that this is unlikely for the pole given the immediate and obvious benefits it produces and the understanding it confers. I am only beginning the knives and so I cannot tell you if the same applies. Some tell me that the knives do confer large benefits but my feeling is that these will not match the pole. But if they are beneficial then why should they not survive? The only issue mentioned which I agree could be a problem is the very low number taught knives in some lines of WC, and the lack of understanding that obviously abounds.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> It wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect that if you were out and about and the **** was about to hit the fan, that you would be able to search the surrounding area and come up with something to use as a pole.



Absolutely. The pole is the weapon of wing chun.



> But people weren't strolling around routinely carrying swords...even relatively short ones like the Wing Chun knives!  Maybe you could find a big knife to substitute for your Wing Chun weapon laying around in the area....but TWO such knives?  Unlikely!  I certainly can't picture Ip Man or Yuen Kay Shan  routinely strolling around in public in Foshan with two big knives/short swords on their person.  Can you?



Militia members did use double dao in the 19th C. and there are pictures showing these. Sailors also used them. Of course usually it is the leader with the dao and everyone else with spears. And these fighting dao are very different from what we see in WC today. Much longer, point biased.


----------



## KPM (Oct 4, 2015)

guy b. said:


> They were not contemporaries and so in many ways what Fung Chun said about Leung Jan is similar to what you or I might say.
> .



I disagree.  Fung Chun studied with Wong Wah Sam, who studied with Leung Jan.  It could very well be that Fung Chun pointedly asked Wong Wah Sam about why there were no knives in their system and Wong Wah Sam said he was told by Leung Jan that Wing Chun had no knives in his generation.  That would carry a lot more weight than anything you or I could say.  There are a number of written documents left by Leung Jan in the museum in Ku Lo village.  Fung Chun has read them.  I'm guessing they document most of the system and say nothing about knives.  So Fung Chun's word would carry a lot more  weight than anything your or I might say.  Other than have a recording of Leung Jan himself saying "I never learned the knives!!!"...what more could you want?


----------



## KPM (Oct 4, 2015)

geezer said:


> Good to have another well thought out opinion. Especially ...since I agree completely!  --So where the heck have you been lately, Keith?
> 
> BTW the BCD _could_ become more popular if they were taught earlier and more widely, trained widely using the kinds of safely precautions used commonly in HEMA and FMA, and with greater emphasis placed on translating the techniques, including footwork, etc. to smaller blades (such as a Bowie) and empty hand applications. And can you imagine the _fun_ people would have regularly trying to pit their BCD skills against escrima baston or short stick, staff, long pole, and Dao or Chinese Saber, etc?



I've been around Steve!  ;-)   Yeah, it could be fun!  But not likely to happen.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> I disagree.  Fung Chun studied with Wong Wah Sam, who studied with Leung Jan.  It could very well be that Fung Chun pointedly asked Wong Wah Sam about why there were no knives in their system and Wong Wah Sam said he was told by Leung Jan that Wing Chun had no knives in his generation.  That would carry a lot more weight than anything you or I could say.  There are a number of written documents left by Leung Jan in the museum in Ku Lo village.  Fung Chun has read them.  I'm guessing they document most of the system and say nothing about knives.  So Fung Chun's word would carry a lot more  weight than anything your or I might say.  Other than have a recording of Leung Jan himself saying "I never learned the knives!!!"...what more could you want?



Could very well be? Guessing? Not enough info


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 4, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Absolutely. The pole is the weapon of wing chun.



Guy, is the pole form in the WSL lineage a relatively short form vs a long form? I.E. long as in that Tang Yik long form or is it a simplified shorter version that just spells out or emphasizes the "points"? Thx.


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Could very well be? Guessing? Not enough info


 
And so goes most historical research.


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Guy, is the pole form in the WSL lineage a relatively short form vs a long form? I.E. long as in that Tang Yik long form or is it a simplified shorter version that just spells out or emphasizes the "points"? Thx.


 
So one in the Ip Man lineages does any pole that even comes close to the length or comprehensiveness  of the Tang Yik version.  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Oct 5, 2015)

KPM said:


> So one in the Ip Man lineages does any pole that even comes close to the length or comprehensiveness  of the Tang Yik version.  ;-)



Don't think I have seen Tang Yik pole. As I have experienced it there are some introductory exercises, the form (which is concise), the pole drills, and the pole sparring.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 5, 2015)

In HFY, we have knives as well as long & short pole forms. Knives have been in our system since before the 1850's and we do not trace our roots thru Leung Jan - so they were surely a part of some WC lineages at and before his time. And there are other lines that do not trace directly thru LJ that still have the knives, and some that claim to have kinves that _do_ trace thru LJ. So it's not so cut and dry.  LJ, while obviously well known for helping spread the art in Red Boat WC, he was not the only one passing on the art at this time.

There are a few reasons we might see the knives either existing/not existing in certain branches is. Some might simply be a fact of them being taught or not by a Sifu to a given student. Maybe the student didn't stick around long enough to learn, or it just wasn't a focus of the Sifu's at that time. We also know LJ taught 3 distinctly different ways throughout his teaching career, so he clearly didn't always do things the same with every student.

Another factor could be the split we see around the 1850's where WC was being taught in 2 separate paths simultaneously (one being the Red Boats, the other being the Boxer Society). We see the result of this where many things started to change between the various branches - knife and/or weapons training could be one of them. It is even possible some lines simply did not have direct access to knives, so they elected not to teach them (or weren't even able to).


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Don't think I have seen Tang Yik pole. As I have experienced it there are some introductory exercises, the form (which is concise), the pole drills, and the pole sparring.



This is not the entire form, but gives a good idea of it:


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> In HFY, we have knives as well as long & short pole forms. Knives have been in our system since before the 1850's and we do not trace our roots thru Leung Jan - so they were surely a part of some WC lineages at and before his time..



Now, I'm not trying to start a fight here.  And I say this with some reluctance because I can anticipate the response.  But I feel that I have to be honest and say this.....I don't factor HFY into anything historically when it comes to Wing Chun.  Until there is something...anything...that backs up the history according to Garrett Gee, I just don't feel HFY is a viable factor from an historical perspective. 

We have historical mention of the primary people in Leung Jan lineage and other Wing Chun lineages.  We have multiple lines form different teachers in the lineage supporting many of the historical factors. 

We don't have that from HFY.  What seems to be the case is that we have info that someone researched about the secret societies and then overlaid a history for HFY onto this.  But nothing in these histories of the secret societies directly support the existence of HFY.  HFY is not mentioned.  We don't have ANYONE with knowledge of the specifics of HFY other than Garrett Gee and his students.  No parallel lineages, no branches, no Si Hings, nothing.

Now, I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong if new information has come to light that I am unaware of.  But there needs to be something other than "Sifu Garrett Gee said so" to back up the history according to HFY.

Please, JP, don't launch a venomous response.  If you can post historical facts that support the existence of Garrett Gee's HFY back in 1850 I would love to see it!


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 5, 2015)

Really Keith? The reason I post here more is you don't typically see this negative-type nonsense here vs. the 'other forum'. I would hope for a lot better from someone like you than dragging this old dead horse here as well. And, if you're really 'not trying to start a fight' or attacking me, why would you expect me to 'launch a venomous' response?  Just the fact that you even say that is insulting.

I'll only address this once on this forum. You don't have to accept my lineage's historical background or family tree (which we've given). It's your right and makes little difference to me. But I don't have to 'prove' anything to you to when I share my views here either. And, I didn't say 'secret' anything. I think what you are mainly referring to is the VTM's findings. I am not concerned with what they say or do, nor their ever-evolving 'conclusions'. But if you don't want to 'start a fight', then it would be a good first step to stop putting words into my mouth.

To repeat what I _did _say:
- There was an obvious split in WC around the mid 1800's. This is pretty well known/provable if one cares
- We do see many changes in WC after this time (for good or bad - not my call).
- LJ did teach many different methods thru-ought his lifetime.
- Some lines from his teaching claim to have the knives in their system, some don't (and/or claim to have added them later). My theory was that this could be do to differing focuses in his teaching.
- My system, which if you've seen our forms clearly does _not_ come from LJ, also has knives. Unless _you_ can prove otherwise, I'll stick with this 
These are no 'secrets'. And neither was the boxer society & rebellion. My lineage has just been very private about our background until the last 20 years or so. No big deal. And we are not the only lineage that does not trace it's roots thru the Red Boats after the split that has knives in their system. Again, it's really not the big deal you are making it out to be here.


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2015)

I'll only address this once on this forum. You don't have to accept my lineage's historical background.

---I don't.  And I was simply pointing out why I don't.


 But I don't have to 'prove' anything to you to share my views here either.

---You do if you want to put HFY's history out there as a factor supporting a particular historical theory.

 then it would be a good first step to stop putting words into my mouth.

---This is what I was referring to, something which you DID write:   "Knives have been in our system since before 1850."  I was simply pointing that there is little evidence to support the idea that HFY was around in the 1850's to have knives.  So to use HFY as an historical data point to support what you were saying is a little iffy.  That was my point. 

 Again, it's really not the big deal you are making it out to be here.

---I'm not making it out to be a big deal.  I was simply being honest and saying that I can't include HFY's history in the consideration of who had what and when if there is not more to support the actual history of HFY.  Does that makes sense?   I didn't mean to "beat a dead horse."  The "horse" is not yet dead.  This is still a problem for HFY.  And will continue to pop up in discussions.  That's just the way it is.  You can't hold HFY history up as supportive of various things when there is nothing to actually support HFY's version of history.  Its that simple.  Again, I'm not looking for a fight.  I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong if there is good historical evidence that I don't know about.   Has a related lineage been found in China?  Has one of Garrett Gee's Si Hings stepped into the light?  Has mention of HFY's lineage ancestors been found mentioned in other lineages writings?


----------



## geezer (Oct 5, 2015)

KPM said:


> I'll only address this once on this forum.
> 
> I was simply pointing that there is little evidence to support the idea that HFY was around in the 1850's to have knives.  So to use HFY as an historical data point to support what you were saying is a little iffy.  That was my point.



Let it go guys. Keith has a right to that opinion, JP, as you have a right to dismiss it. End of story. I personally think that most if not all of these "histories" we learn are, shall we say, "embellished"? Enough said. That's no reflection on the functionality and value of our branches today. That's all that matters, really.

As far as the knives go, if it is true that Leung Jan's family had a bodyguard/caravan escort business as I've heard told, then it is highly probable that he had experience with well known weapons of the time, such as the BCD, pole spear, etc. Same for other branches, whether their lineages were entirely separate from Leung Jan or not.

This still doesn't address _guy b's_ question about the age of the current BCD form and methods. Still, I think it highly likely that some form of BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th C. or before.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 6, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> In HFY, we have knives as well as long & short pole forms. Knives have been in our system since before the 1850's and we do not trace our roots thru Leung Jan - so they were surely a part of some WC lineages at and before his time. And there are other lines that do not trace directly thru LJ that still have the knives, and some that claim to have kinves that _do_ trace thru LJ. So it's not so cut and dry.



What do the knives of your wing chun look like?


----------



## guy b. (Oct 6, 2015)

geezer said:


> I personally think that most if not all of these "histories" we learn are, shall we say, "embellished"?



Lol, to say the least. And most if not all are probably much more recent in their present forms than anyone likes to admit.



> As far as the knives go, if it is true that Leung Jan's family had a bodyguard/caravan escort business as I've heard told, then it is highly probable that he had experience with well known weapons of the time, such as the BCD, pole spear, etc. Same for other branches, whether their lineages were entirely separate from Leung Jan or not.



The fighting knives of LJ time (long stabbers) were completely different in terms of design and usage than the knives of the 20th C. (short heavy choppers) which to me says a lot about the likelihood of most present knife forms coming from LJ or anyone else of that period.

Taking WSL VT as an example, YM showed WSL a lot of different things, some of which were more coherent than others. WSL then made a knife form based on his own ideas and those of YM. The WSL form is more dynamic and more attacking than the YM form. Of course neither tested their ideas with the knives in real knife fights with death as a possibility. And this is one of the few people that YM showed the knives to in their entirety.

I think that YM probably either made up the knives, or tried to remember a little bit that he had seen a long time ago when it came to making the form. The knives he chose to use were the chopping not stabbing knives around at the time he made it up; i.e. early 20th C. knives, not real mid 19th C. fighting knives. Hence the predominance of chopping over stabbing in the form. 

Simply google some pics of mid 19th C. dao to see that current BJD forms are not designed for these knives.


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2015)

geezer said:


> This still doesn't address _guy b's_ question about the age of the current BCD form and methods. Still, I think it highly likely that some form of BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th C. or before.


 
Exactly. This is a thread on historical connections.  What is likely and what is not.   So, personally, I would not throw in HFY as a data point to support what is "likely" when the entire history of HFY is in question.  That was my point.  I still think it is a valid point and there is nothing to "let go" as you say Steve.  That's simply the way it is.  Would you consider information from "Black Flag Eng Chun" as worthy of historical consideration?   So yeah, I'm going to continue to dismiss HFY (and Black Flag) as contributing to the historical understanding of Wing Chun until some kind of evidence is shown that HFY's history should be taken seriously.  And anyone else that is being an honest researcher should do the same.  Because, again, there is nothing to back up HFY's history other than "sifu sez."  But that's all that needs to be said on the subject.  Let's proceed with some actual discussion.  ;-) 

Most certainly BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th Century.  Again, one of the secret societies was called the "Small Knife Society."   And yes, they were "secret" at the time because they were rebel groups hiding from the Imperial Government officials!!  As we've said, the knives seem to have been fairly common in southern Chinese martial systems.  So it would make sense that some Wing Chun people would pick them up as well.  What is unclear is how common they actual were amongst Wing Chun practitioners. 

I think Guy B. is likely correct here:

_ I think that YM probably either made up the knives, or tried to remember a little bit that he had seen a long time ago when it came to making the form. The knives he chose to use were the chopping not stabbing knives around at the time he made it up; i.e. early 20th C. knives, not real mid 19th C. fighting knives. Hence the predominance of chopping over stabbing in the form._

The much longer style of knives seen in historical pictures from the mid 19th C simply wouldn't work as well when adapted to Wing Chun hand techniques as the much shorter "modern" Wing Chun knives.


----------



## geezer (Oct 6, 2015)

KPM said:


> Most certainly BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th Century.  Again, one of the secret societies was called the "Small Knife Society."   And yes, they were "secret" at the time because they were rebel groups hiding from the Imperial Government officials!!  As we've said, the knives seem to have been fairly common in southern Chinese martial systems.  So it would make sense that some Wing Chun people would pick them up as well.  What is unclear is how common they actual were amongst Wing Chun practitioners.
> 
> I think Guy B. is likely correct here:
> 
> ...



What you say makes sense. Longer knives would have been an appropriate weapon for the period of the uprisings.

Here's a pair of 19th Century Hudiedao:
http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/images/s011b.jpg

Here's a 19th Century British saber for comparison.
http://c0728562.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/MI14204_HR.jpg

A century later when GM Yip began teaching members of the restaurant workers union in hong Kong, learning how to defend yourself with (and from) a "chopper" would have made more sense:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7106/7700223166_b1da350a36.jpg


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 6, 2015)

guy b. said:


> What do the knives of your wing chun look like?



An article about WC butterfly swords per my lineage's history.
Article #6

Article in video form with some accompanying pics of what the article is referring to:


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 6, 2015)

Keith, your continued attachment to my lineage is boring now. If you aren't trying to start a fight, you surely aren't doing a good job by repeating the same thing post after post (3 in a row now). Now you're tolling
Drop it and stick to the topic.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 6, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> An article about WC butterfly swords per my lineage's history.
> Article #6
> 
> Article in video form with some accompanying pics of what the article is referring to:



I've read some of that somewhere before. 

I think the main problem with it is that the 4 types of blades mentioned do not tally with photos of actual dao available. What then is it talking about?

It also makes the shaolin connection which to me is always a bit of a red flag, given that most of these stories were made uip in HK in the 20th C. because that is what the punters wanted to hear.


----------



## geezer (Oct 6, 2015)

guy b. said:


> IIt also makes the shaolin connection which to me is always a bit of a red flag, given that most of these stories were made uip in HK in the 20th C. because that is what the_ punters_ wanted to hear.



Gawl Dang I sure learn a lot here!  "Punter" ...just found out that's like a customer. And I thought it was a way to send the pigskin down field.
BTW I heard that the "shaolin" story went back a bit further as a recruitment tool during the period of the uprisings. But that too could be a fabrication.


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Keith, your continued attachment to my lineage is boring now. If you aren't trying to start a fight, you surely aren't doing a good job by repeating the same thing post after post (3 in a row now). Now you're tolling
> Drop it and stick to the topic.



Uh, excuse me JP.  But if you were paying attention I already dropped it and moved on to the topic.  ;-)   In post #37...in case you missed it.


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I've read some of that somewhere before.
> 
> I think the main problem with it is that the 4 types of blades mentioned do not tally with photos of actual dao available. What then is it talking about?
> 
> It also makes the shaolin connection which to me is always a bit of a red flag, given that most of these stories were made uip in HK in the 20th C. because that is what the punters wanted to hear.



So as not to repeat myself again....guy, refer to my prior posts in this thread.  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Oct 7, 2015)

KPM said:


> So as not to repeat myself again....guy, refer to my prior posts in this thread.  ;-)



I did read your posts but I have never heard of Garrett Gee or HFY wing chun. Would prefer to give JP the chance to explain rather than assume.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 7, 2015)

Guy, I'm not 100% sure what you are asking. 
But, not having written the article, I don't have all of the research data it was based on, nor do I fully know the sources. I will ask my first Sifu who wrote the article next time I see him.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 14, 2015)

1.
Sifu  Dan Knight says...
Ip man only taught this form to seven disciples.
It was the final form.
Tradition says he got from Leung Bik. Leung Jan's son.
We know double swords existed in 1820s.

But the type of double sword used in the WC form was a later design. Stabing isnt done until the second section of the form...

So unless the sword form were overhauled and reshuffled after the 1910 syle wc blade shows up... then the case solidly is against the wc swords preceding the Little Idea, seeking/sinking bridges, and Biu Jee forms.







Axes/hatches will sub just fine in the form.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 15, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> 1.
> Sifu  Dan Knight says...
> Ip man only taught this form to seven disciples.
> It was the final form.
> ...



Very interesting! Thanks TSDTexan!
I do not know who Sifu Dan Knight is? Is he your Sifu? Do you know who taught him?
I've only heard Yip Man taught five disciples, not seven. Wonder who they are?
Thanks.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 15, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Very interesting! Thanks TSDTexan!
> I do not know who Sifu Dan Knight is? Is he your Sifu? Do you know who taught him?
> I've only heard Yip Man taught five disciples, not seven. Wonder who they are?
> Thanks.


No he is not my sifu.
I could be wrong but I think he is under Samuel Kwok.
Update:
Some phone calls got me the following.
Sifu Dan has no wing chun training outside of being a disciple of Sifu Samuel.
In June 2007, Dan achieved his full instructors' certificate from Samuel Kwok and was given the Chinese name Kwok Chung Yuang 郭忠勇.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 15, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Very interesting! Thanks TSDTexan!
> I do not know who Sifu Dan Knight is? Is he your Sifu? Do you know who taught him?
> I've only heard Yip Man taught five disciples, not seven. Wonder who they are?
> Thanks.


well some more digging got his email address, from his website:
info@putneymartialarts.co.uk 
I suppose you could ask him who the 7 disciples were.


----------



## geezer (Oct 16, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> I suppose you could ask him who the 7 disciples were.



That wouldn't answer anything. Since GM Yip Man passed on without publicly recording any such information regarding successors or who he considered the inheritors of his system, there will continue to be disputes among the many branches descending from his students. What really matters is quality, not certificates. Although...certificates are nice too.

I have some nice certificates. I feel about them the same way I feel about the twenty dollar bill on my desk ...the _counterfeit_ twenty someone stuck me with last week. I can't use it for anything, but it _cost_ me ...and it looks too much like money to throw away!


----------

