# Tang Yik pole vs "others"



## wckf92 (Sep 27, 2017)

I know in past threads we've discussed various pole methods; but my question is this: Given that Tang Yik's pole form is quite long and in-depth...do you think it contains the same or similar aspects (dims?) as the other / shorter / condensed pole forms? 
Not saying more is necessarily better...just looking for your thoughts. Thanks.
Put simpler - is Yip Man's pole methods encapsulated in Tang Yiks longer pole form? 
And, what of Yuen Kay San's? Leung Jan's/Kulo? etc?


----------



## Danny T (Sep 27, 2017)

I think it is more of what is the emphasis of the form. Is it to cover all movements and positions or to cover enough to describe and cover the principles for the moves. Maybe to simple list the most important techniques. Subsequent drills develop the skills needed.


----------



## KPM (Sep 28, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> I know in past threads we've discussed various pole methods; but my question is this: Given that Tang Yik's pole form is quite long and in-depth...do you think it contains the same or similar aspects (dims?) as the other / shorter / condensed pole forms?
> Not saying more is necessarily better...just looking for your thoughts. Thanks.
> Put simpler - is Yip Man's pole methods encapsulated in Tang Yiks longer pole form?
> And, what of Yuen Kay San's? Leung Jan's/Kulo? etc?



Whether the Tang Yik form encapsulates other people's forms would be hard to say for sure without knowing those other forms fairly well.   But my feeling is...yes...likely the essential moves in those other forms are also found in the longer Tang Yik form.  But the Tang Yik pole mechanics are a little different from other Wing Chun pole.  The pole is seldom held out away from the body, but rather is supported against the lead thigh or the torso.  As far as the "points" between various pole forms, everyone seems to have a different list of what the "6 1/2 points" actually are.   Often times they are the same movement with a different "point" name given to them.  But not always.  

When I  see video of other lineages' pole forms I often think.."is that it?"   And yet I look at the whole Tang Yik form and think "it doesn't need to be that elaborate!"  There should be a happy medium in there somewhere!  

There is a repeated sequence within the Tang Yik form that encapsulates all of the 6 1/2 points.  It is repeated multiple times for emphasis and is broken out as an essential drill on its own. This could be practiced with a little linking footwork added and would be essentially the equivalent of other lineages' shorter pole forms.   What those other lineages often lack is the more extensive angling and footwork that is included in the Tang Yik form.   That's what I mean when I say I often think "is that it?"  I'm wondering why they don't have the angling and quick footwork that is so important to Tang Yik pole and that is developed in the form.

Also the history of the Tang Yik lineage notes that Chi Sim's pole form was combined with a spear form at some point.  This is likely why the form is longer and contains more movements than other pole forms.  The second half of the form contains a lot of what I would  call "specialized" movements.   For instance, there is a sequence of striking the ground with the pole which is interpreted as hitting or warding off a swordsman that is rolling on the ground and trying to slice at your legs.  Another movement is for coming upward and behind the bottom edge of a swordsman's rattan shield. 

Honestly, I think that the Tang Yik form is an actual historical set that has been passed down for several generations.   Whereas the Ip Man pole forms (and likely other lineages) were probably initially learned simply as a set of simple drills or concepts that different people seem to have combined into a short form in different ways.  When you look at different Ip Man branches, no two seem to use the same pole form.  The basics will be the same, but not the form.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> or the torso



How high up on the torso are you referring to?



KPM said:


> As far as the "points" between various pole forms, everyone seems to have a different list of what the "6 1/2 points" actually are. Often times they are the same movement with a different "point" name given to them. But not always.



Would be fascinating to create a matrix or spreadsheet with as many pole versions' points as possible and look for a theme or correlation points.



KPM said:


> When I see video of other lineages' pole forms I often think.."is that it?" And yet I look at the whole Tang Yik form and think "it doesn't need to be that elaborate!" There should be a happy medium in there somewhere!



I'm surprised to read this from you. Don't you travel to China to learn this form? And, from your previous studies in other lineages, did you learn their pole forms and if so, do you feel those pole forms are contained in your Tang Yik studies?



KPM said:


> When you look at different Ip Man branches, no two seem to use the same pole form. The basics will be the same, but not the form.



I hear ya. Frustrating. Kind of like the swords/knives.  Everyone was taught (or made up) their own stuff and the lack of consistency is maddening at times. 

How many sources of Tang Yik's methods are there in the US? I've heard of you of course (MD area); and I think I've heard of a guy up in NYC... anyone else?

Thanks!


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 28, 2017)

There's a guy in the UK I think...an Asian guy that has what appears to be a very aggressive/yang energy pole form... a Sifu Austin Goh. I'm not sure of his lineage but it is an interesting form. Lots of aggressive motions. Ever hear of him?


----------



## KPM (Sep 28, 2017)

*How high up on the torso are you referring to?*

---About xiphoid process level.   "Tik" is a short thrust that keeps the forearm and the tail of the pole against the body at this level.  "Cheung" is the full thrust, and even it keeps the forearm against the body with the elbow down rather than having the rear elbow pointed out as you see so often.

*Would be fascinating to create a matrix or spreadsheet with as many pole versions' points as possible and look for a theme or correlation points.*

----I tried that awhile back.  Started a thread here asking about other people's "points" for the pole.  I'd have to dig it out again!  ;-)


*
I'm surprised to read this from you. Don't you travel to China to learn this form? And, from your previous studies in other lineages, did you learn their pole forms and if so, do you feel those pole forms are contained in your Tang Yik studies?*

---I've learned Augustine Fong's version of the pole many years ago.  It is longer than most Ip Man versions.  Not sure of its exact origins.  I have not learned the Pin Sun pole, but I have seen it.  Frankly, I wasn't too impressed.  It is very short!  It has "3 1/2 points" rather than "6 1/2 points."   I have learned the first half of the Tang Yik pole form.  When I visited Sifu Tang in Hong Kong we always practiced the whole form.  But the first half is what I had worked on prior to my trip in order to have the sequence down and pick up on the fine points.  So the last half of the form didn't really "stick" and I haven't gone back to work on the sequence.  All of the  essentials and "good stuff" are up front, in my opinion!  ;-)  And I haven't made it back  to Hong Kong for another training session.



*How many sources of Tang Yik's methods are there in the US? I've heard of you of course (MD area); and I think I've heard of a guy up in NYC... anyone else?*

---Derek Rozanski (Ving Dragon) is in Brooklyn.  There are a couple of guys on the west coast but I'm not sure how active they are.  Not much really in the US.  However in Europe Sifu Tang has a close student in Germany with a large group, and a couple of close students in Italy with fairly large groups.  


*There's a guy in the UK I think...an Asian guy that has what appears to be a very aggressive/yang energy pole form... a Sifu Austin Goh. I'm not sure of his lineage but it is an interesting form. Lots of aggressive motions. Ever hear of him?*

----Austin Goh is Lee Shing lineage.   Lee Shing was the first guy reaching Wing Chun in the UK.  He had a pretty varied background, including studying with Jiu Wan, Ip Man, and Fung Sang of Ku Lo Pin Sun.   His Wing Chun is fairly elaborate.  He included more of the traditional chinese weapons like the broadsword, flag-waving, etc. as well as more than one pole form.  Not sure what version Austin Goh is doing.   It seems Lee Shing passed most of his Ku Lo Pin Sun knowledge on to Joseph Lee.   I've seen the pole form that they do and call "Gulao Pin Sun", and it is nothing like the pole form I saw demo'd by Jim Roselando as coming from Henry Mui.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> About xiphoid process level



Cool.. Thx. Gonna have to consult a dictionary for that word though!  hahaha. 



KPM said:


> ----I tried that awhile back. Started a thread here asking about other people's "points" for the pole. I'd have to dig it out again! ;-)



Did you determine any cross-lineage correlations? 



KPM said:


> And I haven't made it back to Hong Kong for another training session.



Do you intend to go back and finish your training?



KPM said:


> Derek Rozanski



Are you and his pole forms close? Or the same?


----------



## DanT (Sep 28, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> I know in past threads we've discussed various pole methods; but my question is this: Given that Tang Yik's pole form is quite long and in-depth...do you think it contains the same or similar aspects (dims?) as the other / shorter / condensed pole forms?
> Not saying more is necessarily better...just looking for your thoughts. Thanks.
> Put simpler - is Yip Man's pole methods encapsulated in Tang Yiks longer pole form?
> And, what of Yuen Kay San's? Leung Jan's/Kulo? etc?


According to the research that I have heard, Yip Man's pole form is only the first section of Tang Yik's form. My knowledge of both forms confirms this. Yip Man only learned the first section, as the Luk Dim Boon Kwan that Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun did not have a form of its own, just drills and sparring exercises. So in order to further add to his system he sought out a pole form. He managed only to learn the first section however. One can clearly see from 0:55-1:10 a Yip Man Pole form:


----------



## KPM (Sep 29, 2017)

In the past LFJ has shown that Wong Shun Leung's pole form (and therefore presumably Ip Man's pole form) was taken from a section of a much longer Hung Kuen pole form.  He showed video of WSL doing the pole form and then a video of the Hung Kuen form with the appropriate section pointed out.  It wasn't exact, but it was pretty close.   That section you indicate from the Tang Yik form also isn't exact, but pretty  close.   As wckf92 was asking/pointing out, there is a "common core" that seems to be shared.  It could be that this common core came from Chi Sim (or someone that the legend represents) and was picked up by Wing Chun guys as well as Hung Kuen guys.   In other words....the pole form or at least the method itself may very well pre-date Wing Chun and was adopted by Wing Chun guys and then "adjusted" somewhat to match Wing Chun empty-hand concepts.  Or possibly (as Guy B. suggested) concepts from the pole method may have been used to further refine or define the Wing Chun empty-hand methods.  But I do get the sense that the pole came before what we now know as Wing Chun empty hand.


----------



## KPM (Sep 29, 2017)

*Did you determine any cross-lineage correlations?*

---I'll have to hunt it up and give it a good look again.  Nothing really stood out, other than the fact different lineages often used a different term for what appeared to be the same concept/movement.

*Do you intend to go back and finish your training?*

---Truthfully....not sure.  I wasn't too impressed with the Tang Yik empty hands and I'm not sure Sifu Tang will keep teaching me the pole if I am not practicing the entire system.


*
Are you and his pole forms close? Or the same?*

---I visited Derek before I visited Hong Kong.  He was the one that encouraged me to contact Sifu Tang and try to arrange it.  I haven't seen Derek do the entire form, so I don't know.  I do know the basic mechanics he showed me were the same.  Derek put me on the right track with the basic mechanics.  Then after a bit of back and forth conversation over eMail Sifu Tang agreed to teach me.  He sent me video of himself to start working from. This was of the pole method as well as the first Tang Yik Weng Chun empty hand form. I taught myself the sequence for the empty hand form and 1st half of the pole form.  I would send him video of myself doing it and he would eMail me feedback.  Then I visited for 10 days and did daily lessons in which he corrected my mechanics, went over some of the 2 man drills and worked on the entire form.   So it was a lot to try and absorb!  I didn't even try and remember the second half of the pole form since the form is so long.   The first empty hand form has eleven sections and each section has a flowing 2 man drill that goes with it.  Much like a Chi Sau exercise specific to each section.   But, like any Chi Sau exercise....it was very "Weng Chun specific" and just didn't seem all that applicable to the way people fight today.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 29, 2017)

DanT said:


> According to the research that I have heard, Yip Man's pole form is only the first section of Tang Yik's form. My knowledge of both forms confirms this. Yip Man only learned the first section, as the Luk Dim Boon Kwan that Yip Man learned from Cha Wah Shun did not have a form of its own, just drills and sparring exercises. So in order to further add to his system he sought out a pole form. He managed only to learn the first section however. One can clearly see from 0:55-1:10 a Yip Man Pole form:



Interesting!. Thanks DanT. 
I wonder why YM only learned what he did? Was that all he was allowed to learn? Or, perhaps he saw the first section being played out in Dai Duk Lan and asked to be taught it. Guess we'll never know. 
...
Perhaps another thought is, maybe he only wanted the first section in the first place?


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> longer Hung Kuen pole form



Oh yeah...had forgotten about that. Maybe I'll search for it and link it to this discussion.



KPM said:


> "common core"



Yes it's this common core that I'm curious about. Maybe Yip Man analyzed the pole methods he learned from CWS (and/or Leung Bik?), and later was able to view/learn some or all of a much longer set (either the Hung Kuen or Tang Yik's) and then distilled it down into what he thought were the barebone methods of his day? 
Who knows...maybe this is what he did with the knives as well and that may be partly to blame for why there are so many variations in the weapons stemming from YM.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Did you determine any cross-lineage correlations?*
> 
> ---I'll have to hunt it up and give it a good look again. Nothing really stood out, other than the fact different lineages often used a different term for what appeared to be the same concept/movement.



for reference:

6 1/2 Points for the Pole


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 29, 2017)

Found this in an old thread... possibly a Tang Yik variant?






and LFJ had posted this one a while ago...I think the full WSL version?






I couldn't find the Hung Kuen pole post so I looked on youtube and I think this is the one referenced by LFJ (or at least a small portion of it)...unsure of the timestamp though...


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 29, 2017)

DanT said:


> According to the research that I have heard, Yip Man's pole form is only the first section of Tang Yik's form. My knowledge of both forms confirms this.



So you've been taught both forms and have trained both methods? Do you prefer one over the other?


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 29, 2017)

That first video does have some footwork that I associate with Tang Yik, but KPM would know better.


----------



## DanT (Sep 29, 2017)

Originally Wing Chun only had the empty hand methods. The BJD were added in first, but it is now unknown who incorporated them into the system. We know for certain that the LDBK was added in by Wong Wah Bo who learned it from Leung Yee Tai who taught him in exchange for the Wing Chun empty hand techniques. Wong Wah Bo taught Leung Jan the pole methods but not the pole form. Leung Jan taught them to Cha Wah Shun who taught it to Yip Man. Yip Man was thus skilled with the pole but did not know a pole form. He went to Dai Dak Lan to further his Wing Chun knowledge and incorporated the first section of the Weng Chun pole form into his Wing Chun.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 29, 2017)

DanT said:


> Originally Wing Chun only had the empty hand methods. The BJD were added in first, but it is now unknown who incorporated them into the system. We know for certain that the LDBK was added in by Wong Wah Bo who learned it from Leung Yee Tai who taught him in exchange for the Wing Chun empty hand techniques. Wong Wah Bo taught Leung Jan the pole methods but not the pole form. Leung Jan taught them to Cha Wah Shun who taught it to Yip Man. Yip Man was thus skilled with the pole but did not know a pole form. He went to Dai Dak Lan to further his Wing Chun knowledge and incorporated the first section of the Weng Chun pole form into his Wing Chun.



Thanks DanT. Interesting feedback for sure. Does this info come from you or your sifu/lineage? Or is it in a book or...?


----------



## KPM (Sep 29, 2017)

DanT said:


> Originally Wing Chun only had the empty hand methods. The BJD were added in first, but it is now unknown who incorporated them into the system. We know for certain that the LDBK was added in by Wong Wah Bo who learned it from Leung Yee Tai who taught him in exchange for the Wing Chun empty hand techniques. Wong Wah Bo taught Leung Jan the pole methods but not the pole form. Leung Jan taught them to Cha Wah Shun who taught it to Yip Man. Yip Man was thus skilled with the pole but did not know a pole form. He went to Dai Dak Lan to further his Wing Chun knowledge and incorporated the first section of the Weng Chun pole form into his Wing Chun.



 One version of history/legend I have heard is that it was Fok Bo Chuen that incorporated the knives.  Remember "Bart Jam Do" was just Ip Man's own term for them. Other lineages use a different name.  Anyway....Fok Bo Chuen was Leung Jan's classmate and likely picked up the knives later.  LJ did not teach the knives in Ku Lo village, suggesting his system did not have the knives.  But he did teach a version of the pole!  So I don't think it likely that the knives were added prior to the pole.  The part about Ip Man is unclear, but seems likely to me!   Ip Man Wing Chun does not have the Kwun Jong or "pole dummy."  It has been said that this was because Tang Yik had it on the roof of his apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan.  So Ip Man never saw it.  Otherwise the Kwun Jong might have been a regular part of Ip Man Wing Chun!   Whether Ip Man picked up on the first part of the Tang Yik pole form or from that Hung Kuen form is unclear as well.


----------



## KPM (Sep 29, 2017)

*Found this in an old thread... possibly a Tang Yik variant?*

--Not a variant, that is the Tang Yik form!  This is Max Kraft.  He is one of Peter Schultz's students in Berlin.  I trained with him and Peter and some of their other students when I went to Hong Kong.  

*and LFJ had posted this one a while ago...I think the full WSL version?*

---I think so!


*I couldn't find the Hung Kuen pole post so I looked on youtube and I think this is the one referenced by LFJ (or at least a small portion of it)...unsure of the timestamp though...*

---Yes, starting at the 1:00 mark and only going to about 1:15.   Here is the same thing broken out specifically for practice.  The "practical Hung Kyun" guys teach it as a beginner's level or preliminary pole form before teaching the longer traditional version of the whole form.


----------



## DanT (Sep 29, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> So you've been taught both forms and have trained both methods? Do you prefer one over the other?


I know several different pole methods from various styles, including both of these methods. The Tang Yik method has much more techniques and is a very long form. Yip Man's form contains only the bare essentials, but is enough in terms of combat if you're smart and can adapt. It's like asking what's better, the full alphabet or only the letters ABCD, at the end of the day if all the words you use only have the letters ABCD, then it doesn't matter. Personally the Tang Yik form is better in terms of being complete.


KPM said:


> One version of history/legend I have heard is that it was Fok Bo Chuen that incorporated the knives.  Remember "Bart Jam Do" was just Ip Man's own term for them. Other lineages use a different name.  Anyway....Fok Bo Chuen was Leung Jan's classmate and likely picked up the knives later.  LJ did not teach the knives in Ku Lo village, suggesting his system did not have the knives.  But he did teach a version of the pole!  So I don't think it likely that the knives were added prior to the pole.  The part about Ip Man is unclear, but seems likely to me!   Ip Man Wing Chun does not have the Kwun Jong or "pole dummy."  It has been said that this was because Tang Yik had it on the roof of his apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan.  So Ip Man never saw it.  Otherwise the Kwun Jong might have been a regular part of Ip Man Wing Chun!   Whether Ip Man picked up on the first part of the Tang Yik pole form or from that Hung Kuen form is unclear as well.


I like the idea of Fok Bo Chuen incorporating the knives as it seems likely. Yes from my research Yip Man only learned the techniques as there wasn't a form to learn when he first learned it from Cha Wah Shun.


----------



## geezer (Oct 1, 2017)

DanT said:


> I know several different pole methods from various styles, including both of these methods...



_Which _Yip Man lineage version did you learn? I ask this because there are significant differences between various groups --including such basic things as hand position and grip. What I learned was short and simple, engineered for a long, heavy pole, but still used a grip similar to the Tang Yik grip (with the rear hand always on top with the elbow pointing down).



DanT said:


> I like the idea of Fok Bo Chuen incorporating the knives as it seems likely. Yes from my research Yip Man only learned the techniques as there wasn't a form to learn when he first learned it from Cha Wah Shun.



Are you saying that the WC _Baat Cham Dao_ form (or forms) didn't exist in Chan Wah Shun's era, or simply that the young Yip Man didn't learn it in his early years with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So?


----------



## DanT (Oct 1, 2017)

geezer said:


> _Which _Yip Man lineage version did you learn? I ask this because there are significant differences between various groups --including such basic things as hand position and grip. What I learned was short and simple, engineered for a long, heavy pole, but still used a grip similar to the Tang Yik grip (with the rear hand always on top with the elbow pointing down).
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the WC _Baat Cham Dao_ form (or forms) didn't exist in Chan Wah Shun's era, or simply that the young Yip Man didn't learn it in his early years with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So?


Hey Geezer,

WSL and Moy Yat.

Not that they didn't exist, but that Cha Wah Shun did not know a BJD form, only the techniques and applications. Yip Man's BJD form(s) were formulated by him.


----------



## KPM (Oct 1, 2017)

You know....one school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally one long form that was later broken down into the 3 form format of SNT, CK, and BG.   Yik Kam Wing Chun is just one long form and represents the "original" version according to Hendrick Santos.  Another school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally a loose collection of techniques and short drills....San Sik....that were elaborated upon and developed and eventually organized into the 3 form format.  I've heard it said that when Leung Jan was teaching the San Sik format in Ku Lo village he was returning to an older version of the system.   But I've also heard that it was his own "cliff notes" version of the system and it was easier to teach it quickly as San Sik rather than the 3 form progression.   Supposedly ancestral White Crane was originally taught in a San Sik format.  If so, this would support the idea of "ancestral" Wing Chun taught that way as well.  This would make it very natural to have originally learned both the knives and the pole in a similar format.....short drills or San Sik with applications that were later organized into longer forms.  The knives are essentially just an extension of the empty hands anyway.  Leung Jan did not originally teach the knives in Ku Lo village.  But it didn't take long for the Ku Lo guys to realize you could pick up a  set of knives and do each of the San Sik with them!  

Who knows!  Too bad we don't have a time machine to go back and find out!


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> You know....one school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally one long form that was later broken down into the 3 form format of SNT, CK, and BG.   Yik Kam Wing Chun is just one long form and represents the "original" version according to Hendrick Santos.  Another school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally a loose collection of techniques and short drills....San Sik....that were elaborated upon and developed and eventually organized into the 3 form format.  I've heard it said that when Leung Jan was teaching the San Sik format in Ku Lo village he was returning to an older version of the system.   But I've also heard that it was his own "cliff notes" version of the system and it was easier to teach it quickly as San Sik rather than the 3 form progression.   Supposedly ancestral White Crane was originally taught in a San Sik format.  If so, this would support the idea of "ancestral" Wing Chun taught that way as well.  This would make it very natural to have originally learned both the knives and the pole in a similar format.....short drills or San Sik with applications that were later organized into longer forms.  The knives are essentially just an extension of the empty hands anyway.  Leung Jan did not originally teach the knives in Ku Lo village.  But it didn't take long for the Ku Lo guys to realize you could pick up a  set of knives and do each of the San Sik with them!
> 
> Who knows!  Too bad we don't have a time machine to go back and find out!



I wonder if other CMA's have similar histories(?)


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 1, 2017)

DanT said:


> Hey Geezer,
> 
> WSL and Moy Yat.
> 
> Not that they didn't exist, but that Cha Wah Shun did not know a BJD form, only the techniques and applications. Yip Man's BJD form(s) were formulated by him.



Were the two methods vastly different? Do you prefer one over the other (WSL's vs. Moy Yat's)? 

I note you said "Yip Man's BJD form(s)...haha. Makes one wonder just how many different formS he created.


----------



## DanT (Oct 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> You know....one school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally one long form that was later broken down into the 3 form format of SNT, CK, and BG.   Yik Kam Wing Chun is just one long form and represents the "original" version according to Hendrick Santos.  Another school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally a loose collection of techniques and short drills....San Sik....that were elaborated upon and developed and eventually organized into the 3 form format.  I've heard it said that when Leung Jan was teaching the San Sik format in Ku Lo village he was returning to an older version of the system.   But I've also heard that it was his own "cliff notes" version of the system and it was easier to teach it quickly as San Sik rather than the 3 form progression.   Supposedly ancestral White Crane was originally taught in a San Sik format.  If so, this would support the idea of "ancestral" Wing Chun taught that way as well.  This would make it very natural to have originally learned both the knives and the pole in a similar format.....short drills or San Sik with applications that were later organized into longer forms.  The knives are essentially just an extension of the empty hands anyway.  Leung Jan did not originally teach the knives in Ku Lo village.  But it didn't take long for the Ku Lo guys to realize you could pick up a  set of knives and do each of the San Sik with them!
> 
> Who knows!  Too bad we don't have a time machine to go back and find out!


KPM,

All sources point to an early Wing Chun (prior to the 1850 Taiping Uprising), as having a single form called Siu Lam Tao (shaolin idea), given that it combined Shaolin White Crane and Southern Snake styles. The form has actually 4 sections, the first section is identical to The modern Siu Nim Tao (little idea). The second section is very close to Chum Kiu. The third section is like Biu Jee but a bit shorter, and the fourth section is like the wooden dummy (in a weird order for the Yip Man people) and a bit of BJD footwork and concepts.

This long form was broken down into the three forms plus the wooden dummy "form" which wasn't a real "form" just random sections thrown together, most likely by Leung Jan, which is why Leung Jan's kung fu brothers all have a single long Siu Lam Tao form.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 1, 2017)

DanT said:


> KPM,
> 
> All sources point to an early Wing Chun (prior to the 1850 Taiping Uprising), as having a single form called Siu Lam Tao (shaolin idea), given that it combined Shaolin White Crane and Southern Snake styles. The form has actually 4 sections, the first section is identical to The modern Siu Nim Tao (little idea). The second section is very close to Chum Kiu. The third section is like Biu Jee but a bit shorter, and the fourth section is like the wooden dummy (in a weird order for the Yip Man people) and a bit of BJD footwork and concepts.
> 
> This long form was broken down into the three forms plus the wooden dummy "form" which wasn't a real "form" just random sections thrown together, most likely by Leung Jan, which is why Leung Jan's kung fu brothers all have a single long Siu Lam Tao form.



Is this long 4 section form still known today? Anyone teaching it?


----------



## DanT (Oct 1, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Is this long 4 section form still known today? Anyone teaching it?


Yes, Wong Wah Bo (Leung Jan's Sifu), also taught two other students: Yik Kam and Law Man Kung. Law Man Kung visited Leung Jan and saw that he had broken down his system into three shorter forms and created a bunch of "wooden dummy sections" from the forth section of the long form. Law Man Kung adopted this lay out from Leung Jan and taught it to his students. Yik Kam however kept it as one long form. Yik Kam passed all his knowledge to the Cho family who preserve the single set today.


----------



## DanT (Oct 1, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Were the two methods vastly different? Do you prefer one over the other (WSL's vs. Moy Yat's)?
> 
> I note you said "Yip Man's BJD form(s)...haha. Makes one wonder just how many different formS he created.


The two pole methods are extremely similar, they have trivial differences.

In terms of the BJD.... the problem was that Yip Man wasn't a good "teacher" in the teaching sense... he would show you a move once and tell you to do it 3000 times while he would go take a nap, then he would come back an hour later and take a quick look, and then go outside and smoke, etc, etc. He wasn't gonna stand there and hold the mitts for you so to speak...

Furthermore, like I said before, for the BJD Yip Man knew drills, combinations, and techniques.  He didn't know a form. He would teach you various drills in a certain order, and that was your "form". As long as you have all the techniques and combinations, and know the applications, you're golden. Certain students showed more interest in the BJD, and they would learn more (William Cheung for example). Other students didn't care for them much (Chu Shon Tin), and would use their time with Yip Man to learn other things.


----------



## KPM (Oct 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> KPM,
> 
> All sources point to an early Wing Chun (prior to the 1850 Taiping Uprising), as having a single form called Siu Lam Tao (shaolin idea), given that it combined Shaolin White Crane and Southern Snake styles..



What sources are you referring to other than Hendrik Santos and the Cho Family Wing Chun lineage?  The whole Yik Kam story is only one lineage's myth as far as I've ever seen.  Where has it been backed up by other sources?   The Cho family could have just as easily taken an original 3 form format and strung it all together for convenience sake, given that they teach so many other things besides the Wing Chun.  Lots of people have disputed what Hendrik has said over the years.  And I've never seen Yik Kam noted in any other lineage's accounts.


----------



## DanT (Oct 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> What sources are you referring to other than Hendrik Santos and the Cho Family Wing Chun lineage?  The whole Yik Kam story is only one lineage's myth as far as I've ever seen.  Where has it been backed up by other sources?   The Cho family could have just as easily taken an original 3 form format and strung it all together for convenience sake, given that they teach so many other things besides the Wing Chun.  Lots of people have disputed what Hendrik has said over the years.  And I've never seen Yik Kam noted in any other lineage's accounts.


Admittedly there is not much evidence outside of the Cho Family.

The Cho Family does have records dating back to Yik Kam however and these suggest a single long form.

Furthermore I have a ton of oral tradition from having spoken to Yip Man's students contemporaries from other lineages who give similar accounts.

I'm working on a Wing Chun family tree back from Leung Lan Kwai / Chung Ng to Yip Man, and I'm trying to include all branches and dates. One day I'll publish it here on martial talk.


----------



## KPM (Oct 2, 2017)

^^^^ Ok.  But that is much different from saying "All sources point to an early Wing Chun having a single form."   "All" sources do not say that at all!


----------



## DanT (Oct 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^ Ok.  But that is much different from saying "All sources point to an early Wing Chun having a single form."   "All" sources do not say that at all!


What I mean is, all sources indicate that there was a single long form, and there aren't any sources that dispute that.


----------



## KPM (Oct 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> What I mean is, all sources indicate that there was a single long form, and there aren't any sources that dispute that.



But  "all sources" do not say there was a single long form.  Only Hendik and Cho family says there was originally a single long form.  I've never seen another lineage story say that, nor have I seen any of the noted Wing Chun "researchers" state that other than Hendrik. Most assume things just started with our current 3 form system.  As I pointed out, it could be just as likely that Wing Chun started as San Sik that were later combined into the 3 forms.  Leung Jan teaching San Sik in Ku Lo village would tend support this.  The Ku Lo guys are at least one source that disputes the "one long form" theory.  The idea that ancestral White Crane was taught as San Sik supports this.  The Tang Yik Weng Chun "1st form" is composed of 11 sections that are each separated from the other by drawing the hands back to the sides just as in the Wing Chun forms.  Each section also has a specific 2 man training set, just like the Ku Lo Wing Chun San Sik each has a 2 man training set.  This suggests that it is possible that even the Weng Chun empty hand material started out as short drills or San Sik.   To me, it makes more sense to develop and teach things in "units" or drills initially.  Then combine them into forms later.   So it seems to me more likely that Wing Chun would have started out as short drills and exercises that were later put together in forms than it is that Wing Chun started right from the beginning as one LONG form that was later broken into separate parts.  Things just typically don't work that way.


----------



## DanT (Oct 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> But  "all sources" do not say there was a single long form.  Only Hendik and Cho family says there was originally a single long form.  I've never seen another lineage story say that, nor have I seen any of the noted Wing Chun "researchers" state that other than Hendrik. Most assume things just started with our current 3 form system.  As I pointed out, it could be just as likely that Wing Chun started as San Sik that were later combined into the 3 forms.  Leung Jan teaching San Sik in Ku Lo village would tend support this.  The Ku Lo guys are at least one source that disputes the "one long form" theory.  The idea that ancestral White Crane was taught as San Sik supports this.  The Tang Yik Weng Chun "1st form" is composed of 11 sections that are each separated from the other by drawing the hands back to the sides just as in the Wing Chun forms.  Each section also has a specific 2 man training set, just like the Ku Lo Wing Chun San Sik each has a 2 man training set.  This suggests that it is possible that even the Weng Chun empty hand material started out as short drills or San Sik.   To me, it makes more sense to develop and teach things in "units" or drills initially.  Then combine them into forms later.   So it seems to me more likely that Wing Chun would have started out as short drills and exercises that were later put together in forms than it is that Wing Chun started right from the beginning as one LONG form that was later broken into separate parts.  Things just typically don't work that way.


You could very well be right. I'll share with you one of the reasons why I feel like it was originally one long form however. If you look at the core form of the Ancestral Bak Hok Kuen system, it is strikingly similar to Siu Nim Tao and Chum Kiu combined. Taking into account that Wing Chun is a combination of Ancestral Bak Hok Kuen and Sei Kuen, and that Biu Jee contains moves primarily found in Sei Kuen (snake style), it's not a stretch to believe that originally whoever founded Wing Chun added on Sei Kuen techniques cleverly at the end of their Ancestral Crane form, and it kicked off from there.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2017)

Perhaps @LFJ could clarify...(or anyone):

What are the names (or "points"?) of the two small wrist movements that guy is doing in the WSL pole form video I posted? Are they small circling "Huen" ideas? Or perhaps a Tan/Fook or Tan/Jaam idea? 

Thx in advance!


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 4, 2018)

In a recent Wing Chun Illustrated magazine article...couple of interesting snippets:


----------



## Marnetmar (Jan 5, 2018)

Who is "many people"? Who wrote that article?


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 5, 2018)

Marnetmar said:


> Who is "many people"? Who wrote that article?



Some dude named Kleber


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2018)

How does the article's info "jive" with discussion we had further up this thread?


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 5, 2018)

KPM said:


> But my feeling is...yes...likely the essential moves in those other forms are also found in the longer Tang Yik form.



Seems to be what the article is hinting at...



KPM said:


> And yet I look at the whole Tang Yik form and think "it doesn't need to be that elaborate!" There should be a happy medium in there somewhere!



Maybe if you deleted the "emphasized" moves...it would be shorter and more 'to the point'?



KPM said:


> Also the history of the Tang Yik lineage notes that Chi Sim's pole form was combined with a spear form at some point.



The article mentions that more circling type motions are not in line with the directness normally associated with WC. Makes one wonder...if a WC pole form contains large or larger Huen methods, is it no longer WC?



KPM said:


> Another school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally a loose collection of techniques and short drills....San Sik



I'm starting to think the "original" WC (empty hand and/or both weapons) may well have been in the San Sik format. Just my gut feeling. 



KPM said:


> I've heard it said that when Leung Jan was teaching the San Sik format in Ku Lo village he was returning to an older version of the system.



The more I read the more I'm starting to see this could be the case...



KPM said:


> This would make it very natural to have originally learned both the knives and the pole in a similar format.....short drills or San Sik with applications that were later organized into longer forms.



Might also explain why now we have SOOOO MANY different versions of it all... haha



KPM said:


> As I pointed out, it could be just as likely that Wing Chun started as San Sik





KPM said:


> How does the article's info "jive" with discussion we had further up this thread?



It seems to say that YM's pole came from Tang Yiks...but that there is a 3.5 pole out there too. 
Also, some of the listed "principles or points" look familiar with others' as stated in this thread and the one you had started a while back.


----------



## Eric_H (Jan 5, 2018)

DanT said:


> Originally Wing Chun only had the empty hand methods. The BJD were added in first, but it is now unknown who incorporated them into the system.



Sorry man, but that statement makes my BS detector go off so hard it broke. Gate theory is a pole/spear concept (live + dead side) and Chi Sao is very clearly derived from the double swords. Per my own line's history, WC was made by a fusion of monk + military knowledge (debatable, I know). From what I've studied, what we do comes from the weapons, not the other way around. If you look outside of WC, this is pretty consistent across many TCMA.


----------



## geezer (Jan 5, 2018)

Eric_H said:


> ... From what I've studied, what we do comes from the weapons, not the other way around. If you look outside of WC, this is pretty consistent across many TCMA.



There is so much in WC empty hand theory that relates to weapon usage that I totally get where you are coming from. Bruce Lee famously made connections with fencing. And I encounter conceptual parallels with weapons usage in  Escrima and Hema all the time... but as to _which came first?_ That's a "chicken or the egg" argument. Both the empty-handed and weapons concepts that are at the core of WC existed long before the WC lineages we practice today emerged in the 19th Century. Most likely they evolved together with a shared conceptual base.  

On the other hand, one guy I know, who is very well informed, does believe that the Biu Tze form was specifically designed to incorporate principles taken from the Baat cham dao.


----------

