# Pole both sides?



## guy b. (Dec 9, 2015)

Do you pole form both sides or only one? Explain your choice.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 9, 2015)

I do the strengthening exercises and some of the drills for pole work on both sides but the form only on one side.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 9, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I do the strengthening exercises and some of the drills for pole work on both sides but the form only on one side.



Same here


----------



## guy b. (Dec 9, 2015)

Why one side?


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 9, 2015)

Never thought about that before until you brought it up, but I'm not at pole level either. Pretty good question to ask, IMO.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 9, 2015)

Form is for knowing the moves and positions. 
The exercises and drills are for developing how to control and use the pole. I don't use the form for drilling or for training against another pole or swords. I don't fight with the form.


----------



## KPM (Dec 9, 2015)

One side only.  Back in the day you wouldn't switch to the other side during a real exchange.  Why waste training time working on both sides when you are only planning to use one side in application?  Now, most Ip Man forms are very short.  So not much training time is actually required to train both sides.  But the Tang Yik Pole form is quite long.  It doesn't make sense to spend all the time it would take to get good at it on both sides.


----------



## logjthanhlong (Dec 9, 2015)

Getting Started with Wing Chun Training, watch here: Wingchun


----------



## Danny T (Dec 9, 2015)

Why train both sides?
Because what one gains from training the pole has more to do with understanding the body, weight distribution and usage, and using body unity and structure than using the pole for fighing.


----------



## KPM (Dec 10, 2015)

I've heard that from multiple people many times.  That's the pretty much the "party line."  But I've always thought it was a bit off.  The mechanics of the pole are not the same as the mechanics empty-hand.  If you look at something like Leung Ting's Wing Tsun, they are weighted nearly 0/100 empty hand but nearly 50/50 with the pole.  Others not so much difference, but who uses a old fashioned "horse stance" in their empty-hand?  The pole has you standing completely "sideways" to the opponent, something you are taught to avoid doing whenever possible empty-hand.  As far as conditioning, in the modern world there are far more efficient ways to work on conditioning than training the pole!  We know from modern sports science that if you want to get good at a specific activity, train that activity a lot and do conditioning drills that mimic that activity as much as possible.  The pole does not mimic the empty-hands very well.   If you wanted to work something "traditional" for conditioning, you'd be better off getting  some really heavy Bart Jam Dao and training with those.   At least they mimic the empty-hand motions better. Other than using many of the same tactical concepts, I see the pole as almost a completely separate system from the empty-hands.  This is why Ip Man put it at the end of the curriculum and few people actually even learned it.  It wasn't considered all that necessary if all you wanted to do was fight with empty-hands.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 10, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Why train both sides?
> Because what one gains from training the pole has more to do with understanding the body, weight distribution and usage, and using body unity and structure than using the pole for fighing.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup and more.
One needs good instruction to understand much of wing chun. Same with the kwan.Most kwan drills have the narrow point to aim at the target but one drill ensures that the butt end can be used at close quarters in a crowded scenario. Besides, some wing chun functions are enhanced. Most of Ip Man;s students
were not taught the pole by him.Other than Ip man's kwan work-
there are some flowery pole work that looks impressive but are not functional imo.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 10, 2015)

I am of the opinion that the weapons are not just something different or added in.
Yes they were added to the system but not because they were simply something else but for what they provide in terms of greater growth and understanding of what one learns in the other portions of wc. They enhance the practitioner’s dynamic stances and positioning, control of their center of gravity, use of body displacement and body unity in different positions and structures. The completed wing chun person’s skills sets become greater than the sum of the individual parts when instructed properly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 10, 2015)

Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 10, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.


When in the military I was trained to shoot both sides. In basic no, but in more advance combat training we shot from both sides.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 10, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.


--------------------------------------------------------------
One can use the butt of a rifle when needed


----------



## KPM (Dec 10, 2015)

Using the butt of the pole is not what the OP was asking about as far as I can tell.  I think he was asking about switching which side the pole is aimed towards....forward with the left hand vs. forward with the right hand.  Turning to use the butt is different.  It doesn't require switching sides.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 10, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't shoot rifle on both sides.



You don't???
I routinely shoot right hand, left hand, both hands, prone, standing, from cover, while moving, etc etc etc.
I suspect you will find that most people who treat guns as defensive tools (as opposed to those who are purely hunters) do something similar.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 10, 2015)

KPM said:


> Using the butt of the pole is not what the OP was asking about as far as I can tell.  I think he was asking about switching which side the pole is aimed towards....forward with the left hand vs. forward with the right hand.  Turning to use the butt is different.  It doesn't require switching sides.


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

OP can clarify his question.Ofcourse wing chun training principle involves both training with right hand forward  and left hand forward,


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Form is for knowing the moves and positions.
> The exercises and drills are for developing how to control and use the pole. I don't use the form for drilling or for training against another pole or swords. I don't fight with the form.



Running through the moves and positions both sides is beneficial in terms of what the pole develops


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

KPM said:


> One side only.  Back in the day you wouldn't switch to the other side during a real exchange.  Why waste training time working on both sides when you are only planning to use one side in application?



You fight with both hands in wing chun, the aim is to develop ambidextrous force and control


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

By changing sides I mean changing lead hand and leg.



KPM said:


> I've heard that from multiple people many times. That's the pretty much the "party line." But I've always thought it was a bit off.



Why then would you stand in a training stance doing SNT when you don't stand like that when you are fighting? Why would you perform fook and tan as you do in the forms and chi sau when you wouldn't use them that way in reality? Why any of the drills? Why chi sau at all when you don't do that in fighting?

Wing chun is a martial art with specific training methodologies for particular purposes. Often these drills and training methodologies are somewhat removed from what they are supposed to train. This is because wing chun is a ground up approach which adheres to a predetermined set of ideas which need to build upon each other if they are to work.

In wing chun the pole is there in order to develop powerful force generation, focus, synchronicity and body unity during action, tendon strength, starting speed and leg strength. A heavy pole enforces good spinal and elbow structure. The pole develops sided force production by "splitting" mechanics (like hsing yi, another pole derived MA). Since pole is sided (and wing chun is not) it makes sense to do everything with the pole on both sides when used as an empty hand training methodology rather than as a method of pole fighting.

If you are interested in fighting duels with poles then I guess training one side is the way forward.



> If you look at something like Leung Ting's Wing Tsun, they are weighted nearly 0/100 empty hand but nearly 50/50 with the pole



Is Leung Ting's wing chun the standard to which you would hold all other wing chun?



> who uses a old fashioned "horse stance" in their empty-hand? The pole has you standing completely "sideways" to the opponent, something you are taught to avoid doing whenever possible empty-hand.



Pole is a training methodology used in order to develop certain qualities, like chi sau. It is not the final destination.



> Other than using many of the same tactical concepts, I see the pole as almost a completely separate system from the empty-hands. This is why Ip Man put it at the end of the curriculum and few people actually even learned it. It wasn't considered all that necessary if all you wanted to do was fight with empty-hands.



The pole conceptually identical to the empty hand, only it uses a single pole rather than 2 hands. It is the same system. It is possible that the empty hand is derived from the pole idea, which is not unique to wing chun. The knives are quite different and look to have been added much later. Using unmodified wing chun principles with the knives will lead to death.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.



In wing chun both sides are equal


----------



## KPM (Dec 11, 2015)

Why then would you stand in a training stance doing SNT when you don't stand like that when you are fighting?

---I've always thought that "conventional wisdom" was a bit off as well.  Because I do see YGKYM as a fighting stance as well as a training stance.  When you get into "Chi Sau" range, the YGKYM is the base for what you are doing. 

Why would you perform fook and tan as you do in the forms and chi sau when you wouldn't use them that way in reality? Why any of the drills? Why chi sau at all when you don't do that in fighting?

---You don't?  I practice everything the way I intend for it to work in reality.  What Tan Sau do you do that you think doesn't work in reality?  I don't do Fook Sau with a "Mantis hand" like a like of people do.


In wing chun the pole is there in order to develop powerful force generation, focus, synchronicity and body unity during action, tendon strength, starting speed and leg strength.

---Again, that's the "party line", but I think if you actually examine what it says....it is a bit off!   You do not generate force or focus the same way  with the pole  as you do empty-hand.  If you want to practice synchronicity and body unity during action, train your empty-hand forms more.  That will give you a bigger return!  If you want to build strength and speed, then do some modern conditioning methods that are going to be more specific to your empty-hand methods.  Essentially everything you listed could be trained just as well by learning the Japanese Katana, or the Chinese Spear, or the German Longsword, etc. 


Since pole is sided (and wing chun is not) it makes sense to do everything with the pole on both sides when used as an empty hand training methodology rather than as a method of pole fighting.

---Sure.  If you have plenty of training time and you view the pole simply as a big weight and not a weapon, that's fine. 



If you are interested in fighting duels with poles then I guess training one side is the way forward.

---Are you planning on fighting off attackers a lot with your empty-hand Wing Chun?   I like training to use something the way it was intended.  That's part of the fun of martial arts training.  In Tang Yik Weng Chun the pole is taken seriously and there are two-man training drills.  The pole form is quite long, so it doesn't make sense to try and learn it on both sides. 



Is Leung Ting's wing chun the standard to which you would hold all other wing chun?

---Are you putting words in my mouth now?  I only pointed out LTWT as an example of one version of Wing Chun whose empty-hand mechanics are quite different from its pole mechanics.  You didn't catch that?



Pole is a training methodology used in order to develop certain qualities, like chi sau. It is not the final destination.

---And I have only pointed out that if you aren't interested in the pole as a weapon, there are more efficient ways to develop those qualities.


The pole conceptually identical to the empty hand, only it uses a single pole rather than 2 hands. It is the same system. It is possible that the empty hand is derived from the pole idea, which is not unique to wing chun. The knives are quite different and look to have been added much later. Using unmodified wing chun principles with the knives will lead to death.

---If you think that the pole is the "same system" yet the knives are "quite different", well....not sure how to take the conversation from there.  Because you and I are on two very different pages here!  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

KPM said:


> I've always thought that "conventional wisdom" was a bit off as well. Because I do see YGKYM as a fighting stance as well as a training stance. When you get into "Chi Sau" range, the YGKYM is the base for what you are doing.



You stand and punch with square feet? I usually stand with feet staggered.



KPM said:


> You don't? I practice everything the way I intend for it to work in reality. What Tan Sau do you do that you think doesn't work in reality? I don't do Fook Sau with a "Mantis hand" like a like of people do.



Tan is training the elbow. I would use the elbow but not the hand shape. How do you use tan and fook?



KPM said:


> Again, that's the "party line", but I think if you actually examine what it says....it is a bit off! You do not generate force or focus the same way with the pole as you do empty-hand. If you want to practice synchronicity and body unity during action, train your empty-hand forms more. That will give you a bigger return! If you want to build strength and speed, then do some modern conditioning methods that are going to be more specific to your empty-hand methods. Essentially everything you listed could be trained just as well by learning the Japanese Katana, or the Chinese Spear, or the German Longsword, etc.



Swords are not used as spears and use a different body method. Chinese spear would work fine but probably not heavy enough. Hsing Yi uses spear.

I do generate force with the pole the same way I do empty handed for a particular one sided power chain, which is why I do it both sides. Controlling a large heavy object and projecting force into the striking part is an excellent method of power training which is specific to wing chun and I can't think of a better way using modern methods beyond ways that are already in wing chun (e.g. hitting bags). It is similar to medicine ball traing, but for wing chun it is better because of the structural aspect it enforces on the trainee.

Poon sau and pole develop the same thing in different ways and are complimentary training methods. I don't agree that pole should be left until a late stage of training- it should be one of the earliest trainings introduced.



> Are you planning on fighting off attackers a lot with your empty-hand Wing Chun? I like training to use something the way it was intended. That's part of the fun of martial arts training. In Tang Yik Weng Chun the pole is taken seriously and there are two-man training drills. The pole form is quite long, so it doesn't make sense to try and learn it on both sides.



Yes I intend my wing chun to be functional. With pole we do solo drills, form, two man drills, targets/dummy, and sparring. But the ability to fight with a pole is secondary.



> Are you putting words in my mouth now? I only pointed out LTWT as an example of one version of Wing Chun whose empty-hand mechanics are quite different from its pole mechanics. You didn't catch that?



I haven't trained LT wing chun so didn't see how it was relevant. I don't know anything about LT wing chun and it doesn't sound anything like any wing chun I have experienced. If LT wing chun has problems with their pole translating into empty hand then that is not my problem.



> And I have only pointed out that if you aren't interested in the pole as a weapon, there are more efficient ways to develop those qualities.



There are complimentary ways but I have not encountered something that can replace the pole in the training methodology of wing chun.



KPM said:


> --If you think that the pole is the "same system" yet the knives are "quite different", well....not sure how to take the conversation from there. Because you and I are on two very different pages here! ;-)



Absolutely, wing chun is a pole based MA


----------



## Danny T (Dec 11, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Running through the moves and positions both sides is beneficial in terms of what the pole develops


It is beneficial in terms of what the form helps develop.
There is more to be developed through the use of the pole than just doing the form.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

Danny T said:


> It is beneficial in terms of what the form helps develop.
> There is more to be developed through the use of the pole than just doing the form.



I agree


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 11, 2015)

I always try training on both sides with all weapons (staff, spear, chained, projectile).  The only exception is archery, where I just don't have the combination of strength and stability to safely handle it weak side.

In a real fight, I would obviously tend to favor my dominant side to be most effective.  But for training, I'm more focused on increasing the control I have over my body.  Training with non-dominant side feels strange, but helps me feel more balanced.  I have to think about what I'm doing more, which makes me learn more thoroughly the way the mechanics of the movement are supposed to be.


----------



## yak sao (Dec 16, 2015)

KPM said:


> One side only.  Back in the day you wouldn't switch to the other side during a real exchange.  Why waste training time working on both sides when you are only planning to use one side in application?  Now, most Ip Man forms are very short.  So not much training time is actually required to train both sides.  But the Tang Yik Pole form is quite long.  It doesn't make sense to spend all the time it would take to get good at it on both sides.



Hey KPM, how is the training going on that long pole form? You had stated some time ago that you were learning that, have you given any more thought to the idea of doing a seminar on the pole?


----------



## KPM (Dec 16, 2015)

Training is going well.  I'm planning a trip to Hong Kong in March to learn directly with Sifu Tang.  If he gives me permission, I will do some seminars on the pole fundamentals.  The form itself is much to long to learn in one sitting at a seminar.  But there are sequences that are repeated multiple times that can be trained as fundamental drills.  Just getting the body dynamics down is key, because they are a bit different than in the Ip Man pole techniques.


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 16, 2015)

KPM said:


> Training is going well.  I'm planning a trip to Hong Kong in March to learn directly with Sifu Tang.  If he gives me permission, I will do some seminars on the pole fundamentals.  The form itself is much to long to learn in one sitting at a seminar.  But there are sequences that are repeated multiple times that can be trained as fundamental drills.  Just getting the body dynamics down is key, because they are a bit different than in the Ip Man pole techniques.



Theres free accomodation here for you in Auckland, New Zealand if you ever decide to do a seminar


----------



## guy b. (Dec 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> Training is going well.  I'm planning a trip to Hong Kong in March to learn directly with Sifu Tang.  If he gives me permission, I will do some seminars on the pole fundamentals.  The form itself is much to long to learn in one sitting at a seminar.  But there are sequences that are repeated multiple times that can be trained as fundamental drills.  Just getting the body dynamics down is key, because they are a bit different than in the Ip Man pole techniques.



What are the main differences?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

What does Tang Yik pole do differently and why do you think these differences exist? I am genuinely keen to know what you think because long pole interests me greatly.


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> What does Tang Yik pole do differently and why do you think these differences exist? I am genuinely keen to know what you think because long pole interests me greatly.


 
I think one of the main differences is that in Tang Yik Weng Chun the Pole rests on the lead thigh with the arms fully extended and the lead leg is used a lot to guide and power the Pole.  In most Ip Man Wing Chun Pole, the Pole is held up a little higher so it doesn't harness the body motion as well.  Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole also has lighter and quicker footwork.  This is something that Tang Yik was known for.  The weight is never back on the heels, but is kept closer to the front of the foot, even when doing the See Ping Ma or "horse stance."   Sifu Tang explains the differences by saying that the Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole was "land-based" while the Wing Chun Pole was more "boat-based."  Part of the legendary history behind Tang Yik Weng Chun says that Chi Sim didn't just hide out on the Red Boats.  He spent a considerable amount of time at the Fei Lo temple on the Pearl River.  Various people from the Tang village had the opportunity to study with him then.  Since this was all "land-based" what they learned was much more mobile and essentially more "spear-like."  When people on the Red Boats learned the Chi Sim Pole, they were more constrained in their training area and so couldn't move around much.  They also tended to be the bigger and stronger guys that were responsible for poling the boats along the banks of the rivers.  So they would naturally have a tendency to "muscle" the Pole more.  So, it really comes down to....more footwork and more use of the body through the lead leg to power the Pole vs. less footwork and the Pole held higher without using the lead leg to power the pole. 

Of course, the Tang Yik Pole form is much longer than most Wing Chun versions and has more techniques.  There is also a dummy for training the Pole. 

One story says that Ip Man visited the Dai Duk Lan on occasion and knew Tang Yik, Chu Chong Man, and the others.  He knew Tang Yik's reputation as "King of the Long Pole" and likely saw him demonstrate on more than one occasion.  But he was not Tang Yik's student and didn't learn his method.  But that doesn't mean he didn't pick up on parts of the form from watching!  This might explain why different Ip Man students seemed to get different Pole forms, and why they were so short.  It is also noted that Tang Yik's Pole dummy was located on the roof of a nearby apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan warehouse.  So Ip Man never saw it.  Otherwise, the Pole dummy might be a regular feature of Ip Man WCK just like the wooden dummy!

Of course, all of that is more conjecture than fact!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> I think one of the main differences is that in Tang Yik Weng Chun the Pole rests on the lead thigh with the arms fully extended and the lead leg is used a lot to guide and power the Pole.  In most Ip Man Wing Chun Pole, the Pole is held up a little higher so it doesn't harness the body motion as well.



I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?



> Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole also has lighter and quicker footwork.  This is something that Tang Yik was known for.  The weight is never back on the heels, but is kept closer to the front of the foot, even when doing the See Ping Ma or "horse stance."   Sifu Tang explains the differences by saying that the Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole was "land-based" while the Wing Chun Pole was more "boat-based.". Part of the legendary history behind Tang Yik Weng Chun says that Chi Sim didn't just hide out on the Red Boats.  He spent a considerable amount of time at the Fei Lo temple on the Pearl River.  Various people from the Tang village had the opportunity to study with him then.  Since this was all "land-based" what they learned was much more mobile and essentially more "spear-like."  When people on the Red Boats learned the Chi Sim Pole, they were more constrained in their training area and so couldn't move around much.  They also tended to be the bigger and stronger guys that were responsible for poling the boats along the banks of the rivers.  So they would naturally have a tendency to "muscle" the Pole more.  So, it really comes down to....more footwork and more use of the body through the lead leg to power the Pole vs. less footwork and the Pole held higher without using the lead leg to power the pole.



I can't say that I give any credence at all to these legends, but interesting how you perceive the difference. Again makes me wonder which wing chun you learned pole in initially. 



> Of course, the Tang Yik Pole form is much longer than most Wing Chun versions and has more techniques.  There is also a dummy for training the Pole.



What are the extra sequences in Tang Yik pole and what do you feel that they are teaching? Do you think YM wing chun would benefit from having these parts? Do they benefit the empty hand part of wing chun at all? 



> One story says that Ip Man visited the Dai Duk Lan on occasion and knew Tang Yik, Chu Chong Man, and the others.  He knew Tang Yik's reputation as "King of the Long Pole" and likely saw him demonstrate on more than one occasion.  But he was not Tang Yik's student and didn't learn his method.  But that doesn't mean he didn't pick up on parts of the form from watching!  This might explain why different Ip Man students seemed to get different Pole forms, and why they were so short.  It is also noted that Tang Yik's Pole dummy was located on the roof of a nearby apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan warehouse.  So Ip Man never saw it.  Otherwise, the Pole dummy might be a regular feature of Ip Man WCK just like the wooden dummy!



There is a pole dummy in WSL VT. You think that YM made up his pole form by watching Tang Yik?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> I think one of the main differences is that in Tang Yik Weng Chun the Pole rests on the lead thigh with the arms fully extended and the lead leg is used a lot to guide and power the Pole.  In most Ip Man Wing Chun Pole, the Pole is held up a little higher so it doesn't harness the body motion as well.  Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole also has lighter and quicker footwork.  This is something that Tang Yik was known for.  The weight is never back on the heels, but is kept closer to the front of the foot, even when doing the See Ping Ma or "horse stance."   Sifu Tang explains the differences by saying that the Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole was "land-based" while the Wing Chun Pole was more "boat-based."  Part of the legendary history behind Tang Yik Weng Chun says that Chi Sim didn't just hide out on the Red Boats.  He spent a considerable amount of time at the Fei Lo temple on the Pearl River.  Various people from the Tang village had the opportunity to study with him then.  Since this was all "land-based" what they learned was much more mobile and essentially more "spear-like."  When people on the Red Boats learned the Chi Sim Pole, they were more constrained in their training area and so couldn't move around much.  They also tended to be the bigger and stronger guys that were responsible for poling the boats along the banks of the rivers.  So they would naturally have a tendency to "muscle" the Pole more.  So, it really comes down to....more footwork and more use of the body through the lead leg to power the Pole vs. less footwork and the Pole held higher without using the lead leg to power the pole.
> 
> Of course, the Tang Yik Pole form is much longer than most Wing Chun versions and has more techniques.  There is also a dummy for training the Pole.
> 
> ...


Don't know much about how others train the pole.
My training has been in the beginning the front forearm is on the thigh with the hand just above the knee. This forces the student to use the legs and body to move the pole from side to side. It also stabilizes the front arm/hand and makes the student use the rear arm to articulate the pole (think of a closed oar lock that is bolted on to a skiff or dingy. The oar cannot be lifted out of the mount or the lock). As the student becomes proficient and their ability to control the front hand we use a slightly more upright stance with just the front hand on the thigh and then just off the thigh. (this is more like an open oar lock that slips into a mounting device. Here the oar can slip up or out of the lock so one must have better ability to control the oar). We have an exercise we do to help strengthen the front hand/arm where the pole is held with just the front hand.


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

*I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?*

Here is what I could find of WSL.  I admit he does use the thigh as a pivot point at times.  Unfortunately this is probably not the entire form, so hard to judge.  But I see very little lateral footwork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dATeDTE8zUc

Thigh not used as a pivot in this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fssaDFhrzYw

The Pole hardly ever touches the thigh in any of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhTRZXCvY5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBCNbVICvLk

There is very little lateral footwork in any of the Wing Chun Pole footage that I could find.

Compare  these to the classic footage of Tang Yik.  The pole held low through-out with a narrow grip.  The lead leg/thigh is used to transmit power from the stance to the pole on a large percentage of techniques.  There is a wide variety of footwork with lots of lateral movement.  The opening sequence with the lateral movement to each side while circling the pole is one of the key techniques.  Watch how often he is up on the balls of his feet. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2crnECuC8



*Again makes me wonder which wing chun you learned pole in initially.*

And you make me wonder if you have ever been exposed to any Wing Chun other than WSL lineage.



*There is a pole dummy in WSL VT.*

Does it look like this?  And note how Sifu Tang keeps the Pole against his thigh as much as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ivNnauPac


*
You think that YM made up his pole form by watching Tang Yik?
*
Personally, I don't think that.  But I have seen it suggested.   I think he may have gotten some inspiration for exploring different ideas with the Pole from watching Tang Yik.   You still have to wonder why so many lineages from Ip Man not only have different pole forms, but even have different definitions of what the "6 1/2 points" actually are!


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 22, 2015)

Danny T said:


> It is beneficial in terms of what the form helps develop.
> There is more to be developed through the use of the pole than just doing the form.


============================================
Wing chun and weng chun are different arts.
Few people in regular classes reach the pole usage stage. Even fewer reached the bjd stage.
Watching videos and pictures cane be and is often misleading.,


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ============================================
> Wing chun and weng chun are different arts.
> Few people in regular classes reach the pole usage stage. Even fewer reached the bjd stage.
> Watching videos and pictures cane be and is often misleading.,



Pole stage is right at the beginning. Most people reach this point.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Pole stage is right at the beginning. Most people reach this point.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculous!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> *I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?*
> 
> Here is what I could find of WSL.  I admit he does use the thigh as a pivot point at times.  Unfortunately this is probably not the entire form, so hard to judge.  But I see very little lateral footwork.



The form contains very little lateral footwork which is probably why you don't see much. This is a very bad example of WSL doing the form.




> Thigh not used as a pivot in this one:



Not sure I would call Gary Lam WSL wing chun. It is something a bit different.




> The Pole hardly ever touches the thigh in any of these. There is very little lateral footwork in any of the Wing Chun Pole footage that I could find.



YM wing chun pole form doesn't contain much lateral footwork, assuming these are actual YM pole and not something made up by someone else




> Compare  these to the classic footage of Tang Yik.  The pole held low through-out with a narrow grip.  The lead leg/thigh is used to transmit power from the stance to the pole on a large percentage of techniques.



Yes this is good crisp movement, although it looks like a light pole. Also looks more like spear or bayonet fighting than pole fighting. Not sure how relevant it would be to wing chun empty hand.




> There is a wide variety of footwork with lots of lateral movement.  The opening sequence with the lateral movement to each side while circling the pole is one of the key techniques.



What's the relevance of the emphasis on lateral footwork (apart from in pole duelling)? 




> Watch how often he is up on the balls of his feet.



Balls of feet are used when making a fulcrum in WSL method. 




> And you make me wonder if you have ever been exposed to any Wing Chun other than WSL lineage.






> Does it look like this?  And note how Sifu Tang keeps the Pole against his thigh as much as possible.



Can't get this link to work




> Personally, I don't think that.  But I have seen it suggested.   I think he may have gotten some inspiration for exploring different ideas with the Pole from watching Tang Yik.   You still have to wonder why so many lineages from Ip Man not only have different pole forms, but even have different definitions of what the "6 1/2 points" actually are!




The main reason is that Yip man didn't teach many people very much at all


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> There is a pole dummy in WSL VT.



Is it the kind used by gary lam? I've seen old footage of him/his students using a variety of pole jongs in his backyard...


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Pole stage is right at the beginning.



IME, certain aspects of Pole and BJD are taught right at the beginning of ones journey...though they have no idea what it is or where it comes from.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> *I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?*
> 
> Here is what I could find of WSL.  I admit he does use the thigh as a pivot point at times.  Unfortunately this is probably not the entire form, so hard to judge.  But I see very little lateral footwork.
> 
> ...



It's amazing how much differentiation exists, even within one family of a 1st gen student of YM. The diversity never ends.


----------



## KPM (Dec 22, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> It's amazing how much differentiation exists, even within one family of a 1st gen student of YM. The diversity never ends.



True.  But if the empty hands were based on and derived form the Pole, shouldn't the Pole be the most consistent thing in the system?  Shouldn't everyone be doing the same Pole form?  The Pole form varies much more between lineages than does the SLT form.  Shouldn't it be the other way around if the Pole was the base for everything?  Just thinkin out loud.  ;-)


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> True.  But if the empty hands were based on and derived form the Pole, shouldn't the Pole be the most consistent thing in the system?  Shouldn't everyone be doing the same Pole form?  The Pole form varies much more between lineages than does the SLT form.  Shouldn't it be the other way around if the Pole was the base for everything?  Just thinkin out loud.  ;-)



Perhaps...but FWIW, I've never seen too much steadfast WC at all, even across lineages, or for that matter even within a single family! This goes for empty hand, weapons, jongs, etc. I guess its to be expected since YM decided not to appoint a lineage holder(?) before his death. Oh well. Perhaps all the flavors are a good thing for future generations?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Is it the kind used by gary lam? I've seen old footage of him/his students using a variety of pole jongs in his backyard...


 
Pole dummy is any solid target for pole. Other things like hanging targets are also used.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> IME, certain aspects of Pole and BJD are taught right at the beginning of ones journey...though they have no idea what it is or where it comes from.



Full pole is taught in WSL VT from about dan chi sau stage. It integrates well with poon sau.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> True.  But if the empty hands were based on and derived form the Pole, shouldn't the Pole be the most consistent thing in the system?  Shouldn't everyone be doing the same Pole form?  The Pole form varies much more between lineages than does the SLT form.  Shouldn't it be the other way around if the Pole was the base for everything?  Just thinkin out loud.  ;-)



YM didn't teach it to many people. Evidence points to him being quite a negligent teacher.


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Pole dummy is any solid target for pole. Other things like hanging targets are also used.


 
Not really a dummy if it doesn't have arms or extensions.  Everyone uses targets of some sort. Hanging balls, kicking shields, even the trunk of the wooden dummy.   These are not on the same level as the "Kwan Jong" from Tang Yik Weng Chun.  There is even a form practiced on this.


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> YM didn't teach it to many people. Evidence points to him being quite a negligent teacher.


 

So you are suggesting that Ip Man didn't share your belief that all of Wing Chun empty hands is based upon the Pole?  Because it sure seems to me that if he did, he would have put more emphasis on the Pole.   He would have been more consistent with the Pole that he did teach.  The pole would have been taught to everyone as the basis for the empty hands and used to teach the essential principles and concepts.  The pole would have been the most consistent thing in the system.  Not something taught sporadically and only to a few students.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> So you are suggesting that Ip Man didn't share your belief that all of Wing Chun empty hands is based upon the Pole?  Because it sure seems to me that if he did, he would have put more emphasis on the Pole.   He would have been more consistent with the Pole that he did teach.  The pole would have been taught to everyone as the basis for the empty hands and used to teach the essential principles and concepts.  The pole would have been the most consistent thing in the system.  Not something taught sporadically and only to a few students.



I think that Yip Man didn't give much of a sh1t about most of the people who thought they were learning with him. I think he probably didn't tolerate fools or slow learners for long. I think he taught very few people his wing chun, hence the mess we see today.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I think that Yip Man didn't give much of a sh1t about most of the people who thought they were learning with him. I think he probably didn't tolerate fools or slow learners for long. I think he taught very few people his wing chun, hence the mess we see today.



Totally agree with this statement. I think, even for him and in those times...the saying "money talks and BS walks" was alive and well. If you wanted his attention and focus, you had to up your game a little. Just speculation of course....


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I think that Yip Man didn't give much of a sh1t about most of the people who thought they were learning with him. I think he probably didn't tolerate fools or slow learners for long. I think he taught very few people his wing chun, hence the mess we see today.


 
Is Wong Shun Leung's Pole the same as Ho Kam Ming's?  Or Tsiu Tsun Ting's?  Or Ip Chun's?  Or Ip Ching's?  Or Leung Sheung's?  Because these are some of Ip Man's top students and children, whom one would think he DID "give a sh1t about."   Did he make the Pole the primary focus of his teaching for these students?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Because these are some of Ip Man's top students and children, whom one would think he DID "give a sh1t about."


I wasn't there so I may be incorrect in this but my understanding is Ip Man's sons were taught more by some of his students than by Ip himself. And it is a well known fact that Ip gave different information to different people. He also trained a lot of people who didn't learn the whole system and did a lot of filling in of material as to what they thought they saw or understood. It is also my understanding that he didn't do a lot of correcting and said for them to just go out and fight to find out what worked or didn't work.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 23, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I wasn't there so I may be incorrect in this but my understanding is Ip Man's sons were taught more by some of his students than by Ip himself. And it is a well known fact that Ip gave different information to different people. He also trained a lot of people who didn't learn the whole system and did a lot of filling in of material as to what they thought they saw or understood. It is also my understanding that he didn't do a lot of correcting and said for them to just go out and fight to find out what worked or didn't work.



I've heard this also. I heard his sons chun and ching didn't really show any interest in learning WC till much later on in life. 
I've also read somewhere that if a student asked Yip a question like 'is this correct'? he'd always say stuff like 'yes you are correct'.  
Weird...


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I wasn't there so I may be incorrect in this but my understanding is Ip Man's sons were taught more by some of his students than by Ip himself. And it is a well known fact that Ip gave different information to different people. He also trained a lot of people who didn't learn the whole system and did a lot of filling in of material as to what they thought they saw or understood. It is also my understanding that he didn't do a lot of correcting and said for them to just go out and fight to find out what worked or didn't work.


 
Probably true!  And also supports my thought that Ip Man wasn't someone that considered the Pole as the core of the training and that the empty hands all derived from the Pole.  Otherwise he would have given it more importance in his teaching.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Probably true!  And also supports my thought that Ip Man wasn't someone that considered the Pole as the core of the training and that the empty hands all derived from the Pole.  Otherwise he would have given it more importance in his teaching.



How would you know how much emphasis YM gave the pole if he didn't give teaching wing chun much emphasis and didn't tolerate slow learners or fools?


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

^^^^ I'll just refer you to post #53


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

Here are some other examples of pretty standard Ip Man Pole method that do not use the lead thigh to link the pole to the body and help control and pole and generate force as is done in Tang Yik Weng Chun:


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Is Wong Shun Leung's Pole the same as Ho Kam Ming's?  Or Tsiu Tsun Ting's?  Or Ip Chun's?  Or Ip Ching's?  Or Leung Sheung's?  Because these are some of Ip Man's top students and children, whom one would think he DID "give a sh1t about."   Did he make the Pole the primary focus of his teaching for these students?



You need to increase your cynicism. Most of those people YM obviously did not give a sh1t about. Use your eyes.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Here are some other examples of pretty standard Ip Man Pole method that do not use the lead thigh to link the pole to the body and help control and pole and generate force as is done in Tang Yik Weng Chun:




And?

I don't think you answered my questions about TY pole


----------



## donald1 (Dec 23, 2015)

I use both sides of the bo. It helps mix things up.


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

xx Double post


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You need to increase your cynicism. Most of those people YM obviously did not give a sh1t about. Use your eyes.



^^^ Wong Shun Leung was one of his favored students and taught many of his public classes for him. But you knew that, right? Ho Kam Ming was one of his senior students and was at his bedside when he died. Tsiu Tsun Ting was also one of his number one students and kept in contact through-out Ip Man's life. Leung Sheung was the man that helped Ip Man establish a Kung Fu school with the Restaurant Worker's union when Ip Man first moved to Hong Kong. He was the guy that gave Ip Man his start in teaching so that he had an occupation and didn't starve. Maybe you are just a bit too cynical. ;-)


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> And?
> 
> I don't think you answered my questions about TY pole



You asked what was different about it and why I thought those difference existed.  I answered that.  You asked where I had seen Ip Man pole that DIDN"T use the thigh as a fulcrum.  I have provided multiple video examples of that.  But you know what, I think I'm done talking to you because you've proven to not be a very good conversationalist.   ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> ^^^ Wong Shun Leung was one of his favored students and taught many of his public classes for him. But you knew that, right? Ho Kam Ming was one of his senior students and was at his bedside when he died. Tsiu Tsun Ting was also one of his number one students and kept in contact through-out Ip Man's life. Leung Sheung was the man that helped Ip Man establish a Kung Fu school with the Restaurant Worker's union when Ip Man first moved to Hong Kong. He was the guy that gave Ip Man his start in teaching so that he had an occupation and didn't starve. Maybe you are just a bit too cynical. ;-)



I know who they are. But use your eyes and the answer is pretty clear.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM" said:
			
		

> You asked what was different about it and why I thought those difference existed. I answered that. You asked where I had seen Ip Man pole that DIDN"T use the thigh as a fulcrum. I have provided multiple video examples of that.





guy b. said:


> What are the extra sequences in Tang Yik pole and what do you feel that they are teaching? Do you think YM wing chun would benefit from having these parts? Do they benefit the empty hand part of wing chun at all?



This is the main bit I would like to know your opinion about.

By asking where you saw YM wing chun which didn't use the fulcrum, I mean where did you experience it, not where did you see it on youtube.



> But you know what, I think I'm done talking to you because you've proven to not be a very good conversationalist. ;-)



I can only offer my apologies and ask that you reconsider


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Is it the kind used by gary lam? I've seen old footage of him/his students using a variety of pole jongs in his backyard...



This guy is from Gary Lam lineage and has a type of Kwan Jong in the background of his video.  My Kwan Jong is similar, because I don't have room for the full size version from the Tang Yik video.






Here is mine:


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

What are the extra sequences in Tang Yik pole and what do you feel that they are teaching? 

Do you think YM wing chun would benefit from having these parts? 

Do the extra sections benefit the empty hand part of wing chun at all?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Are you sure this is a Gary Lam taught guy?



...must be the trademark matress covered in a tarp thing....


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> ...must be the trademark matress covered in a tarp thing....



Do you mind removing that quotation from me? I don't wish to cause any problem.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Do you mind removing that quotation from me? I don't wish to cause any problem.



 I would, but after a certain time limit has passed...MAT won't allow editing I think...


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> What are the extra sequences in Tang Yik pole and what do you feel that they are teaching?
> 
> Do you think YM wing chun would benefit from having these parts?
> 
> Do the extra sections benefit the empty hand part of wing chun at all?



Any response to these questions KPM? I am trying to work out whether it is worth learning the Tang Yik pole.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

Nope.  Sorry.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Why not?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Why not?



 Because I don't care to get in another discussion with you.  As I've said several times already...you've proven to not be a very good conversationalist.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

So to make it easy for you Guy.....no, you should not learn the Tang Yik Pole.  I think you would find that it does not fit into your pre-determined world view.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> So to make it easy for you Guy.....no, you should not learn the Tang Yik Pole.  I think you would find that it does not fit into your pre-determined world view.



Do the extra sections of Tang Yik pole add to the empty hand ideas in your style of wing chun? Or are they specific to pole fighting?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Do the extra sections of Tang Yik pole add to the empty hand ideas in your style of wing chun? Or are they specific to pole fighting?




Sorry, I can't help you.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Ok, I will ask someone else.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 26, 2015)

I think you can not get the answer you seek guy b., reason being that you would first have to know yourself why you would want to learn entire Tang yik pole form. And it probably will not suit your lineage WSLVT well. It might as well, only someone that knows your teaching can answer that question. After all your teachings are not the same as those from another location or with another sifu / origin.

Basically my answer would be; no idea.

As for pole style, it serves much value to WSLVT in correlation with hand forms. To me it is used as a good way to train body structure for hand combat. My question however is perhaps not suited for this thread but what makes it in your view match so closely with the hand forms? I believe of course both sides should be practised if possible and of value to practitioner, but I am curious as to any other value the pole form has to WSLVT since it seems that lineage knows more about the form granted they start it so early.

As for besides body structure, I feel like the arm movements does not in any clearly visible way at least point to the way one would do hand combat. Most movements seem like sacrifizing distance of punch due to the fact that for a two handed grip (long pole) the pole can never be extended further than the fist closest to you. Same I do not see in hand combat and this leads to incorrect shoulder placement compared to opponent. What am I missing?

Sorry if hijacking, the other threads are so caught up in bickering and I want to just understand what it is I do not see.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Phobius said:


> I think you can not get the answer you seek guy b., reason being that you would first have to know yourself why you would want to learn entire Tang yik pole form.



I would want to learn the Tang Yik pole form if it would benefit my wing chun and not detract from it. 



> My question however is perhaps not suited for this thread but what makes it in your view match so closely with the hand forms? I believe of course both sides should be practised if possible and of value to practitioner, but I am curious as to any other value the pole form has to WSLVT since it seems that lineage knows more about the form granted they start it so early.



see tension thread post 32


----------



## Phobius (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I would want to learn the Tang Yik pole form if it would benefit my wing chun and not detract from it.



I need to say that this is something you have to find out for yourself.

Figuring things out for yourself is the best answer to any question relating to what benefits you. Also it is one of the few rights we have in this world.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 26, 2015)

Phobius said:


> As for besides body structure, I feel like the arm movements does not in any clearly visible way at least point to the way one would do hand combat. Most movements seem like sacrifizing distance of punch due to the fact that for a two handed grip (long pole) the pole can never be extended further than the fist closest to you. Same I do not see in hand combat and this leads to incorrect shoulder placement compared to opponent. What am I missing?



Obviously, pole is side-body because we are holding a long inflexible pole with both hands by one end and only have this one "arm" to use. In empty-hand, we have two free and flexible arms. Of course we are not going to restrict ourselves as if we're still holding a pole. That would be silly.

The actions of the pole have analogues in empty-hand. They correspond in function; not necessarily shape or appearance, but how they affect the opponent and our opportunities. What is different in empty-hand is that we have two free and flexible arms that we are able to use independently and in cooperation. So it is more sophisticated, while yet still sharing the same core concepts and principles for fighting.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 4, 2016)

@LFJ and @guy b. 

Do either of you have a video you can post of WSL VT pole form? 
(apologies if its been posted before and i missed it)
Thx


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)




----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Do you pole form both sides or only one? Explain your choice.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am assuming that you are talking about developmental work with the  kwan. After doing some work on one side- let us say biu kwan with left hold on the front,
I switch and have the right  hold in the front. I do the same number  of reps on both sides.. so that the body learns how to be balanced and ambidextrous.


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am assuming that you are talking about developmental work with the  kwan. After doing some work on one side- let us say biu kwan with left hold on the front,
> I switch and have the right  hold in the front. I do the same number  of reps on both sides.. so that the body learns how to be balanced and ambidextrous.



For simple basic exercises I agree.  LFJ, for the middle video above, would he have routinely flipped the pole around to a left side forward grip and repeated the form?   Is this the entire WSLVT Pole form?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am assuming that you are talking about developmental work with the  kwan. After doing some work on one side- let us say biu kwan with left hold on the front,
> I switch and have the right  hold in the front. I do the same number  of reps on both sides.. so that the body learns how to be balanced and ambidextrous.



I do the everything both sides, but doing exercises both sides could be enough.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> LFJ, for the middle video above, would he have routinely flipped the pole around to a left side forward grip and repeated the form?   Is this the entire WSLVT Pole form?



That's it. Simples. I don't know what he would routinely do, but nothing would stop one from doing the form on the other side and it would be good training.


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That's it. Simples. I don't know what he would routinely do, but nothing would stop one from doing the form on the other side and it would be good training.


 
Ok. Thanks.  But I didn't word my question very well.  What I meant to ask, is this...does WSLVT teach a student at Pole level to practice the form on both sides?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ok. Thanks.  But I didn't word my question very well.  What I meant to ask, is this...does WSLVT teach a student at Pole level to practice the form on both sides?



Most that I have seen do, but some don't. I prefer to do. That was why I asked the question.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

double post


----------



## LFJ (Jan 9, 2016)




----------



## geezer (Jan 9, 2016)

That's titled, "Ving Tsun Hamburg". Tan guy, no shirt, tile roof  and stucco "mediterranean style houses, pool and palms... who knew that Hamburg looked so much like San Diego? 


OK, seriously... are we talking Germans on vacation here or what? Either way, training long pole by the pool?    ... that sounds like my kind of vacation!


----------



## LFJ (Jan 9, 2016)

Menorca. 

PB seminar.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 10, 2016)

Nice clip, good find


----------



## ThatVTGuy (Jan 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.


I came to Wing Chun from a  Northern style of Kung Fu that used a lot of the long cavalry weapons. When my Sifu showed me the pole form one day, I was impressed how much it was like the spear basics I had learned in my old system.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 12, 2016)

ThatVTGuy said:


> I came to Wing Chun from a  Northern style of Kung Fu that used a lot of the long cavalry weapons. When my Sifu showed me the pole form one day, I was impressed how much it was like the spear basics I had learned in my old system.



Same here. The main spear actions "_lan_, _na_, _zha_" (to intercept, seize, and thrust) correspond to the long pole actions we call "_lau-seui_, _kam-gwan_, _fong-lung-cheung_" (stirring water, covering pole, releasing dragon spear).

The main difference is that the spear thrust is done with the shaft sliding through the lead hand as the rear hand "punches" through to meet the lead and the body is squared up. This extends to maximum reach of the spear while keeping our body at distance. The pole is much heavier though, so we keep both hands firmly on the pole and use footwork to blast into the target after capturing the line, rather than squaring up.

Oh, and of course, the spear is always done left-hand lead. VT pole right-hand lead. In many ways the right hand is the controlling and power hand in both cases. Similar concepts, but still very different use.


----------



## KPM (Jan 13, 2016)

One theory I have heard is that the "6 1/2 points" came about because the pole derived from a older Spear form that was practiced on both sides.....6 "points" per side with another "point" being a linking or transition point when you switched sides.....so 13 points total.  If you only practice one side.....6 1/2 points.   But I've never seen that spear form, so I don't know whether to believe that theory or not!


----------



## LFJ (Jan 13, 2016)

Well, in every day Chinese, 六点半 means 6:30. Maybe whoever created it did so at around 6:30 one day, and such an obvious answer has just gone over everybody's head since!


----------



## KPM (Jan 13, 2016)

I've long wondered where the idea of a "half" point came from.  After all it is a "point" or concept or not!  How can it be half of a concept!  One explanation is the "spear origin" theory that I noted.  But I've discovered in Tang Yik pole that the half point is "chin."   "Chin" is a half circle movement used to go from a lower position to a superior position on top of the opponent's pole.  Kind of like a Huen Sau with the pole.  The other six "points" or concepts can be applied both offensively and defensively.  But this semi-circular movement is purely a defensive transition move with no offensive application.  Hence it is a "half" point, because it has no offensive application.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> I've long wondered where the idea of a "half" point came from.  After all it is a "point" or concept or not!  How can it be half of a concept!  One explanation is the "spear origin" theory that I noted.  But I've discovered in Tang Yik pole that the half point is "chin."   "Chin" is a half circle movement used to go from a lower position to a superior position on top of the opponent's pole.  Kind of like a Huen Sau with the pole.  The other six "points" or concepts can be applied both offensively and defensively.  But this semi-circular movement is purely a defensive transition move with no offensive application.  Hence it is a "half" point, because it has no offensive application.



Interesting!

I read this old post by Duncan Leung from his old forum:

Posted by Duncan Leung on 01/30/06 08:12 pm

"I was told by Yip Man that, historically, the Double Knife and the Long Pole were not originally part of the Wing Chun system. These are additions that were grafted on later. Therefore, the basis for them is not identical to that behind, say, kicking.
With regard to the Double Knife, which is a sharp weapon not requiring much power, we are speaking of methods of countering (eight of them). With weaponry, we are using limited directions, which is not the case in empty hand combat.
*Regarding the Long Pole, while this is based upon tremendous power, we are again concerned with the number of methods or techniques -- in this case seven of them (six coming from you, the seventh utilizing half of the opponent's force)."*
also found this from him:
*"The Long Pole is 7 feet, 2 inches in length. There are six techniques which utilize the pole wielder's own power exclusively, hence '6 points'. The half point corresponds to a technique which utilizes both the wielder's force as well as that of the opponent."*


----------



## KPM (Jan 13, 2016)

* The half point corresponds to a technique which utilizes both the wielder's force as well as that of the opponent."
*
---I'm not sure what that means.  And if it uses your force as well as the opponent's, wouldn't that make it a "double" point, not a "half" point?


----------

