# Pole vs. Empty Hands



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

I don't know how many others have been tracking the discussions on the relationship between Wing Chun empty hands and Wing Chun Pole.   And no Jake, this is not an attempt to trick or trap anyone!  

The theory put forth is that Wing Chun empty hands must be based on and actually derived from the Pole method because they have such a close correspondence to the empty hands.  The main element of this theory is this "close correspondence."  However, this "close correspondence" has not yet been out-lined in any detail.  I see some obvious correspondence, as I am sure many others do.   But I am not seeing such a "close correspondence" that would convince me that the empty hands come entirely from the Pole method. 

So I am inviting Guy or LFJ to outline that "close correspondence" to strengthen their argument and perhaps convince us that there is some merit to it. 

Remember... the competing theory, which is the mainstream belief amongst most Wing Chun people that I have encountered is this......the Wing Chun empty hands method already existed, how highly developed it might have been is open to debate....then the Pole method was added to the empty hands method fairly early on.  The Pole method influenced the development and evolution of the empty hand method and likely vice versa.  Most lineage legendary histories say that Wong Wah Bo had learned Wing Chun empty hands from Leung Bok Chao (Yim Wing Chun's husband) and that Leung Yee Tai had learned Pole method from Chi Sim.   Wong and Leung became friends on the Red Boats and exchanged techniques.  Wong added Leung's Pole method to his Wing Chun and from then on they have been taught together.  So over close to a 200 year period it just stands to reason that the strategies and tactics of the empty hands and Pole would track fairly closely together.   Regardless of how much faith you are willing to put in to the old stories, they often have a kernel of truth in them.  The kernel in this one being simply that the Pole was added after the fact to the Wing Chun empty hands, but likely at a early date in its history and that the Pole influenced the further development of the empty hands.

Examining other theories is interesting and thought-provoking and fun to discuss.  So again, I hope that Guy or LFJ will provide us with a good description of the close correspondence they see between the empty hands and the Pole that will strengthen their theory that the empty hand derived entirely from the Pole method.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!


----------



## Danny T (Dec 25, 2015)

You are, I'm certain, wanting more but most all of the training & application of the pole techniques I've experienced has close correspondence in that both hands are being utilized simultaneously and mostly doing something different from each other yet working in unison for a particular goal.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

Why are you starting yet another thread?



KPM said:


> the mainstream belief amongst most Wing Chun people that I have encountered



Popularity of a belief is irrelevant in terms of its truth content. I think I have mentioned this before.



> most lineage legendary histories



Legends are irrelevant in terms of reality



> so over close to a 200 year period



Wing chun is not 200 years old



> it just stands to reason that the strategies and tactics of the empty hands and Pole would track fairly closely together



Then why don't pole and empty hands track fairly close together in all of the other Southern Chinese MA with the same pole from the same time and place in history?



> I hope that Guy or LFJ will provide us with a good description of the close correspondence they see between the empty hands and the Pole



Already done, please check back


----------



## LFJ (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Then why don't pole and empty hands track fairly close together in all of the other Southern Chinese MA with the same pole from the same time and place in history?



He said possibly because Wing Chun practitioners _chose_ to map their pre-existing empty-hand system more closely to the pole. In which case, he's still coming to the same conclusion and arguing for nothing; that the empty-hand system is modelled on the pole. It just becomes a question of when, originally or gradually?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

LFJ said:


> He said possibly because Wing Chun practitioners _chose_ to map their pre-existing empty-hand system more closely to the pole. In which case, he's still coming to the same conclusion and arguing for nothing; that the empty-hand system is modelled on the pole. It just becomes a question of when, originally or gradually?



Good point


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

Danny T said:


> You are, I'm certain, wanting more but most all of the training & application of the pole techniques I've experienced has close correspondence in that both hands are being utilized simultaneously and mostly doing something different from each other yet working in unison for a particular goal.



But that is also true of the knives!


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Already done, please check back



Nope.  All you have done in your post is rehash what we've already said.  The purpose of starting another thread was to start fresh and not continue rehashing things.  And you never outlined these "close correspondences" in any kind of detail.  So are you willing to support your theory or not?


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

LFJ said:


> He said possibly because Wing Chun practitioners _chose_ to map their pre-existing empty-hand system more closely to the pole. In which case, he's still coming to the same conclusion and arguing for nothing; that the empty-hand system is modelled on the pole. It just becomes a question of when, originally or gradually?



Nope.  My theory allows for there being a lot in the empty hands that is NOT found in the Pole.  I said the Pole contributed to the development and evolution of the empty hands.  That is not the same as saying it is based entirely on the Pole or "modeled" on the Pole.   So again, are you willing to support your theory and explain these "close correspondences" or not?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> But that is also true of the knives!


Absolutely; I was being a bit facetious.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> you never outlined these "close correspondences" in any kind of detail.  So are you willing to support your theory or not?



See the "tension" thread, post number 32, where I provide a quotation outlining the close correspondence between pole and hands.


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> See the "tension" thread, post number 32, where I provide a quotation outlining the close correspondence between pole and hands.



---Oh!  So that's your idea of a "close correspondence"?  That's it?  Really?   And let's see....I believe I pointed out how most of those same principles were found in western fencing and a good number of them also apply with the knives.  But if that's all you've got.......   I guess I'll go on believing the current accepted theory then.  Thanks anyway!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---Oh!  So that's your idea of a "close correspondence"?  That's it?  Really?   And let's see....I believe I pointed out how most of those same principles were found in western fencing and a good number of them also apply with the knives.  But if that's all you've got.......   I guess I'll go on believing the current accepted theory then.  Thanks anyway!



Your reply to the points made in that thread came before you were introduced to the idea of differences in principle/concept vs differences in shape. If you revisit it now then your answers should be different. 

If you need more then you will need to wait a bit- it is Christmas


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Your reply to the points made in that thread came before you were introduced to the idea of differences in principle/concept vs differences in shape. If you revisit it now then your answers should be different.



Sorry.  I didn't need to be "introduced" to anything.  And my answers are the same because what you said doesn't make any difference to the logical points I made.   Look, I started a new thread as a clean slate and on a positive note inviting you to share further information to support your theory.  If you aren't interested in doing that, fine.  I guess this particular discussion is over.  Like I said before, you've proven to not be a very good conversationalist!


----------



## LFJ (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> Nope.  My theory allows for there being a lot in the empty hands that is NOT found in the Pole.



The mere fact of having two free and flexible arms allows for that!



> So again, are you willing to support your theory and explain these "close correspondences" or not?



Shared concepts and strategies, and techniques corresponding in function.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Sorry.  I didn't need to be "introduced" to anything.  And my answers are the same because what you said doesn't make any difference to the logical points I made.   Look, I started a new thread as a clean slate and on a positive note inviting you to share further information to support your theory.  If you aren't interested in doing that, fine.  I guess this particular discussion is over.  Like I said before, you've proven to not be a very good conversationalist!



I'm happy to try and further describe these commonalities, but I am busy with Christmas and so please have patience if I don't respond immediately.

Your previous response addressed similarities in shape and technique between western fencing and wing chun hands, and western fencing and wing chun pole. I think I then asked if you believe that fencing and wing chun rely upon the same set of concepts and principles, which I don't think you answered.

The category of difference being highlighted between core hands plus pole and knives plus emergency techniques is one of concept and principle, not one of technique and shape. You did not address this. It is easier in a conversation to follow a single line rather than jumping around too much.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

I'm happy to try and further describe these commonalities, but I am busy with Christmas and so please have patience if I don't respond immediately.

---You seem to have time to post on several other threads.  But no, don't bother.  I have the distinct sense that you will just continue to rehash what has already been said and have nothing further to contribute.


Your previous response addressed similarities in shape and technique between western fencing and wing chun hands, and western fencing and wing chun pole. I think I then asked if you believe that fencing and wing chun rely upon the same set of concepts and principles, which I don't think you answered.

---No.  I don't think you ever really asked that.  Go back and re-read.  I think that was right before you essentially called me a liar by saying I really disagreed with something I said I agreed with, right after I explained WHY I agreed with it.  ;-) 


 It is easier in a conversation to follow a single line rather than jumping around too much.

---Says the guy that jumps all over the place and didn't stay on topic on a thread that was started just for him!


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

So, maybe others have been convinced by Guy's and LFJ's theory?  I have not.  But we seem to be making no further progress and it is time to move on.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> You seem to have time to post on several other threads.  But no, don't bother.  I have the distinct sense that you will just continue to rehash what has already been said and have nothing further to contribute.



I can provide further detail on the correspondence between pole and empty hands and avoid going over things previously covered if you want. If not then also fine. I have made my point about the correspondence between pole and hands. Further posts and threads mostly consisted of responses to your attacks on this idea. If you don't wish to talk about it any more then that is fine, I may continue to do so. 

I am interested in more detail on Tan Yik pole but will get from somewhere else because you seem not to want to talk about it. 



> No.  I don't think you ever really asked that.  Go back and re-read.  I think that was right before you essentially called me a liar by saying I really disagreed with something I said I agreed with, right after I explained WHY I agreed with it.  ;-)



See the Tension thread post 43. So given that I did ask, what is your response?



			
				guy b. said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the techniques of western fencing are the same as those of wing chun? If so then are you also saying that they function according to the same principles?



I haven't called you a liar and don't think you are one. I think you just get a bit confused sometimes, for example above.



> Says the guy that jumps all over the place and didn't stay on topic on a thread that was started just for him!



There are already many threads on this topic.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> So, maybe others have been convinced by Guy's and LFJ's theory?  I have not.  But we seem to be making no further progress and it is time to move on.



If you don't want to talk about it then perhaps don't make loads of threads about it?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> See the Tension thread post 43. So given that I did ask, what is your response?
> 
> 
> .



From the tension thread post 44.  You obviously don't read very closely.

You asked:
Are you saying that the techniques of western fencing are the same as those of wing chun? If so then are you also saying that they function according to the same principles?

And I replied:
 A lot of them use the same principles, yes. Both methods have a long pointy weapon, stand sideways in relation to the opponent and use a 4 quadrant idea of defense. So it shouldn't be a surprise that they are somewhat similar. But does this mean that Wing Chun Pole and modern Olympic fencing are the identical? No! No more than similarities between the pole and Wing Chun empty hands means they are identical and that the empty hands derived from the pole.

---You asked if they function according to the same principles, not what those principles are.  My reply was "yes, a lot of them use the same principles."   Happy now?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> If you don't want to talk about it then perhaps don't make loads of threads about it?



Look.  I already noted that I started this thread to give a clean slate on a positive note and invite you to provide further input to support your theory.  Because I was still interested in what you had to say.   Now you are just being an a$$hole and I have lost interest in anything further you might have to say.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> A lot of them use the same principles, yes. Both methods have a long pointy weapon, stand sideways in relation to the opponent and use a 4 quadrant idea of defense. So it shouldn't be a surprise that they are somewhat similar. But does this mean that Wing Chun Pole and modern Olympic fencing are the identical? No! No more than similarities between the pole and Wing Chun empty hands means they are identical and that the empty hands derived from the pole.
> 
> ---You asked if they function according to the same principles, not what those principles are.  My reply was "yes, a lot of them use the same principles."   Happy now?



Sorry I didn't see that. But then you didn't think I had asked the question either- it is easy to forget.

To move this on then, which principles and/or concepts do wing chun pole and western fencing share?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Look.  I already noted that I started this thread to give a clean slate on a positive note and invite you to provide further input to support your theory.  Because I was still interested in what you had to say.   Now you are just being an a$$hole and I have lost interest in anything further you might have to say.



Again, sorry if I have offended you. It is not intentional.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Sorry I didn't see that. But then you didn't think I had asked the question either- it is easy to forget.
> 
> To move this on then, which principles and/or concepts do wing chun pole and western fencing share?



It was the post right after the one you quoted!!!!!!   Sorry, I'm done discussing anything with you.  Have a nice weekend.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> It was the post right after the one you quoted!!!!!!   Sorry, I'm done discussing anything with you.  Have a nice weekend.



You sound upset?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You sound upset?



Upset? No.  Frustrated with dealing with someone that seems to have a problem with reading comprehension?  Yeah.  Maybe a little.  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Sorry. What am I not understanding that you wish to communicate?


----------

