# Tang Yik pole



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

I hear that Tang Yik pole is very good and that it contains more than standard VT pole. What are the differences and why do they make for a better pole form?


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 27, 2016)

This could be interesting. The age old question "is more better?". Looking forward to hearing more on this.


----------



## yak sao (Apr 27, 2016)

I did some correspondence with Sifu Sergio some years back and we were discussing the long pole from Yip Man lineage.
It was his belief that the pole form from the YM lineage is the first section of an 18 section form. Whether that is all that YM knew of the form or he only taught that one section is up for speculation.
But I would love to see that form...is the Tang Yik pole form the "lost form"?


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

yak sao said:


> I did some correspondence with Sifu Sergio some years back and we were discussing the long pole from Yip Man lineage.
> It was his belief that the pole form from the YM lineage is the first section of an 18 section form. Whether that is all that YM knew of the form or he only taught that one section is up for speculation.
> But I would love to see that form...is the Tang Yik pole form the "lost form"?



I don't know what the "lost form" refers to or what the 18 section pole form is.  But the Tang Yik pole form has been no secret.  Ip Man lineage pole is not the first section of the Tang Yik pole form.  But ask yourself this......Why do so many Ip Man lineage people not only have a different pole form from each other, but don't even agree on what the "6 1/2 points" are?  So I think it is unlikely that Ip Man pole is a portion of anything that came before it.  I think Ip Man had the concepts of the pole and played with around with ways to apply them and varied the sequence of the moves he taught to people.  Or perhaps he only taught brief movements and concepts (somewhat like the Pin Sun sets) and then others put things together in a longer form to suit themselves.  Hard to say since none of us were there.  But I think the pole is where we see the widest variance between Ip Man lineages.  This is one area where I would have to agree with Guy and LFJ that .....given this was considered advanced training at the end of the curriculum....many people likely didn't learn much pole if at all from Ip Man, and ad libed on their own later.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

As far as an "18 section pole form".....the more reasonable theory that I have heard is that there was an old "13 section spear form" and that the pole may have derived from this.  The spear was done on both sides and the pole only on one.  So when you do only half of the "13 section spear form" you end up with "6 1/2 point pole" form.  But I don't know whether this is true or not!


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> This could be interesting. The age old question "is more better?". Looking forward to hearing more on this.



Maybe.  Maybe not!  Many ring fighters only use 5 or 6 of their "favorite" techniques that they know very well and have a high  confidence in their reliability.  But they might have trained many more techniques to have in the toolbox "just in case"!   

And let's face it...none of us are going to have to fight with or defend ourselves with a long pole!  If you see the pole only as a conditioning tool, then you can do a relatively short form or series of drills over and over just like you would lifting weights.  Or you could do a longer more challenging form that is much less boring to practice!   If you see practicing the pole as preserving a fighting style or tradition and want to keep it as "reality based" as possible.....just take a look at the other pole/staff based weapons forms out their in the world of CMAs.   How many of them only consist of 5 or 6 moves that can be completed in 20 to 30 seconds?  Some CMAs have multiple pole forms.  I don't really see the need for that.  But how can you say to are preserving a practical fighting method if it is not relatively comprehensive?  And how is a comprehensive fighting method going to get by on only half a dozen or so moves?

So, my biased opinion?  In the case of comparing Tang Yik Pole to most of the Ip Man Pole I have seen....more is certainly better in the sense that it is more comprehensive as a fighting method. 

And for those that haven't seen it yet, here is the classic footage of Tang Yik doing the pole form.  Realize that this is a compilation of 3 different filmings and the whole thing is not one long form.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

The astute among you might spot a movement in the form above that was intended for thrusting up and behind a bamboo shield, or one that was intended for smacking a guy rolling on the ground to try and close past the point of the pole.  Are those really needed for fighting today?  No!  But then the pole itself isn't really need for fighting today in general!


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I hear that Tang Yik pole is very good and that it contains more than standard VT pole. What are the differences and why do they make for a better pole form?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some considered opinions FWIW.
1. Students in IM's open classes-usually taught by some one else did not really learn IM's pole.
2. 6 1/2 is not the number of motions in IM's pole work.
4. IM's form is different from Tang Yiks and incorporates Im wing chun principles.
5 I have seen Ho Kam Ming's kwan  work which he learned from IM
6 IM's pole work is not flowery neither is his hand work-just effective.No negative comments on Tang Yil intended-I respect him and his contributions.
7 it is infused with principles and concepts
8 IM's pole can be used in many directions  and in both ends-the long side more frequently
but the short side as well


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> The spear was done on both sides and the pole only on one.


It should be the other way around. You can use

- "only" the spear head to stab.
- both ends of your pole to strike.

Since most staff/pole technique are double heads. Back in 1973, I asked the CMA magazine 新武侠 in Hong Kong about why the "WC 6 and 1/2 pole form" is single head. Some one from that magazine told me it came from spear form after the spear head was removed.


----------



## geezer (Apr 27, 2016)

John, I think KPM meant _both to the left and the right_, not both ends.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

geezer said:


> John, I think KPM meant _both to the left and the right_, not both ends.



Yes that's right.  I meant holding the pole with the left hand in front and switching to hold the pole with the right hand in front.  You can see from the video I posted that the tail as well as the head of the pole are both used in Tang Yik Weng Chun.


----------



## dudewingchun (Apr 27, 2016)

I know nothing about history of the pole but apparently Ip man was very skilled with it and could drive a nail into a wall with his pole according to Duncan Leung who said he saw it in person.


----------



## KPM (Apr 28, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I hear that Tang Yik pole is very good and that it contains more than standard VT pole. What are the differences and why do they make for a better pole form?



I am not sure of your frame of reference.  So if you would like to post a few videos of what you consider to be good representations of Ip Man Pole, I would be happy to point out what differences I see.


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> I am not sure of your frame of reference.  So if you would like to post a few videos of what you consider to be good representations of Ip Man Pole, I would be happy to point out what differences I see.



I think the first and most obvious would be duration(?). That Tang Yik form is quite lengthy. I think another difference may be whether different lineage pole forms contain circles, and if so, how big of a circle/huen concept, etc.
One thing for sure...I bet that old Tang Yik dude was fairly strong for his size...with a lifetime of wielding a pole form like that!


----------



## geezer (Apr 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> I am not sure of your frame of reference.  So if you would like to post a few videos of what you consider to be good representations of Ip Man Pole, I would be happy to point out what differences I see.



Are there any good videos of Yip Man Luk Dim Boom Kwun Fa out there? I know the version LT taught was not on youtube last time I checked.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> I am not sure of your frame of reference.  So if you would like to post a few videos of what you consider to be good representations of Ip Man Pole, I would be happy to point out what differences I see.



Some good pole in these clips:


----------



## KPM (Apr 29, 2016)

^^^ Not a lot to go on in those videos.  Very short exchanges.  No actual Pole form.   Looking back, here is the answer I had when you asked this same question on a previous thread:

_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!_


----------



## KPM (Apr 29, 2016)

I did ask Sifu Tang about the length of the pole.  He said the very long 8 and 9 foot poles are only for training.  Back in the day they may have been used in defense when more than one guy with a pole could stand side by side.  The issue with a long pole is that once an opponent gets past the point, they can be hard to deal with!  The longer the pole is, the more of an issue this becomes!  Sifu Tang teaches that the optimal length of the pole is 7 feet long.  This is long enough to give you good advantage against other weapons, but still short enough to counter someone who might get past the point.  Weight is also an issue with the length of the pole.  If the pole is too heavy, then it is harder to move around very quickly to keep someone from getting past the point.  The longer and heavier poles are therefore used for conditioning and the shorter and lighter poles for actual training and fighting.  Sifu Tang has a pole that is only 5 feet long.  But it is solid stainless steel and is a beast to train with!  

  It was the same in the western world.   In the late medieval and early Renn periods in Europe armies fought with formations of Pikemen.  A Pike was essentially a pointed pole about from 9 to 12 feet long.  They stood in formations shoulder-to-shoulder to keep the enemy from being able to close in.    The "Dopplesoldat" were large men armed with 2-handed swords that were in the front of the infantry formation.  Their job was to move forward and try to sweep the Pikes off-line with their large swords so the foot soldiers could close past the points. 

So from that perspective, if your lineage trains exclusively with an 8 or 9 foot heavy pole, then likely it sees it as a conditioning method and not a real weapon.


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 29, 2016)

KPM said:


> I did ask Sifu Tang about the length of the pole.  He said the very long 8 and 9 foot poles are only for training.  Back in the day they may have been used in defense when more than one guy with a pole could stand side by side.  The issue with a long pole is that once an opponent gets past the point, they can be hard to deal with!  The longer the pole is, the more of an issue this becomes!  Sifu Tang teaches that the optimal length of the pole is 7 feet long.  This is long enough to give you good advantage against other weapons, but still short enough to counter someone who might get past the point.  Weight is also an issue with the length of the pole.  If the pole is too heavy, then it is harder to move around very quickly to keep someone from getting past the point.  The longer and heavier poles are therefore used for conditioning and the shorter and lighter poles for actual training and fighting.  Sifu Tang has a pole that is only 5 feet long.  But it is solid stainless steel and is a beast to train with!
> 
> It was the same in the western world.   In the late medieval and early Renn periods in Europe armies fought with formations of Pikemen.  A Pike was essentially a pointed pole about from 9 to 12 feet long.  They stood in formations shoulder-to-shoulder to keep the enemy from being able to close in.    The "Dopplesoldat" were large men armed with 2-handed swords that were in the front of the infantry formation.  Their job was to move forward and try to sweep the Pikes off-line with their large swords so the foot soldiers could close past the points.
> 
> So from that perspective, if your lineage trains exclusively with an 8 or 9 foot heavy pole, then likely it sees it as a conditioning method and not a real weapon.



Interesting stuff. Thx.

I have a 10' for conditioning; and the typical 9' foot (also mostly used for conditioning and to hang pretty on my wall  .

But for weapon length, 7 foot it is! After training and conditioning the body to handle the 10' pole, the 7' pole is super easy and can be wielded with enormous amounts of speed and power and accuracy and whip, etc. I also have a 6' pole; and another 6' pole made of metal. It makes for interesting training! hahaha


----------



## KPM (Apr 29, 2016)

Is this representative of Ip Man Pole?


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 29, 2016)

KPM said:


> Is this representative of Ip Man Pole?



I hope not.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 29, 2016)

KPM said:


> Is this representative of Ip Man Pole?



I am not a fan


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> Is this representative of Ip Man Pole?


Interesting.  I'm not wing chun, I'm Tibetan white crane.  While the overall choreography of the set is very different, the fundamental techniques that are being repeated are identical to one of our pole sets.


----------



## Marnetmar (Apr 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> Is this representative of Ip Man Pole?



Nothing against Samuel Kwok, but I don't think he's ever exactly been a benchmark for really anything having to do with Yip Man WC


----------



## KPM (Apr 30, 2016)

Ok.  Then how about Ip Ching's version?


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ok.  Then how about Ip Ching's version?



Yikes!

Do you guys thrust the pole like kwok and the guy in this video??? Makes no sense to me.

Thx for posting this though...didn't know this was Ip Ching pole


----------



## KPM (Apr 30, 2016)

Ok....then somebody...anybody....post an Ip Man pole form video that they think is worth watching!  ;-)


----------



## LFJ (May 1, 2016)

You haven't learned the YM pole?


----------



## KPM (May 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You haven't learned the YM pole?



Yes.  I learned the version taught by Augustine Fong many many years ago.  But I didn't keep it up and couldn't perform the entire sequence today.  But I am still pretty familiar with the mechanics used in Ip Man Pole.   I think Sifu Fong's pole was a little bit "elaborated" with some things added.  It is much longer than most Ip Man lineage's Pole forms. 

 I asked for someone to post a good representative Ip Man pole form so that as I pointed out differences people following along would have a reference for what I was saying.  Guy asked me to describe the difference between Ip Man pole and Tang Yik pole.  I posted the Tang Yik pole video as a reference for people to see.  In order to make a fair comparison we need a good Ip Man pole form for reference.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 1, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Yikes!
> 
> Do you guys thrust the pole like kwok and the guy in this video??? Makes no sense to me.
> 
> Thx for posting this though...didn't know this was Ip Ching pole



How would you thrust the pole? Im just curious because its something iv always wandered about.


----------



## wckf92 (May 1, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> How would you thrust the pole? Im just curious because its something iv always wandered about.



rear arm / elbow is out and raised


----------



## KPM (May 1, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> rear arm / elbow is out and raised



In the Tang Yik pole, the rear elbow should not be out and raised!  It should be tucked into the body so that both shoulders and the pole make one straight line.  If the elbow comes up, the rear shoulder comes forward and you break that straight line that provides the best power vector for the thrust.  Another mistake often seen is holding the pole with the rear hand palm up during the thrust.  This is not a secure grip.  If your pole is countered by a strong blow from above, the back of the pole is going to come out of your hand and slam upward into your face!  The rear hand should be palm down to prevent this.


----------



## wckf92 (May 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> In the Tang Yik pole, the rear elbow should not be out and raised!  It should be tucked into the body so that both shoulders and the pole make one straight line.  If the elbow comes up, the rear shoulder comes forward and you break that straight line that provides the best power vector for the thrust.  Another mistake often seen is holding the pole with the rear hand palm up during the thrust.  This is not a secure grip.  If your pole is countered by a strong blow from above, the back of the pole is going to come out of your hand and slam upward into your face!  The rear hand should be palm down to prevent this.



Yeah, should have been more descriptive...
When I said 'out' and 'raised' I meant in relation to the "norm" we see out there in wc land.
BTW, I agree about the orientation of the hands/grip. This is how I do it as well.


----------



## wckf92 (May 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ok....then somebody...anybody....post an Ip Man pole form video that they think is worth watching!  ;-)



Here are some others I found on YT (for reference and discussion purposes WRT the Tang Yik form)


























Wing Chun Long Pole Form (Chris Chan Lineage)

Wing Chun Long Pole Form

Wing Chun Pole Form: Luk Dim Boon Kwan


----------



## wckf92 (May 1, 2016)

just found this:






tang yik form(?)


----------



## LFJ (May 1, 2016)

Can't say I'm too keen on what has been shown as "YM pole" so far. Lots of disconnected upper and lower body, no whole body force, poor footwork, weak arms, etc..

Here's the only video I can find showing the full set of the WSL version.

Form:




Solo Training:




Partner Training:


----------



## KPM (May 1, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> just found this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes!  That is my friend Max Kraft from Berlin.


----------



## KPM (May 1, 2016)

Ok.  After a quick perusal, here's what I see:

1.  Almost everyone is making what is considered a fundamental mistake in Tang Yik pole.....gripping in a palm up position with the rear hand during the thrust.  This will get you smacked in the face with your own pole if the opponent defends with a downward blow on your pole!
2.  CST himself is making the second mistake I mentioned before....he is letting his rear elbow and therefore also the rear shoulder move forward during the thrust and not keeping a straight line vector with the pole and the shoulders.
3.  No lateral footwork (or at least very little) in the Ip Man forms.  This is considered very important in Tang Yik pole, and you see lots of it in the form!  The Tang Yik pole has a wider range of footwork in general.
4.  Obviously much less variety of movement and technique in the Ip Man forms.  The Tang Yik version is much more comprehensive as a fighting method.
5.  Tang Yik pole mechanics uses the front leg for support, power, and control of the pole.  This is how you avoid "muscling" the pole...even one of the long heavy ones.  This is how you can move quickly and precisely....your lower body is moving the pole, not your upper body.  Watch most of the Ip Man versions for comparison and see how often they look like they are "muscling" the pole around.
6.  Very little low-line defense in the Ip Man version.   Watch the Tang Yik footage again.  If you pay attention you will see a low sweep prior to the half-circle to regain the line at almost every transition.  This is called "Po Kwan" and Sifu said it should really be considered another "point" because it is used so often!  Then it would be a "7 1/2 point pole form"!


----------



## geezer (May 1, 2016)

I couldn't find any clips of LT's Ip Man long-pole form. One of the clips posted (the "Wing Chun Sweden" guys) use the "WT" spelling but are not practicing LT's form. I'm not surprised since LT holds the pole and knives back and charges a fortune for them.

At any rate, Having learned (very badly, I admit) LT's form (lack of regular practice and correction will do that ya know) ...I'm totally in agreement with KPM about the elbow position and rear hand. LT taught keeping the elbow pointing down by your side and the rear hand palm down so that an opponent's sharp downward strike on your pole wouldn't cause the butt end to pop upwards out of your hand and into your face!!! Here's a clip by Alex Richter that shows that detail:






BTW: LT's form is very short (28 moves as I count them). We do step sideways to perform our "half fence" movement, but the form doesn't have the kind of light, quick lateral movement seen in the Tang Yik video. Those steps look very useful ...if you ever were to actually fight with a pole anyway.


----------



## LFJ (May 2, 2016)

KPM said:


> 1.  Almost everyone is making what is considered a fundamental mistake in Tang Yik pole.....gripping in a palm up position with the rear hand during the thrust.  This will get you smacked in the face with your own pole if the opponent defends with a downward blow on your pole!



What makes this a real threat is people holding the pole too low and thrusting incorrectly, not to mention lack of strategy. We generally won't just go thrusting at people as a first action. We want to open a line of attack so that the opponent's pole is not above ours during the thrust anyway.

But unless someone is twice your height, they shouldn't be able to deliver a downward blow to a high thrust held correctly, but only smack it sideward or diagonally downward at best. In which case, so long as the rear hand is not overly rotated, the pole will be securely supported by the thenar eminence. It should also not be right under your face anyway, but inside the front shoulder.

Done correctly, a good rotation of the pole will add penetrating force without risk of getting the pole smacked out of your hands. Spiralling a "punch" from the rear hand is a common spear method in both Northern and Southern styles. Just have to know how and when to do it. It doesn't appear many YM lineages have a grasp of pole strategy outside the form.



> 2.  CST himself is making the second mistake I mentioned before....he is letting his rear elbow and therefore also the rear shoulder move forward during the thrust and not keeping a straight line vector with the pole and the shoulders.



By forward, you mean perpendicular to the body and line of attack? I agree. Should be in alignment with the thrust. 

Rotating the rear hand helps keep the elbow in without having an awkward wrist position which can break connection to the stance.



> 3.  No lateral footwork (or at least very little) in the Ip Man forms.  This is considered very important in Tang Yik pole, and you see lots of it in the form!  The Tang Yik pole has a wider range of footwork in general.
> 4.  Obviously much less variety of movement and technique in the Ip Man forms.  The Tang Yik version is much more comprehensive as a fighting method.



TY pole does appear to have more footwork and technique variety, but the YM pole form is not the entirety of the pole system.

Just like the knives, or in fact the rest of the empty hand system, the forms are just homework. The meat of the fighting method and training system is contained in the many drills we do. We are always more mobile in application than the forms let on.



> 5.  Tang Yik pole mechanics uses the front leg for support, power, and control of the pole.  This is how you avoid "muscling" the pole...even one of the long heavy ones.  This is how you can move quickly and precisely....your lower body is moving the pole, not your upper body.  Watch most of the Ip Man versions for comparison and see how often they look like they are "muscling" the pole around.



Absolutely. TY does this very well. Most "YM" versions have a glaring disconnect of upper and lower body. No whole body force.



> 6.  Very little low-line defense in the Ip Man version.   Watch the Tang Yik footage again.  If you pay attention you will see a low sweep prior to the half-circle to regain the line at almost every transition.  This is called "Po Kwan" and Sifu said it should really be considered another "point" because it is used so often!  Then it would be a "7 1/2 point pole form"!



Well, that's cool. I like TY pole, but it appears to differ in strategy. I don't think there's a need for any more low-line defense than what is there in YM pole. It's enough for the strategy to work.


----------



## guy b. (May 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Can't say I'm too keen on what has been shown as "YM pole" so far. Lots of disconnected upper and lower body, no whole body force, poor footwork, weak arms, etc..
> 
> Here's the only video I can find showing the full set of the WSL version.
> 
> ...



Some good clips, thanks


----------

