# Yip Man's curriculum changes



## DanT

This is a short summery on research I have done through both readings and speaking to various Sifus on the historical changes to Yip Man's wing chun curriculum, from teaching in Foshan to Hong Kong. 

Age 24 (1917 - Yip Man returns to Foshan):
-Mook Jong had several different short forms
-Bat Jam Do form non-existent, drills used instead
-Chi Sao not practiced till after Cham Kiu (approx 3 years)
-Siu Nim Tao practiced for at least 2 years before Cham Kiu learned
-No footwork till Cham Kiu (just turning stance)

Age 45 (1938 - Yip Man teaches neighbours wing chun for self defence vs Japanese):
-curriculum restructured to increase combat skills quickly
-Footwork taught almost right away
-kicks simplified
-wooden dummy forms combined, result is one single form of 72? moves
-only kick on wooden dummy now is front kick
-Cham Kiu taught after 1 year
-Chi Sao introduced after a few months
-No Bat Jam Do or Staff taught 

Age 56 (1949 - Yip Man flees to Hong Kong, teaches full time):
(At this point, he needed a curriculum  that would keep students interested and quickly start wining at beimo fights to attract more students. The curriculum also needed to last longer to retain students over a longer period of time):
-Mook Jong form increased from 72? Moves to 108 then 116 then back to 108
-footwork and chi sao still introduced as soon as possible
-more kicks reintroduced to Mook Jong 
-Bat Jam Do form created? Or at least learnt from Yeun Kay Shan and the taught
-Staff form taught / created

As you can see from above, Yip Man's curriculum changed depending on the circumstance he found himself in.


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> As you can see from above, Yip Man's curriculum changed depending on the circumstance he found himself in.



And to me at least it seems illogical to think, as he was changing it, that said change suddenly stopped.  First, when you change something you rarely feel it is "right" with the "first go".  Second I am sure, as it was part of his advertising, that he would "debrief" his students after the beimo fights and by drawing on their experiences likely made further refinements as he had already made changes in the first place.  

It wouldn't make sense to be sending people off to beimo fights and not use that experience as a test bed to see what worked and what didn't.  One of the interesting things about HK, at least according to the family of a friend of mine that was born there, is that especially after the Communists won, people from all over China fled there.  Mainland China is vast and at the time there was not really a National transportation system as we know it, cars were rare etc.  So, according to them, you could live in the south practicing the martial arts available locally and never see a style from the north, for yourself, in your life time.  However HK brought different styles into very close proximity and the beimo fights allowed them to be tested against each other.


----------



## Juany118

Another silly double post.  What's up with the forums?


----------



## Juany118

Father Slavic said:


> I don't get the "defense against Jaanese" part . Using kung fu , even with some kind of kung fu weapon will not give any reslut besdes death, against hevely armd and well equiped force , like japanese army of that time was. How kung fu works against fire arms was documented during Boxer rebellion



It's about how an occupation works and living through it, not open rebellion.

It's not about fighting on a battlefield.  There were Chinese collaborators who worked as "cops" for the Japanese government, tax collectors etc.  You have soldiers in a local bar who at best might have a pistol off duty, you don't walk around with a Rifle 24/7.  You then have the criminal element that tends to flourish during occupations.  So it is more about protecting themselves from abuse at their own door or on the street.


----------



## LFJ

It must be taken into account that students can only say what _they_ learned, but not what they _didn't_ learn.

In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception. Highly unlikely that YM created them himself long after the empty hand method had been developed.

Also, this bit makes 0 sense;



DanT said:


> -curriculum restructured to increase combat skills quickly
> -
> -
> -
> -Cham Kiu taught after 1 year



SNT with no CK for 1 year is not going to increase combat skills quickly. 
SNT is useless for fighting without CK knowledge and training. CK is what makes it functional.

And 2 years of SNT without CK is a waste of one's life!

Perhaps someone was just an extraordinarily slow learner or didn't attend training very often at all.


----------



## KPM

*In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception. Highly unlikely that YM created them himself long after the empty hand method had been developed.*

----Why would it be highly unlikely?  You don't seem to give YM much credit for being smart and innovative.  Reminds me about past discussions involving WSL!   He would not have created the pole or knives forms from scratch.  It has already been stated that people trained short sequences and movements prior to longer forms.  YM had very likely trained the pole and knives this way for awhile.  Its already been stated that YM borrowed some of his pole from seeing the guys training at Dai Duk Lan.  The Wing Chun knives are simply an extension of the empty hand methods.  That's how they are trained today in Ku Lo Pin Sun without using a long form at all.  Its a well known fact that what YM taught in Foshan differs from what he taught in Hong Kong.  He developed and evolved his system.  So I don't see it as unlikely at all that YM developed his own forms for the knives and the pole and made sure that the concepts behind them fit with and were an integrated part of the rest of the system.  I mean, geez, give the guy some credit for being the Grandmaster of his own version of Wing Chun!!!  

Looks like the forum double post "echo" problem has been solved!


----------



## DanT

LFJ said:


> It must be taken into account that students can only say what _they_ learned, but not what they _didn't_ learn.
> 
> In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception. Highly unlikely that YM created them himself long after the empty hand method had been developed.
> 
> Also, this bit makes 0 sense;
> 
> 
> 
> SNT with no CK for 1 year is not going to increase combat skills quickly.
> SNT is useless for fighting without CK knowledge and training. CK is what makes it functional.
> 
> And 2 years of SNT without CK is a waste of one's life!
> 
> Perhaps someone was just an extraordinarily slow learner or didn't attend training very often at all.


Take into account that:
-the students were already learning all the footwork after a few weeks
-Cham Kiu used to be taught after several years, not just one, until Yip Man pushed it more towards the front end of the learning curve.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I don't see it as unlikely at all



I can see why you wouldn't.



DanT said:


> *Take into account that*:
> -the students were already learning all the footwork after a few weeks
> -Cham Kiu used to be taught after several years, not just one, until Yip Man pushed it more towards the front end of the learning curve.



Why?

The main idea of CK is not footwork anyway, and not teaching CK until after "_several years_" makes 0 sense.

It's as ridiculous as trying to teach someone to speak a new language and having them spend several years on just the alphabet. After several years of study they still won't understand a thing or be able to form a sentence. What a complete waste of time!

Why should I take something so absurd into account?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I can see why you wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> The main idea of CK is not footwork anyway, and not teaching CK until after "_several years_" makes 0 sense.
> 
> It's as ridiculous as trying to teach someone to speak a new language and having them spend several years on just the alphabet. After several years of study they still won't understand a thing or be able to form a sentence. What a complete waste of time!
> 
> Why should I take something so absurd into account?


Correct me if I'm wrong here, LFJ, but you're assuming that if the form isn't taught yet, neither are any of the principles in it. Is that the approach you've seen with the forms? I ask because I'm curious about how forms are used in different styles.


----------



## Juany118

Father Slavic said:


> Attacking the soldiers or even collaboratours woud reslut in martial court and certain death , probably for the whole family of the attacker .If the occupation soldiers want to beat you down or take your things just for fun, you let them do whatever they want and maybe, just maybe they let you live , if you resist , you get killed on the spot or get killed later in front of the whole town as an example. Kung fu do not help there , not even the fire arms if you are alone .  I have heard stories form  people whose parents  actually lived through Japanese occupation ( also heard first hand stories from people who lived through German occupation in WWII in my country) . What you are saying here is your personal oppinion what occupation was , but it is far , far from reality . Just one example , inmy country resistence stopped the train and killed 16 German soldiers , for revenge , Germans killed 4000 people in one town and 7000 in other , half of the victims were high school kids. Have in mind Japanese were much , much worse than Germans .




Well I have been trained to fight insurgencies, brothers and sisters of mine fight them now.  I am also trained in History.  Whether it be the Insurgencies in Europe against the Germans, China and the Philippines against the Japanese, some did actually fight.  The Philippines are actually an excellent example.  Because of the lack of weapons in the beginning Filipino insurgents would often go after Japanese Soldiers at night with their Bolo knives using their Native Martial Art (Kali-Arnis- Escrima... aka FMA) so they could then get a gun and return to the jungle to fight.  Insurgencies care more about the future or are blinded by a pain from the present.  Killing 4000 people in one town actually galvanizes insurgencies, it doesn't stop them.  History has proven this.

Also remember sometimes such training is just about feeling safer.  How many people who take a self defense class ever actually use it on the street.  BUT when they go out they feel better.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception. Highly unlikely that YM created them himself long after the empty hand method had been developed.*
> 
> ----Why would it be highly unlikely?  You don't seem to give YM much credit for being smart and innovative.  Reminds me about past discussions involving WSL!   He would not have created the pole or knives forms from scratch.  It has already been stated that people trained short sequences and movements prior to longer forms.  YM had very likely trained the pole and knives this way for awhile.  Its already been stated that YM borrowed some of his pole from seeing the guys training at Dai Duk Lan.  The Wing Chun knives are simply an extension of the empty hand methods.  That's how they are trained today in Ku Lo Pin Sun without using a long form at all.  Its a well known fact that what YM taught in Foshan differs from what he taught in Hong Kong.  He developed and evolved his system.  So I don't see it as unlikely at all that YM developed his own forms for the knives and the pole and made sure that the concepts behind them fit with and were an integrated part of the rest of the system.  I mean, geez, give the guy some credit for being the Grandmaster of his own version of Wing Chun!!!
> 
> Looks like the forum double post "echo" problem has been solved!



First:  
"*In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception."
*
The fact they are so closely related makes it MORE likely.  If you never intended to be a full time Sifu and suddenly had to, because that was the only way to feed yourself, and had to remember the open hand forms (since every record of the WC he studied on the Main Land had no long form for weapons)...then felt the need to create weapon forms, then naturally the weapon forms would be related to the unarmed forms.  You have recreated your unarmed forms, is it not easier to then pick up a weapon and try to apply those forms to the weapon than to create, or remember (if it existed) a weapon long form?

Next I don't get why this basic logic is even an issue.  I know teaching.  I studied to be one, my mother was one and my Father is a Professor.  The best teachers are NOT the ones who can simply regurgitate to the next generation what their teacher taught them.  The best teachers are those who can build and refine on what they learned. The Physics teacher who comes up with a new equation, the history teacher who while reading another book makes a connection about a historical event other's missed, a Literature teacher who by knowing an author so well realizes the untitled work he is reading was written by a master.  Or YM, who when he thought he would be a Police Officer for the rest of his life and so saw his art as being "his" finds himself fleeing to HK and then having to teach others, having to suddenly adapt and become a teacher he never intended to be but to do it so brilliantly.  THIS is something to be praised.

However I understand how some may not praise it.  If we take the video in total this means that not only did YM change what he learned, but the same narrator says that a certain student modified what he learned and thus that student didn't teach "true" YM WC as some claim.  To make matters worse our narrator says that YM refined his own WC as the former student refined their WC.  That then begs another question because if the later YMWC was better than the former, what does that say for the former student who changed his own WC himself.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong here, LFJ, but you're assuming that if the form isn't taught yet, neither are any of the principles in it. Is that the approach you've seen with the forms? I ask because I'm curious about how forms are used in different styles.



It's not just the principles it teaches, but the physical training of CK that is essential to the the beginner's development. You can't get very far without it, and if you skip ahead it does more harm than good. So, it is absurd to think it would not be taught for several years into training.



Juany118 said:


> First:
> "*In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception."
> *
> The fact they are so closely related makes it MORE likely.  If you never intended to be a full time Sifu and suddenly had to, because that was the only way to feed yourself, and had to remember the open hand forms (since every record of the WC he studied on the Main Land had no long form for weapons)...then felt the need to create weapon forms, then naturally the weapon forms would be related to the unarmed forms.  You have recreated your unarmed forms, is it not easier to then pick up a weapon and try to apply those forms to the weapon than to create, or remember (if it existed) a weapon long form?



You have to understand the entire system to see the connection. It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> It's not just the principles it teaches, but the physical training of CK that is essential to the the beginner's development. You can't get very far without it, and if you skip ahead it does more harm than good. So, it is absurd to think it would not be taught for several years into training.



That's a bit over-strong as a response to what I asked. I only asked about the apparent assumption and the experience that drives is, out of curiosity regarding how systems use forms. The question of whether YM delayed its introduction is irrelevant to my question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> You have to understand the entire system to see the connection. It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.


That's interesting. The same is said of the empty-hand work in some JMA (Daito-ryu and Ueshiba's Aikido have both had that said of them, though I know at least some of those who say so base it on a misinterpretation of "Daito"). Can you point me to some reading about this history of WC/VT development?


----------



## DanT

LFJ said:


> It's not just the principles it teaches, but the physical training of CK that is essential to the the beginner's development. You can't get very far without it, and if you skip ahead it does more harm than good. So, it is absurd to think it would not be taught for several years into training.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand the entire system to see the connection. It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.


Most if not all of the schools I'm aware of teach chum kiu after a year if not more. Prior to this change in the yip man lineage, chum Kiu was not taught until after a few years (perhaps up to 3 years). Students would spend the first three years working just on basic techniques, single chi Sao, and the turning stance only. Obviously this was not practical any more so yip man changed it. A similar way of thinking can be found in many other styles. In Hung Gar it's not uncommon to learn nothing but the horse stance and straight punch for a year. In Northern Shaolin, only very basic techniques and stances are taught for the first 2 years. Etc.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> It's not just the principles it teaches, but the physical training of CK that is essential to the the beginner's development. You can't get very far without it, and if you skip ahead it does more harm than good. So, it is absurd to think it would not be taught for several years into training.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand the entire system to see the connection. It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.



Wait, so now you claim WC started as a weapon based art and worked backwards!?  Going to call you out here point blank for Be because this is the only time I have ever seen this claimed, ever.  Actually most every Tale of YMWC starts with empty hand and adds the weapons later.  Example..YM's own tale WC period (not his personal style) says the pole wasn't added until AFTER it was passed onto the Red Boat actors.

So you can prove an empty hand art did a 180 and became a weapon based art?  I await the sources and evidence.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> Wait, so now you claim WC started as a weapon based art and worked backwards!?


If that is true then the

- side stance with one leg forward and one leg backward,
- one long arm and one short arm principle,

should be the basic building blocks for the WC system which is not the case.







 \


----------



## wckf92

Juany118 said:


> Wait, so now you claim WC started as a weapon based art and worked backwards!?  Going to call you out here point blank for Be because this is the only time I have ever seen this claimed, ever.



Actually Juany...if I recall he (@LFJ ) and Guy stated previously that VT is derived from the pole (I think). Not sure what their views are WRT the knives and empty hand though...
(I think this was before your arrival on this forum)...?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If that is true then the
> 
> - side stance with one leg forward and one leg backward,
> - one long arm and one short arm principle,
> 
> should be the basic building blocks for the WC system which is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \



Eh?
Just an FYI dude...not all WC stands there like a statue attempting to grip a goat or whatever you call it.


----------



## JP3

I think that most of your very high-level "masters" of their main art have put their own stamp on what they've taught.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You have to understand the entire system to see the connection. It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.



You and Guy B. are the only ones I've ever seen that believed that.  I don't believe that at all.  For one, it is well known that Leung Jan did not teach the knives.  The Yuen Kay Shan lineages say they were added to the system by LJ's classmate Fok Bo Chuen.  Knives were not taught by LJ in Ku Lo Village.   None of the lineage histories/legends state that the  weapons came first.  In short, your claim is entirely unsubstantiated other then your claim to an "insiders" knowledge of the "entire" system.   That just sounds to me like you are making connections to suit yourself.  That doesn't mean they are right!


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> That's interesting. The same is said of the empty-hand work in some JMA (Daito-ryu and Ueshiba's Aikido have both had that said of them, though I know at least some of those who say so base it on a misinterpretation of "Daito"). Can you point me to some reading about this history of WC/VT development?



Gerry, you won't find that idea in any written history of Wing Chun development.  That's because it is unsupported and nobody actually thinks that way but LFJ and Guy and maybe a few others that have drunk the WSLVT/PB koolaide.


----------



## Vajramusti

wckf92 said:


> Actually Juany...if I recall he (@LFJ ) and Guy stated previously that VT is derived from the pole (I think). Not sure what their views are WRT the knives and empty hand though...
> (I think this was before your arrival on this forum)...?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relying on gossip
about "history" is pointless. In Ip Man wingchun- logically and practically
one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Vajramusti said:


> one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.


Agree! You need to learn how to walk before you can learn how to run. Weapon is the extension of your arms. That's the way all CMA use and WC is no different.

The western swordsmen training may be different, but I assume we are talking about CMA here.

In the following clip, one can see the 1/2 circle "spear parry" skill is used in the WC staff form. If weapon form first and open hand later, the "spear parry" strategy should exist in the WC 3 open hand forms. But we just don't see it there (or not emphasized enough).


----------



## DanT

The staff (6.5 point pole) is a simplified version of a much longer form practiced by Yeun Kay Shan. Yip Man did not learn a staff form from Chan Wah Shun because there was no "form" to learn. He just learned various techniques. It was only later that he actually acquired a form from Yeun Kay Shan, and then simplified it. The knives also had no form, just drills. Yip Man created a form based on these drills. The knives are used the same way the hands are. The techniques of the knives are derived from the hand techniques.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Eh?
> Just an FYI dude...not all WC stands there like a statue attempting to grip a goat or whatever you call it.



That isn't what he is referring to.  He is referring to the fact that a sideways stance, also with the torso, violates centerline theory where you need to defend and attack with both arms simultaneously when unarmed.


----------



## DanT

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relying on gossip
> about "history" is pointless. In Ip Man wingchun- logically and practically
> one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.


Almost every style of Kung fu emphasizes strong hand and leg techniques before learning weapons. I agree 100%.


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> Almost every style of Kung fu emphasizes strong hand and leg techniques before learning weapons. I agree 100%.



Yes, the curriculum pretty much proves it as well.  A system starts teaching students based on the core because it makes very little sense to put at the end what a system is based on.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Actually Juany...if I recall he (@LFJ ) and Guy stated previously that VT is derived from the pole (I think). Not sure what their views are WRT the knives and empty hand though...
> (I think this was before your arrival on this forum)...?


Which I have always found contradictory.  On the one hand, it's based on the pole (which makes no sense based on the story of the arts creation as told by YM, where in the pole was added when the art finally met the red boat crew) but also because the same people said the pole was largely a tool to better understand and execute the punch, which to them is THE purpose of WC.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> You and Guy B. are the only ones I've ever seen that believed that.  I don't believe that at all.  For one, it is well known that Leung Jan did not teach the knives.  The Yuen Kay Shan lineages say they were added to the system by LJ's classmate Fok Bo Chuen.  Knives were not taught by LJ in Ku Lo Village.   None of the lineage histories/legends state that the  weapons came first.  In short, your claim is entirely unsubstantiated other then your claim to an "insiders" knowledge of the "entire" system.   That just sounds to me like you are making connections to suit yourself.  That doesn't mean they are right!



I don't even know if that's the case.  I think they have just said what came to mind to defend what ever point they were trying to make at the time. If it benefits their point to say the pole came before the empty hand they say.  If it benefits the point to say the pole exists primarily to build upon what you already learned about the empty hand they say it.


----------



## Vajramusti

DanT said:


> The staff (6.5 point pole) is a simplified version of a much longer form practiced by Yeun Kay Shan. Yip Man did not learn a staff form from Chan Wah Shun because there was no "form" to learn. He just learned various techniques. It was only later that he actually acquired a form from Yeun Kay Shan, and then simplified it. The knives also had no form, just drills. Yip Man created a form based on these drills. The knives are used the same way the hands are. The techniques of the knives are derived from the hand techniques.


===========================
I don't think that Ip Man learned much from YKS- just look at motions rather than listening to IKS gossip


----------



## DanT

Vajramusti said:


> ===========================
> I don't think that Ip Man learned much from YKS- just look at motions rather than listening to IKS gossip


I agree with you that he didn't "learn" that much from him. It's more like he just learned a cool new form that he didn't know before, simplified it, and added it in. This is not uncommon in Chinese martial arts tho.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Can you point me to some reading about this history of WC/VT development?



Unfortunately, no "history" of WC/VT development is reliable. Fact is though, YM only taught a few people the knives, so indeed very few people had the complete picture. Of course it wouldn't be widely known.


----------



## LFJ

DanT said:


> Obviously this was not practical any more so yip man changed it.



It was never practical, and I don't buy that.



> A similar way of thinking can be found in many other styles. In Hung Gar it's not uncommon to learn nothing but the horse stance and straight punch for a year. In Northern Shaolin, only very basic techniques and stances are taught for the first 2 years. Etc.



Again, I'm not buying that.

I've spent years in China training other styles, including up north at Shaolin, and they all have this saying, but it's not meant literally!

It is just to emphasize the importance of stance training, and to say that after 3-5 years you'll be very solid.

It does _not_ mean that anyone in history has ever actually done nothing but stance training and such for years without moving through the curriculum. That only happens in Wuxia novels and Kung fu movies.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Wait, so now you claim WC started as a weapon based art and worked backwards!?  Going to call you out here point blank for Be because this is the only time I have ever seen this claimed, ever.



There's bound to be a lot you've never seen. You had also never known that other lineages, and YM himself had kicks in the CK form until just this last week, so...



> Actually most every Tale of YMWC starts with empty hand and adds the weapons later.  Example..YM's own tale WC period (not his personal style) says the pole wasn't added until AFTER it was passed onto the Red Boat actors.



Fantasy stories aren't history.



> So you can prove an empty hand art did a 180 and became a weapon based art?  I await the sources and evidence.



That's not even what I said...?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I don't believe that at all.  For one, it is well known that Leung Jan did not teach the knives.  The Yuen Kay Shan lineages say they were added to the system by LJ's classmate Fok Bo Chuen.  Knives were not taught by LJ in Ku Lo Village.   None of the lineage histories/legends state that the  weapons came first.



VT empty hand can obviously be taught without knives. That says nothing of its origin.

If people weren't taught the knives, it's obvious they wouldn't be taught the connection.



> In short, your claim is entirely unsubstantiated other then your claim to an "insiders" knowledge of the "entire" system.



It's true there are clues throughout the system. It's also true that the weapon methods existed long before the empty hand. They can be found in other styles, yet VT empty hand is unique in the TCMA world and is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.

That it is taught empty hand > pole > knives doesn't mean that's the order in which each was developed.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> There's bound to be a lot you've never seen. You had also never known that other lineages, and YM himself had kicks in the CK form until just this last week, so...
> 
> 
> 
> Fantasy stories aren't history.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even what I said...?



First not only YM but every WC lineage I can think of says that about the pole.   It is actually logical as well if you consider that poles of that length are commonly used to move boats and small barges down stretches of rivers not just in China, but throughout all of Asia.  

As for the last, it's semantics.  I believe you said



> It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.



So if the empty hand is born of the weapon the weapon can be said to be the "base."


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First not only YM but every WC lineage I can think of says that about the pole.   It is actually logical as well if you consider that poles of that length are commonly used to move boats and small barges down stretches of rivers not just in China, but throughout all of Asia.



That describes the possible origin of the pole that was used as a weapon, not the history of the pole method.



> So if the empty hand is born of the weapon the weapon can be said to be the "base."



Yeah, so, no "empty hand art did a 180". 

The pole and knives already existed in other styles with very similar methods. The tactical guidelines of both were combined into a very unique approach to empty hand combat, et voilà, VT.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> VT empty hand can obviously be taught without knives. That says nothing of its origin.



If the blade is the "base" of the empty hand portion it makes very little sense to put that training towards the end.  It is akin to teaching someone how to read a word before you teach them the alphabet.



> It's true there are clues throughout the system. It's also true that the weapon methods existed long before the empty hand. They can be found in other styles, yet VT empty hand is unique in the TCMA world and is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.



First, simply because the general manner the pole is used may be shared with other systems that predate WC doesn't lead directly to



> ...but that empty hand came from the weapons.



Second no one said the pole techniques



> ... came from empty hand...



Regarding the blades here is what Sifu Lam has to say about what he learned from WSL



> ...Traditionally the Baat Jaam Do was reserved only for students close to completing their formal training; this is due to the fact that skill with the double knives is directly linked to an advanced ability in the empty hand techniques. It is said that if the open hand techniques are good then the knives will also be good... Thus Wong by example reiterated the truth of Baat Jaam Do understanding and usage, the practitioner must master Wing Chun first if the hands are to become knives...



Also, first paired short sword/knife use is a lot less common in CMA than Dao/broad sword.  With that in mind the method of use of the Baat Jaam Do in WC is quite different than the way Hung Ga uses what they call Ji Mo Seung Dao, as but one example.  The blade shape preference can even be subtely different because while we stab in WC of course most Hung Ga practitioners I know were trained using blades, sometimes subtlely, sometimes obviously, a bit more biased to stabbing than slicing and chopping.  I suspect this is because it is an older style than WC and in that time frame the knives of this type, thus far found archeologically, typically had an obvious negative rake making them more suitable for stabbing.  Your weapon use typically conforms to what the weapons design is most efficient at.  

On the other hand Baat Jaam Do, in my experience tend to try to either split the difference with zero rake and a tip aligned with the spine straight back or would be just bad for piercing period because they actually have a positive rake, but damn does that make an efficient "chopper". 

So where you say only the empty hand techniques are unique is beyond me.  Simply because you are stabbing, slicing or chopping with a blade doesn't make the methods similar.  That would be like me saying that simply because a western boxer punches with a vertical fist at times that they are using a WC punch.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If the blade is the "base" of the empty hand portion it makes very little sense to put that training towards the end.  It is akin to teaching someone how to read a word before you teach them the alphabet.



No. That would not be intelligent. I think we all agree hands should be learned first.

Take Esperanto for example, a constructed language based on several existing languages. 

If you were to teach or learn Esperanto, you would not just jump straight into dialogue, or spend years learning all the languages it was based on, but would also learn the alphabet, phonetics, and such first. 

Doesn't matter that it was constructed from something else. You need not learn that first.

Same with a newly constructed empty hand fighting method. You don't have to learn what it was based on first before starting, especially if it was weapons! A beginner can be shown the knife and pole ideas to get a view of the big picture from the start, but they shouldn't start with training the knives.

While the tactical guidelines are shared, the overall strategy between knives and empty hand is still quite opposite. Best not to confuse the student with contradictory training from the start. It will do more harm than good. 

But worse, if you transfer hand ideas straight to knives you will get dead real quick. So, it's important to know clearly what you're working with.



> Simply because you are stabbing, slicing or chopping with a blade doesn't make the methods similar.



Have you learned VT knives or any other similar TCMA knives? From a post you made a while back, it seems that you haven't. So, I don't know how you can compare.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> No. That would not be intelligent. I think we all agree hands should be learned first.
> 
> Take Esperanto for example, a constructed language based on several existing languages.
> 
> If you were to teach or learn Esperanto, you would not just jump straight into dialogue, or spend years learning all the languages it was based on, but would also learn the alphabet, phonetics, and such first.
> 
> Doesn't matter that it was constructed from something else. You need not learn that first.
> 
> Same with a newly constructed empty hand fighting method. You don't have to learn what it was based on first before starting, especially if it was weapons! A beginner can be shown the knife and pole ideas to get a view of the big picture from the start, but they shouldn't start with training the knives.
> 
> While the tactical guidelines are shared, the overall strategy between knives and empty hand is still quite opposite. Best not to confuse the student with contradictory training from the start. It will do more harm than good.
> 
> But worse, if you transfer hand ideas straight to knives you will get dead real quick. So, it's important to know clearly what you're working with.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you learned VT knives or any other similar TCMA knives? From a post you made a while back, it seems that you haven't. So, I don't know how you can compare.



First I totally agree that you do not HAVE to start with empty hands, I don't think anyone is saying that.  However if you have weapons in your system, while not via an exact 1-1 transfer, if you have both empty hand striking and shorter single handed weapons, there are times where you can see, if you know what you are looking for, connections and if a practitioner feel, even if it is not obvious.

As for the Baat Jaam Do, no I have yet to progress that far, however I have a lot of experience with weapons usage in terms of functional (read non-sport) martial arts, specifically Kali which does extensive double sword work.  Due to this, since I mentioned it first, I have made a study of the construction of swords and knives, not just materials but blade shape and edge geometry.  So when I look at the knives often used in Hung Ga I can see the differences that also often exist from those used in WC.

Next the techniques. Here is a very short list of the many differences I see.

*When I look at WC:*

1. I see a lot more of what are commonly called "wrist cuts".  Quick and dirty description?  You essentially drive the arm forward almost like a punch and then as it gets close to the target "snap" (for lack of a better) the wrist so the blade cuts the target.

2. while there is actual "slashing" from angles, say 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock (for me these are angles 1 and 2), your are performing the slashing with a not unfamiliar upright body structure and with (compared to other arts) excessive upper body rotation, in this way both blades are always in a position to attack and defend.  There is also not a lot of what (again WC compared to other arts) one would call "excessive" preloading.  So when you work the angles you don't start with you blade to far off, nor do you end to far off of the centerline.  When your slashing blade does go off, to the extent it does, you other blade is on the centerline to defend.

3. The primary thrusts are very much like the punch in terms of overall body mechanics. They go along the centerline plane and you do not push off with your trailing leg to add power, leaning into the target, you maintain consistent structure.

4. As you move the blades you still adhere to centerline theory, even if you do not always stand square on to your opponent with the knives.

*When I look at Hung Ga:*

1. Not as much in the way of "wrist cuts"

2. Overall deeper stances, some MUCH deeper.

3. When you "work the angles" there will be more rotation of the body to power the slash, also sometimes you will rotate in such a way that your other blade can not be said to effectively defending the centerline.  Additionally when you start and stop the blade itself, not accounting for body rotation, they will start and end further off the centerline, very reminiscent of some of the 5 animals elements of the empty hand portion of the art. 

You may even power a slash with a "thrust like" propulsion using the trailing leg, almost leaning into the target.  

4. Actual thrusting can definitely involve a stereotypical sword thrust propulsion from the trailing leg, sometimes as deep as an Olympic fencer.  Sometimes they will be so "deep" into the thrust that their other blade will be behind them.

5. In short centerline theory, as we know it, is almost non existent.

This is but a short list of the differences between the two methods of knife/sword fighting BUT if you understand large knife and/or sword combat, you can easily see the numerous differences in technique and principles.  My friend who only studies HEMA sees them and he knows nothing about CMA.  Why?  Because even if he doesn't know the names of the forms, couldn't even name the MAs just by looking at them, he knows how to fight with swords and long knives. 


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ===========================
> I don't think that Ip Man learned much from YKS- just look at motions rather than listening to IKS gossip



I'd wager he learned more from YKS than from the mythical Leung Bik!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Unfortunately, no "history" of WC/VT development is reliable. Fact is though, YM only taught a few people the knives, so indeed very few people had the complete picture. Of course it wouldn't be widely known.



Orrrrrr.....he only taught a few people the knives because he didn't have his knife form fully worked out yet!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That it is taught empty hand > pole > knives doesn't mean that's the order in which each was developed.



Ok.  It is an interesting theory.  Please outline for us the logic behind it and the supporting evidence.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> I'd wager he learned more from YKS than from the mythical Leung Bik!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wager does not mean much in this case.
I take Ip Man at his word  that Leung Bik gave the finishing touch to his wing chun development. But the real proof is in the usage.What has come via Ip Man is far more impressive than what has come YKS

In passing there is a  YOU tube interview with one of the three
original  Ip Man's Foshan students. I had a Cantonese speaker translate it for me. Ip Man told his student to quit doing what Ip Man taught him, specially the dummy whenever YKS came around.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Ok.  It is an interesting theory.  Please outline for us the logic behind it and the supporting evidence.



First let me explain I have been, and likely will continue to use the terms sword and knife interchangeably because a 12 inch long blade straddles the line between the two so much.  Some Bowie knives can have 12 inch blades.

I don't even think it is an interesting theory tbh.  He seems to be under the following impression "older arts used the pole and double swords/knives, ergo these were first in WC because the empty hand WC form is unique, the weapon use is not."  That appears to be his logic.  The problem is though, as I illustrated by using the WC vs Hung Ga comparison with double swords (my pole experience is with a more "typical" staff length so I didn't comment in detail but long knives and short swords?  Those I know) they are very different.  I could have pointed out similar differences with Fujan White Crane and Choi Lee Fut as well.  Simply because you can stab, slash and chop doesn't mean the manner in which you do that is actually functionally similar.  If they are not functionally similar between arts how can we say the weapon form started first.


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wager does not mean much in this case.
> I take Ip Man at his word  that Leung Bik gave the finishing touch to his wing chun development. But the real proof is in the usage.What has come via Ip Man is far more impressive than what has come YKS
> 
> In passing there is a  YOU tube interview with one of the three
> original  Ip Man's Foshan students. I had a Cantonese speaker translate it for me. Ip Man told his student to quit doing what Ip Man taught him, specially the dummy whenever YKS came around.



Can you share a link sir?  My best friend was born in Hong Kong, speaks Cantonese and she wants me to try and convince her son to study Wing Chun, or any Kung Fu for that matter. I think I can "bribe her" into translating the whole thing for me.  I have no doubt you speak truth btw, I would just like to see the entire interview and understand it.  It sounds very interesting.


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> Can you share a link sir?  My best friend was born in Hong Kong, speaks Cantonese and she wants me to try and convince her son to study Wing Chun, or any Kung Fu for that matter. I think I can "bribe her" into translating the whole thing for me.  I have no doubt you speak truth btw, I would just like to see the entire interview and understand it.  It sounds very interesting.


______________________________________________
Look up-Kwok Fu (not his son) "The secret interview"

PS: Sum Nun was YKS's best student and added lots of his own stuff. Because of his reactions during a visit by Rene Ritchie- Rene's site was renamed Sum Nun wing chun. If you are interested in gossip rather than wing chun theory and practice KPM's posts are good sources.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wager does not mean much in this case.
> I take Ip Man at his word  that Leung Bik gave the finishing touch to his wing chun development. But the real proof is in the usage.What has come via Ip Man is far more impressive than what has come YKS
> 
> In passing there is a  YOU tube interview with one of the three
> original  Ip Man's Foshan students. I had a Cantonese speaker translate it for me. Ip Man told his student to quit doing what Ip Man taught him, specially the dummy whenever YKS came around.



You know, that EXACT same story is told in the YKS lineage....except the other way around!  In fact, it has been shown that a lot of the stories that circulated about Ip Man actually happened to Yuen Kay Shan.  That is why Ip Chun made a public apology to YKS's grandson after the Ip Man movies.   The "three heroes of Foshan" were Yuen Kay Shan, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi.  They were friends and trained together. That is well established.   So yeah, I think it is a pretty good wager that Ip Man learned more from YKS than Leung Bik.  There are verified pictures of Yuen Kay Shan, and students of Yuen Kay Shan lineage in many places.   We cannot say the same things about Leung Bik.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First I totally agree that you do not HAVE to start with empty hands, I don't think anyone is saying that.



Really? I thought that's what everyone was saying. Who are you agreeing with?



> However if you have weapons in your system, while not via an exact 1-1 transfer, if you have both empty hand striking and shorter single handed weapons, there are times where you can see, if you know what you are looking for, connections and if a practitioner feel, even if it is not obvious.



What is shared between VT empty hand and knives, the important bit, are tactical guidelines, not necessarily techniques.

Many apply the shapes and actions from empty hand directly to the knives, modifying where necessary. That's working in the wrong direction and with the wrong idea. Basing armed combat on empty hand techniques is not very smart. The nature of fighting someone wielding blades vs not is radically different. You will die.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Orrrrrr.....he only taught a few people the knives because he didn't have his knife form fully worked out yet!



The form is not the method. It's only homework. Only a few people ever got either, anyway.

So, like I said, not surprising if it's not common knowledge.



KPM said:


> Ok.  It is an interesting theory.  Please outline for us the logic behind it and the supporting evidence.





Juany118 said:


> He seems to be under the following impression "older arts used the pole and double swords/knives, ergo these were first in WC because the empty hand WC form is unique, the weapon use is not."  That appears to be his logic.



Not at all. I'm talking about the _methods_, not the weapons.

The pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed.

Yet, VT empty hand is closely mapped to this pole method, combined with tactical guidelines from the knives.

That is not possible if the VT empty hand method was not conceptualized using these existing weapon methods as foundation.

The empty hand training system also has preparations for weapon training in the forms and drills. That means they were created after the weapons, with the weapon training already in mind.

If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.

Not knowing any better, though, people just give these actions all sorts of weird applications, missing the connection because they never learned it. Oh well.



> If they are not functionally similar between arts how can we say the weapon form started first.



If you haven't learned BJD, you can't presume to know the actual strategy and tactics from looking at the blade design. There are many variations even in YM lineages (both design and use). So, I don't even know which you are looking at while making your guesses.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> You know, that EXACT same story is told in the YKS lineage....except the other way around!  In fact, it has been shown that a lot of the stories that circulated about Ip Man actually happened to Yuen Kay Shan.  That is why Ip Chun made a public apology to YKS's grandson after the Ip Man movies.   The "three heroes of Foshan" were Yuen Kay Shan, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi.  They were friends and trained together. That is well established.   So yeah, I think it is a pretty good wager that Ip Man learned more from YKS than Leung Bik.  There are verified pictures of Yuen Kay Shan, and students of Yuen Kay Shan lineage in many places.   We cannot say the same things about Leung Bik.


_________________________________________________________
EXACT? World of alternative fact
perhaps. Ip Chun's apology-offering of tea had to do with the portrayal of YKS in an IpMan (fictionalized) movie...not about YKS "teaching" Ip Man. Anyway, I will leave further gossip to you.
leave it with your gossip


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> In passing there is a  YOU tube interview with one of the three
> original  Ip Man's Foshan students. I had a Cantonese speaker translate it for me. Ip Man told his student to quit doing what Ip Man taught him, specially the dummy whenever YKS came around.



At about 3:10 in the following video.

He doesn't say anything about hiding the dummy, but he tells an interesting story...

A story of how YKS would come in and sit with YM every night and watch the students train. Then YM told him (GF) to fight YKS to run him off and not let him keep sitting there watching what YM had been teaching them.

So, GF asked YKS to come teach him a thing or two since his kung fu was known to be really great too, and YKS obliged. But as he saw that YKS was older than him and he was still quite young (about 20 years old), he decided to take it easy on him.

GF threw some shots, but always stopped just before landing. Kept placing strikes while YKS was fiercely trying to hit him hard and fast but could never touch him.

Later, YKS went around telling everyone that GF's kung fu was the best, and that's how GF made a name for himself.


----------



## Vajramusti

LFJ said:


> At about 3:10 in the following video.
> 
> He doesn't say anything about hiding the dummy, but he tells an interesting story...
> 
> A story of how YKS would come in and sit with YM every night and watch the students train. Then YM told him (GF) to fight YKS to run him off and not let him keep sitting there watching what YM had been teaching them.
> 
> So, GF asked YKS to come teach him a thing or two since his kung fu was known to be really great too, and YKS obliged. But as he saw that YKS was older than him and he was still quite young (about 20 years old), he decided to take it easy on him.
> 
> GF threw some shots, but always stopped just before landing. Kept placing strikes while YKS was fiercely trying to hit him hard and fast but could never touch him.
> 
> Later, YKS went around telling everyone that GF's kung fu was the best, and that's how GF made a name for himself.


____________________________________________________
Thanks for the translation. I did not say or mean hiding the dummy- but not showing the work on the  dummy. Thanks. I understood the thrust of what he said.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> I did not say or mean hiding the dummy- but not showing the work on the  dummy.



Yeah, that's what I meant. Haha. Not that they were scrambling to cover up the dummy so YKS wouldn't see they had one!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I believe the WC pole is suppose to be "spear without spear head". There are more "spear" techniques than "staff" techniques.






In the "long fist Kun Wu staff form", there is no "spear" techniques in it.






Here is a "long fist Yang Jia spear" form.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> The form is not the method. It's only homework. Only a few people ever got either, anyway.
> 
> So, like I said, not surprising if it's not common knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I'm talking about the _methods_, not the weapons.
> 
> The pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed.
> 
> Yet, VT empty hand is closely mapped to this pole method, combined with tactical guidelines from the knives.
> 
> That is not possible if the VT empty hand method was not conceptualized using these existing weapon methods as foundation.
> 
> The empty hand training system also has preparations for weapon training in the forms and drills. That means they were created after the weapons, with the weapon training already in mind.
> 
> If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.
> 
> Not knowing any better, though, people just give these actions all sorts of weird applications, missing the connection because they never learned it. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't learned BJD, you can't presume to know the actual strategy and tactics from looking at the blade design. There are many variations even in YM lineages (both design and use). So, I don't even know which you are looking at while making your guesses.


So, since I don't want to be bothered with the padding at his point as I am tired of this...

You moved the goal post for like the 100th time



My argument was that in terms of paired swords/knives WC had equally unique properties as empty hand.  You claimed the unarmed forms were unique.  I didn't deny that but showed how, contrary to your contention, the double sword/knife were equally unique when compared to another style.

If you care to show a CMA that WC duplicates in terms of BJD... Please do, I do the mind being better informed. I have dug and dug. Your claim, your burden to prove.

I doubt that will happen though because I explained in detail how another differs from WC and you so obviously avoided those points.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ______________________________________________
> Look up-Kwok Fu (not his son) "The secret interview"
> 
> PS: Sum Nun was YKS's best student and added lots of his own stuff. Because of his reactions during a visit by Rene Ritchie- Rene's site was renamed Sum Nun wing chun. If you are interested in gossip rather than wing chun theory and practice KPM's posts are good sources.



Gossip?  Really?   Try reading something other than the Ip Man "party line" sometime.   Also try keeping an bit more of an open mind.  Rene Ritchie would tell you the same things I just did on this thread.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> At about 3:10 in the following video.
> 
> He doesn't say anything about hiding the dummy, but he tells an interesting story...



Thanks LFJ!  So it seems I'm not the only one that was "gossiping" here???  Seems Joy is guilty of what he is so quick to accuse others of???     And we both know how old men love to tell stories.  That makes it very hard to sort truth from fiction.  But there is no doubt that YKS was a living and breathing Wing Chun person.  The same cannot  be said for Leung Bik.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The form is not the method. It's only homework. Only a few people ever got either, anyway.
> 
> So, like I said, not surprising if it's not common knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I'm talking about the _methods_, not the weapons.
> 
> The pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed.
> 
> Yet, VT empty hand is closely mapped to this pole method, combined with tactical guidelines from the knives.
> 
> That is not possible if the VT empty hand method was not conceptualized using these existing weapon methods as foundation.
> 
> The empty hand training system also has preparations for weapon training in the forms and drills. That means they were created after the weapons, with the weapon training already in mind.
> 
> If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.
> 
> Not knowing any better, though, people just give these actions all sorts of weird applications, missing the connection because they never learned it. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't learned BJD, you can't presume to know the actual strategy and tactics from looking at the blade design. There are many variations even in YM lineages (both design and use). So, I don't even know which you are looking at while making your guesses.


I'm not sure I follow the logic of your overall argument, LFJ. Let me state my understanding, and give you a chance to correct if I'm reading it wrong. As I understand it, you're saying that the weapons methods (especially the pole) are demonstrably older than WC/VT, as can be seen by their presence in other arts. And the WC/VT empty-hand methods are fairly unique to the art. Those empty-hand methods are also clearly aligned with some of the core principles in the weapons methods. And this leads to the conclusion that the hands are based (at least largely) on the weapons, rather than the reverse. Am I close?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Yeah, that's what I meant. Haha. Not that they were scrambling to cover up the dummy so YKS wouldn't see they had one!


I had an image of a bunch of them standing in front of it, trying to look very casual.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I follow the logic of your overall argument, LFJ. Let me state my understanding, and give you a chance to correct if I'm reading it wrong. As I understand it, you're saying that the weapons methods (especially the pole) are demonstrably older than WC/VT, as can be seen by their presence in other arts. And the WC/VT empty-hand methods are fairly unique to the art. Those empty-hand methods are also clearly aligned with some of the core principles in the weapons methods. And this leads to the conclusion that the hands are based (at least largely) on the weapons, rather than the reverse. Am I close?



The problem is more than a few MA scholars have drawn connections saying that WC unarmed techniques are drawn from Fujan White Crane and Snake style before you even look at weapons.


----------



## Marnetmar

Is there anywhere I can find a translation of the Kwok Fu interview?


----------



## Eric_H

Juany118 said:


> The problem is more than a few MA scholars have drawn connections saying that WC unarmed techniques are drawn from Fujan White Crane and Snake style before you even look at weapons.



Hendrik Santos and the people that copied his inane ramblings (Sergio) don't count as scholars on this one. Got any legitimate sources?


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Thanks LFJ!  So it seems I'm not the only one that was "gossiping" here???  Seems Joy is guilty of what he is so quick to accuse others of???     And we both know how old men love to tell stories.  That makes it very hard to sort truth from fiction.  But there is no doubt that YKS was a living and breathing Wing Chun person.  The same cannot  be said for Leung Bik.


----------



## Vajramusti

------------------------------------------
LFJ has already given a translation.,,,essentially saying what I said about YKS-1 being an uninvited visitor often when IM was teaching
2 IM telling his student not to show YKS what IM was teaching. 3YKS was unable to penetrate 
IM's student's defense. I will as usual ignore 
KPM's  silly ad hominem comments.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Thanks LFJ!  So it seems I'm not the only one that was "gossiping" here???  Seems Joy is guilty of what he is so quick to accuse others of???     And we both know how old men love to tell stories.  That makes it very hard to sort truth from fiction.  But there is no doubt that YKS was a living and breathing Wing Chun person.  The same cannot  be said for Leung Bik.


----------



## Vajramusti

LFJ translated the thrust of IM's Foshan student's interview- no issue of gossiping on my part.I provided the info that Juany asked for.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------
> LFJ has already given a translation.,,,essentially saying what I said about YKS-1 being an uninvited visitor often when IM was teaching
> 2 IM telling his student not to show YKS what IM was teaching. 3YKS was unable to penetrate
> IM's student's defense. I will as usual ignore
> KPM's  silly ad hominem comments.



And old men love to tell tales!


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> LFJ translated the thrust of IM's Foshan student's interview- no issue of gossiping on my part.I provided the info that Juany asked for.


 
One old man's stories often contradict another old man's stories.  So as I said, that often makes it hard to sort truth from fiction.  So who is gossiping?

Yuen Kay San was THE top Wing Chun Sifu! — Yun Hoi gung fu


----------



## KPM

*The pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed.*

---No one has said the pole is based on Wing Chun empty hand methods, only that Wing Chun empty hand methods are NOT based upon the pole!  The legends say that the pole was added to the system.  The fact that other gung fu styles also have a "Luk Dim Boon Kwun" should be enough evidence of that.  Then the pole methods were refined and adjusted to suit Wing Chun.


*Yet, VT empty hand is closely mapped to this pole method, combined with tactical guidelines from the knives.*

---Easily explained by adapting an existing pole method to fit more appropriately with Wing Chun strategies and concepts.

*
That is not possible if the VT empty hand method was not conceptualized using these existing weapon methods as foundation.*

---Of course it is possible!  In fact, far more probable!   It is far more probable that someone took a pole method and realized they could apply centerline theory, zoning, deflections, and other concepts from an empty hand system to it, ......than it is to say that a  complex empty hand system based upon using two arms at the same time and training a complex "sticking hand" method was derived from a long pole method. 

*
The empty hand training system also has preparations for weapon training in the forms and drills. That means they were created after the weapons, with the weapon training already in mind.*

---Your logic is rather odd I think!   It means nothing of the sort!  Again, far more probable to adapt the weapon to the empty hand system and then include in the empty hand system preparatory work prior to teaching the weapon.  Or to reinterprete things that were already in the empty hand system to show how they support the pole method that has been adapted to that system.

*
If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.*

---Again, a logical leap that is just not justified.  The weapon method is found in other styles because it was TAKEN from other styles and adapted to fit!  Those other styles from which the pole was taken may very well have been older than Wing Chun. 

---None of the Wing Chun lineage histories or legends support the idea that the style was derived from the weapons.  Legends often have foundations in truth.   So if the weapons came first, why do none of the lineages...both Wing Chun and Weng Chun.... support that idea?  Seems at least ONE of them would, if there was any truth to it.  But they don't. 

---Sorry LFJ, but I still see nothing to support your theory.


----------



## KPM

Does this look like Wing Chun to you:


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I explained in detail how another differs from WC and you so obviously avoided those points.



I didn't bother because you just said you haven't even learned BJD, in any style, never mind WC. So, it is pointless to do a comparison with you.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> As I understand it, you're saying that the weapons methods (especially the pole) are demonstrably older than WC/VT, as can be seen by their presence in other arts. And the WC/VT empty-hand methods are fairly unique to the art. Those empty-hand methods are also clearly aligned with some of the core principles in the weapons methods. And this leads to the conclusion that the hands are based (at least largely) on the weapons, rather than the reverse. Am I close?



Yes. It is impossible that VT empty hand would just happen to be a perfect combination of tactical guidelines from preexisting weapon methods. 

There are other large clues throughout the empty hand system as well. The _Biu-ji_ form, for example, is almost entirely preparatory actions for knives that already existed, and borrows knife concepts for certain empty hand needs.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Then the pole methods were refined and adjusted to suit Wing Chun.





> ---Easily explained by adapting an existing pole method to fit more appropriately with Wing Chun strategies and concepts.





> It is far more probable that someone took a pole method and realized they could apply centerline theory, zoning, deflections, and other concepts from an empty hand system to it,





> Again, far more probable to adapt the weapon to the empty hand system and then include in the empty hand system preparatory work prior to teaching the weapon.  Or to reinterprete things that were already in the empty hand system to show how they support the pole method that has been adapted to that system.





> The weapon method is found in other styles because it was TAKEN from other styles and adapted to fit!



All of your points hinge on the theory that LDBG was adapted to Wing Chun.

But, it was not. It is indistinguishable as it is in other styles. (See below)



> ---None of the Wing Chun lineage histories or legends support the idea that the style was derived from the weapons.  Legends often have foundations in truth.   So if the weapons came first, why do none of the lineages...both Wing Chun and Weng Chun.... support that idea?



So, you believe HS's Emei + White Crane origin theory based on a fairy tale with a nun, a snake, and a crane?

In order to support his theory he had to do a ton of tinkering with terminology and form, not to mention history.

The only solid fact we have on the history of Wing Chun is that it is unrecorded and none of the stories are reliable. I won't attempt to write up an origin story. The system and observable facts speaks for themselves.

As I said, and as we all know, YM only taught the knives to a few people. So, of course it's not common knowledge! I would suspect it wasn't shared through history because it reveals the entire strategy and tactical guidelines of the new empty hand fighting system.

Other lineages that took another direction with empty hand appear to be doing something quite different, anyway. So, what they have to say is irrelevant.



KPM said:


> Does this look like Wing Chun to you:



You will think this looks nothing like Wing Chun either, until you get to 1:35-2:16. Then it's entirely LDBG exercises and form with left hand lead.






This is the LDBG segment extracted from the above form. Note the shot of the clock at the beginning. _Luk dim bun _is also how you say 6:30 in Cantonese. 

You will notice this segment is as short and simple as YM's form. No way YM made it up himself, or simplified it from YKS's, when it had already existed!






And here it is performed in 1949, so you can't say it was just copied from YM in recent decades. From 1:18-1:32.


----------



## KPM

*So, you believe HS's Emei + White Crane origin theory based on a fairy tale with a nun, a snake, and a crane?*

----Well, as far as origin theories go.....they have shown a similarity between the writings from Yik Kam Wing Chun, Emei, and Fukien White Crane.  They have pointed out an origin legend from Wing Chun that talks about a fight between a snake and a crane.  Since legends are often metaphors, this could indicate the meeting of a snake style with a crane style.  They have pointed out that White Crane and Wing Chun share very similar origin stories....Yim Wing Chun vs. Fong Wing Chun.  They have pointed out forms from Fukien White Crane which have some very similar movements to Wing Chun.  They have pointed out that both Wing Chun and White Crane trace at least part of their history to the Red Boats.  All circumstantial evidence to support a theory, but that seems to be a whole lot more than what you have provided to support your theory. 

---You ignored my video of an actual Luk Dim Boon Kwan form from Choy Li Fut and provided instead footage of the Bat Gwa Kwan form from Hung Kuen.


*In order to support his theory he had to do a ton of tinkering with terminology and form, not to mention history.*

---You don't even have that much support for your own theory!  So its probably better not to denigrate someone else's theory!



*As I said, and as we all know, YM only taught the knives to a few people. So, of course it's not common knowledge! I would suspect it wasn't shared through history because it reveals the entire strategy and tactical guidelines of the new empty hand fighting system*.

---Ah!  The typical argument!  "No one has seen what I'm saying/showing before because it has been a well guarded lineage secret!" 


*You will think this looks nothing like Wing Chun either, until you get to 1:35-2:16. Then it's entirely LDBG exercises and form with left hand lead.*

---Thanks for the videos!   What is interesting is that you chose to show Hung Kuen's Bat Gwa pole.   From what Sifu Tang has said, the Bat Gwa pole method was typically seen as the "rival" to the Weng Chun pole method.   When sifu shows pole vs. pole techniques, some of the time he is actually showing his Weng Chun pole going against the Bat Gwa pole! 

---But let me get this straight.   Only a small segment of that Hung Kuen pole form bears any resemblance to Wing Chun pole.  So your theory is that someone took that small segment and then decided to derive an entire empty hand method from it?  But they chose to ignore the rest of that pole form and didn't use the other parts for the empty hand system?  So no low stance and wide motions as is actually found in Hung Kuen empty hands?  Why would the leave out the other 2/3's or more of that form if they were using it to derive an entire empty hand method????

---And you think this is more likely than the idea that at some point a Wing Chun guy decided to add a pole method to the Wing Chun empty hand system, perhaps saw this form or one like it, and recognized that that one segment was actually the only portion that embodied preexisting Wing Chun concepts and strategies the best and so chose to adapt just that one section to his Wing Chun system? 



*You will notice this segment is as short and simple as YM's form. No way YM made it up himself, or simplified it from YKS's, when it had already existed!*

---Again, no one has said that Ip Man made up his entire pole method!  No one has denied that similar pole methods existed prior to Wing Chun.  The alternate theory to yours is that Wing Chun adapted a pole method that DID exist prior!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> they have shown a similarity between the writings from Yik Kam Wing Chun, Emei, and Fukien White Crane.



And he was shown to have done some tinkering with his writings to support his theory.



> They have pointed out an origin legend from Wing Chun that talks about a fight between a snake and a crane.  Since legends are often metaphors, this could indicate the meeting of a snake style with a crane style.



I don't put much stock in fairy tales. There's no reason to believe that.



> They have pointed out that White Crane and Wing Chun share very similar origin stories....Yim Wing Chun vs. Fong Wing Chun.



Most Southern TCMAs do.



> They have pointed out forms from Fukien White Crane which have some very similar movements to Wing Chun.



And I pointed out the exact same movements he showed in unrelated styles.



> They have pointed out that both Wing Chun and White Crane trace at least part of their history to the Red Boats.



No reason to believe the Red Boats story is true either. These are legends, not history.



> All circumstantial evidence to support a theory, but that seems to be a whole lot more than what you have provided to support your theory.



Well, I'm not going around tinkering with "evidence" and dealing with fairy tales. Everything I've pointed to is what we have as far as observable facts.



> ---You ignored my video of an actual Luk Dim Boon Kwan form from Choy Li Fut and provided instead footage of the Bat Gwa Kwan form from Hung Kuen.



The segment I pointed out is also called LDBG.



> ---Ah!  The typical argument!  "No one has seen what I'm saying/showing before because it has been a well guarded lineage secret!"



I didn't say no one. It's simply a fact that only a few people ever received the knife training from YM, so, few even knew the full system. Hence, it is not widespread knowledge today. The same is probably true throughout history. Very few people knew it.



> ---But let me get this straight.   Only a small segment of that Hung Kuen pole form bears any resemblance to Wing Chun pole.  So your theory is that someone took that small segment and then decided to derive an entire empty hand method from it?  But they chose to ignore the rest of that pole form and didn't use the other parts for the empty hand system?  So no low stance and wide motions as is actually found in Hung Kuen empty hands?  Why would the leave out the other 2/3's or more of that form if they were using it to derive an entire empty hand method????



No. That segment was a preexisting method known as LDBG and was integrated into that pole method. It is even older than you think.



> ---And you think this is more likely than the idea that at some point a Wing Chun guy decided to add a pole method to the Wing Chun empty hand system, perhaps saw this form or one like it, and recognized that that one segment was actually the only portion that embodied preexisting Wing Chun concepts and strategies the best and so chose to adapt just that one section to his Wing Chun system?



Again, it's not one segment. It's a separate method, and it is in part what was used in the conceptualization of VT empty hand fighting. VT empty hand already maps to this pole method without any adaptation necessary.



> ---Again, no one has said that Ip Man made up his entire pole method!  No one has denied that similar pole methods existed prior to Wing Chun.  The alternate theory to yours is that Wing Chun adapted a pole method that DID exist prior!



The OP of this thread says YM created his pole form. On page 2, DanT says YM simplified his pole form from something longer that YKS taught.

But these videos show almost the identical sequence of YM's pole form, and demonstrate that it already existed long ago.


----------



## Juany118

Eric_H said:


> Hendrik Santos and the people that copied his inane ramblings (Sergio) don't count as scholars on this one. Got any legitimate sources?



Well first I would ask "do you know main land styles of WC?  The main point of this entire thread is that YM, suddenly having to find himself teaching for a living, essentially had to make his own curriculum because after many decades he couldn't remember every single detail of the WC he had been taught.

If you look at some Main Land WC styles not only do they have more techniques that resemble those from other martial arts, but sometimes the techniques are overtly named after such animals.

As for sources KPM did a good job illustrating stuff, however this book also does a good job.  Complete Wing Chun: The Definitive Guide to Wing Chun's History and Traditions (Complete Martial Arts): Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie, Y. Wu: 9780804831413: Amazon.com: Books

First they break down the legend behind and then know history of a number of Lineages, then in the conclusions portions go into a break down of what is actually historical record vs legend, where the various legends converge and where they differ etc. as well as similarities one can see in techniques.  The book is worth a read just to see the oral history and traditions of different Lineages, even if you don't agree with the conclusions at the end.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I didn't bother because you just said you haven't even learned BJD, in any style, never mind WC. So, it is pointless to do a comparison with you.



That is actually the biggest cop out I have seen you ever make and it contradicts your premise.  Your claim was that only the empty hand portion of WC/VT is unique, that the use of twin knives is not, ergo the Baat Jaam Do section is predates the empty hand. 

If the BJD section predates WC then you would not need actual BJD training to see the truth of what you say and simply extensive sword/knife experience.

You do not need to be an trained in a specific martial art's techniques in order to see the biomechanical differences in techniques between different arts when it comes to weapons.  You simply need to understand how those weapons/tools work.  So you have (apologies for the quality of the first video)






or






and then






or






first note, especially in the last video, the swords/knives that are clearly designed with stabbing in mind (one of the other things I pointed out.). Additionally a Hung Ga sword/knife tends to be longer than a WC sword/knife, even if by but an inch or two.

Regardless, I do not need to have studied either of these to see the biomechanical differences.  If you look at all of the videos, and then the description i wrote that you chose to ignore, you will see that my break down of just a few of the differences is fairly accurate.  Why?  Because I know how to fight with swords and knives.  This knowledge allows me to also see similarities to what I do in both arts.  Examples.

Like the WC form we do not go too wide, we keep things close so we can always be defending and attacking simultaneously.  We also try to keep a largely "up right" posture without leaning to me efficiently protect the head, among other things.  Also, as with the more modern "chopper" Baat Jaam do, most Filipino blades tend to be single edged (some have a short false edge) and are also more suited to chopping, so thrusts are less common than slashing and chopping.

However there are times we will go "deep" or "round" with a technique like they do in Hung Ga, but for a specific purposes and with some key difference.  You may want to attack the foot/shin of an opponent because an opponent with a "chopped" foot is going to have issues fighting you.  You do this by "sinking" with your legs, without the accompanying strong lean you see in Hung Ga, so you can still defend yourself without offering the opponent your noggin.   As for round there are techniques referred to as "redondo" and "abaniko" which are essentially fanning actions but only using the wrist and elbows, not the shoulder. You can do this as an attack or a defensive maneuver.

The point of the last paragraph being that when you know how to use weapons in a variety of ways you can see where other arts have similarities and differences to what you do.  To simply dismiss this reality (and it is a reality) and needing to contradict yourself in order to dismiss this, is to be trapped in dogma.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *So, you believe HS's Emei + White Crane origin theory based on a fairy tale with a nun, a snake, and a crane?*
> 
> ----Well, as far as origin theories go.....they have shown a similarity between the writings from Yik Kam Wing Chun, Emei, and Fukien White Crane.  They have pointed out an origin legend from Wing Chun that talks about a fight between a snake and a crane.  Since legends are often metaphors, this could indicate the meeting of a snake style with a crane style.  They have pointed out that White Crane and Wing Chun share very similar origin stories....Yim Wing Chun vs. Fong Wing Chun.  They have pointed out forms from Fukien White Crane which have some very similar movements to Wing Chun.  They have pointed out that both Wing Chun and White Crane trace at least part of their history to the Red Boats.  All circumstantial evidence to support a theory, but that seems to be a whole lot more than what you have provided to support your theory.



The book I noted also goes further than simply pointing out that there are similar techniques in WC and White Crane and note something I find equally relevant



> The Fujian white crane style and history is so far reaching that it has spread to Okinawa in the form of hakutsura kenpo (Japanese:white crane fist methods).  In fact, the Keun Po (fist register book) of the white crane style, Wu Pei Chi (Bubishi in Japanese), is revered there by Okinawan karateka.  Guangdong is a lot closer to Fujian than Okinawa and tthe tales of white crane boxing more than likely found their way to Guangdong as well.
> 
> One must wonder why the name Fong Wing- Chun and Yim Wing-Chun are so similar, and why all these stories have so many parallels.  Again, the authors believe the fables of the five elders and their disciples are just that- fables based, perhaps, on a grain of truth, which have been interwoven into the histories of many southern styles over the years.



Some of the context is missing of course if you dont read the whole book but the fact that White Crane is admitted to has spread far enough to be part of some forms of Karate, and then combine that with similarities in WC, one can't simply dismiss the possibility.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Your claim was that only the empty hand portion of WC/VT is unique, that the use of twin knives is not, ergo the Baat Jaam Do section is predates the empty hand.



What section?



> If the BJD section predates WC then you would not need actual BJD training to see the truth of what you say and simply extensive sword/knife experience.



If you have no idea what the strategy and tactical guidelines are to BJD, you can't assume to know it just because you've learned other knife styles. Have you learned any Chinese double knife style at all?

I've studied numerous long weapon systems in China, including staff, pole, spear, etc. from north to south. That doesn't mean I understand every style now, including ones I've never learned.

There is a lot of variation. Same goes for bladed weapons.



> You do not need to be an trained in a specific martial art's techniques in order to see the biomechanical differences in techniques between different arts when it comes to weapons.  You simply need to understand how those weapons/tools work.



Unfortunately, you cannot know the strategy or tactical guidelines of a weapon system just by looking at the blade design, or even necessarily the forms. I think you should wait until you have learned the topic before attempting to discuss it authoritatively.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> What section?
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no idea what the strategy and tactical guidelines are to BJD, you can't assume to know it just because you've learned other knife styles. Have you learned any Chinese double knife style at all?
> 
> I've studied numerous long weapon systems in China, including staff, pole, spear, etc. from north to south. That doesn't mean I understand every style now, including ones I've never learned.
> 
> There is a lot of variation. Same goes for bladed weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you cannot know the strategy or tactical guidelines of a weapon system just by looking at the blade design, or even necessarily the forms. I think you should wait until you have learned the topic before attempting to discuss it authoritatively.


And you dance around your previous point and create a new goal post.  

You claimed BJD predates empty hand because other arts used twin swords.  I simply said "simply because you slash, thrust and chop doesn't mean you do so in the same manner as another art."  You challenged that this was true. 

So I then specifically mentioned blade shape and edge geometry preferences between the sword knives, used by HG vs WC.  You dismiss these when anyone with even have a clue can see them when lined up side by side.

Next I mentioned biomechanics.  I gave descriptions of differences and now have provided videos noting this differences.  I am talking pure physical methodology.  The way, not the why, they both slash, stab, chop and defend. 

Yet you won't even address these differences, even though they are as important in understanding a fighting style as the strategy and tactics that lie behind them.  You were the one who simply claimed that weapons existed first, ergo weapons were in WC first and that the only unique part of WC/VT is the empty hand.

This means that you should be able to produce evidence of a CMA that predates WC and yet uses the same, or very similar, biomechanics to make BJD not unique.  I showed another art, equally known for using two swords/knives, that is clearly biomechanically different.  Didn't just say "look at the videos", but explained a few of the differences in detail.

Instead of producing the art with the "proto-BJD" style, you simply ignore the evidence, which anyone can verify, and then go to your cop out position "strategy and tactics", a cop out btw you haven't bothered to detail even when you used it numerous times with empty hand.  I could actually explain a few obvious difference in methodology between WC empty-hand and BJD to show how biomechanics can be born of a different strategic and tactical mindset, thus giving a glimpse to someone who hasn't been trained specifically in the differences, but it would clearly be a waste of time since you won't even acknowledge biomechanical facts.


----------



## KPM

*I don't put much stock in fairy tales. There's no reason to believe that.*

---No reason to believe your theory either.   At least there ARE fairy tales that lend some support to Hendrik's theory!


*And I pointed out the exact same movements he showed in unrelated styles.*

---No you didn't.  You mentioned some "rooster style" that no one else has ever seen.   He provided a video of a Fukian White Crane form that had very obvious similarities to Wing Chun.  But that's a different discussion and no need to go into it again here.



*No reason to believe the Red Boats story is true either. These are legends, not history.*

---And again, you don't even have legends or history to support what you are saying.  And as I said before....legends often have a foundation of truth and so cannot be completely dismissed out of hand.  The oral "history" of every Wing Chun lineage is that the pole was an add on.  Not one comes even close to suggesting that Wing Chun was derived from the pole.



*Well, I'm not going around tinkering with "evidence" and dealing with fairy tales. Everything I've pointed to is what we have as far as observable facts.*

---Come again?  What "observable facts" are you referring to?  That Hung Kuen has a pole form with a short segment similar to the Wing Chun pole?   That supports the theory I described just as much as it supports your theory. AND... the legends and lineage teachings back up my theory, not yours!     So which would seem more plausible?



*The segment I pointed out is also called LDBG*.

---There entire Choy Li Fut form I posted is called LDBG as well. 




*No. That segment was a preexisting method known as LDBG and was integrated into that pole method. It is even older than you think.*

---I don't doubt that.  But it still is far more likely that someone took an existing pole method (or part of it) and adapted it to fit Wing Chun than it is that someone took an existing pole method and derived an ENTIRE empty hand approach from it.  And, BTW....whose theory is this anyway?  You and Guy B. are the only ones I've heard that have described it.  And I know you and Guy do not train together.  So who in the WSL lineage is saying this and teaching this to people?




*But these videos show almost the identical sequence of YM's pole form, and demonstrate that it already existed long ago.*

---Identical?  Really?  I've seen so much variety in what people call Ip Man pole that I am very skeptical that this is even close to identical!  

---These don't look identical to me!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> -I don't doubt that. But it still is far more likely that someone took an existing pole method (or part of it) and adapted it to fit Wing Chun than it is that someone took an existing pole method and derived an ENTIRE empty hand approach from it. And, BTW....whose theory is this anyway? You and Guy B. are the only ones I've heard that have described it. And I know you and Guy do not train together. So who in the WSL lineage is saying this and teaching this to people?


I'd argue it's also plausible that someone researched pole methods and found some (either in bits or entirety) that fit with the existing movements and strategies of WC/VT. It's like me finding techniques in BJJ that fit with NGA, or combinations in Western Boxing, or drills in Fencing (all of which I have found, and any of which could be incorporated into the formal curriculum of NGA if someone wanted to). I might wish to make some small adjustments to other parts of NGA to better integrate the new material, but those adjustments aren't the same thing as basing any part of NGA upon those adopted methods. 

Thus, methods can be integrated by adaptation of the new (to the art) methods, or by adaptation of the existing (already in the art) methods, or by them simply fitting together without needing adaptation.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> You claimed BJD predates empty hand because other arts used twin swords.



No, I didn't.



> You were the one who simply claimed that weapons existed first, ergo weapons were in WC first and that the only unique part of WC/VT is the empty hand.
> 
> This means that you should be able to produce evidence of a CMA that predates WC and yet uses the same, or very similar, biomechanics to make BJD not unique.



Hung Syun Hung Kyun, has both LDBG (shown, same as YM's form) and double knives.



> I showed another art, equally known for using two swords/knives, that is clearly biomechanically different.



Irrelevant then.



> your cop out position "strategy and tactics",



How are the meat and potatoes a cop out?



> I could actually explain a few obvious difference in methodology between WC empty-hand and BJD to show how biomechanics can be born of a different strategic and tactical mindset, thus giving a glimpse to someone who hasn't been trained specifically in the differences, but it would clearly be a waste of time since you won't even acknowledge biomechanical facts.



It would be a waste of time because you haven't learned BJD, barely know any WC (even the newest newb has seen YM kick in CK), and are just guessing. I would not bother reading your uninformed ramblings.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> At least there ARE fairy tales that lend some support to Hendrik's theory!



Fairy tales don't lend support. 



> *And I pointed out the exact same movements he showed in unrelated styles.*
> 
> ---No you didn't.



I did. We had side-by-side photos showing the exact same postures from an unrelated style, postures he said were proof of the connection he wasn't trying to fabricate.

Someone even added circles around the hands, elbows, knees, and feet to highlight that they were exactly the same.



> ---And again, you don't even have legends or history to support what you are saying.  And as I said before....legends often have a foundation of truth and so cannot be completely dismissed out of hand.



I don't need legends. We can just look at the existing methods, and we know what I have shown predates VT, so...

Besides, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Legends are just legends.



> ---Come again?  What "observable facts" are you referring to?  That Hung Kuen has a pole form with a short segment similar to the Wing Chun pole?



It's a separate pole style called LDBG that predates the pole form it was integrated into, and comes from a system that also has double knives, and is said to be very similar to WC, which is obvious from the practically identical pole method.



> *The segment I pointed out is also called LDBG*.
> 
> ---There entire Choy Li Fut form I posted is called LDBG as well.



Seems you're not understanding. That segment is actually an entire form called LDBG too from an older style.



> it still is far more likely that someone took an existing pole method (or part of it) and adapted it to fit Wing Chun than it is that someone took an existing pole method and derived an ENTIRE empty hand approach from it.



Your theory is demonstrably false by the fact that this LDBG predates VT and needs no adaptation whatsoever for VT to map perfectly to it. It was never adapted to fit anything. It is how it was.



> And, BTW....whose theory is this anyway?  You and Guy B. are the only ones I've heard that have described it.  And I know you and Guy do not train together.  So who in the WSL lineage is saying this and teaching this to people?



Everyone who knows the full system knows empty hand is a combination of pole and knife ideas.

Here's a thread with someone else talking about it a few years before I joined this forum. I can't find the posts he was talking about, and don't know the lineage of the people who said it, but it shows I'm not the only one that knows VT empty hand came from weapons.

Is Wing Chun taught backwards?

I don't believe it is taught "backwards", though. It has a logical progression for a beginner starting with empty hand. But that is not the order in which it was conceptualized and developed.



> *But these videos show almost the identical sequence of YM's pole form, and demonstrate that it already existed long ago.*
> 
> ---Identical?  Really?  I've seen so much variety in what people call Ip Man pole that I am very skeptical that this is even close to identical!



Same for the knives and we all know why...



> ---These don't look identical to me!



They both repeat _fung-lung-cheung_ and _leung-yi_ actions, change directions with _lau-seui_, _kam-gwan_, _fung-lung-cheung_, then _dang-gwan _toward the end. And more, the whole opening actions are shown in the long form.

Yes, it is practically the same sequence of the same actions. Immediately obvious if you know YM's form.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Thus, methods can be integrated by adaptation of the new (to the art) methods, or by adaptation of the existing (already in the art) methods, or by them simply fitting together without needing adaptation.



The weapons predate VT. There was no need to do any adaptation and nothing to adapt. It's just combining two weapon ideas to form a new and unique approach to empty hand combat. It's simple, but genius.

Such a direction of development is not inconceivable. Kali empty hand?


----------



## KPM

*Fairy tales don't lend support. *

---Like I said, legends often have a foundation in truth.  So they can lend some level of support.  Nothing definitive, but when you have a theory that makes sense, is in-line with the lineage oral histories, AND matches the legends....then that is a level of support whether you like it or not.


*I did. We had side-by-side photos showing the exact same postures from an unrelated style, postures he said were proof of the connection he wasn't trying to fabricate.*

---Photos are not the same as a video showing actual movement and mechanics.  But again, this is not the time to rehash that old argument.


*
I don't need legends. We can just look at the existing methods, and we know what I have shown predates VT, so...*

---And again, I already pointed out that "predating" means nothing!  The alternate theory to yours works just as well with saying that the pole method predated the empty hands.


*Besides, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Legends are just legends.*

---But the evidence you have provided for Wing Chun being derived from the pole has been pretty poor so far.  You haven't even attempted to explain in what way the empty hand methods "map perfectly" to the pole methods. So forgive us if we feel free to dismiss your theory!



*It's a separate pole style called LDBG that predates the pole form it was integrated into, and comes from a system that also has double knives, and is said to be very similar to WC, which is obvious from the practically identical pole method.*

---What system is that?  What system has this "nearly identical" pole form AND a "very similar" knife form?  Any video?  Or is it like that elusive "rooster" style?



*Your theory is demonstrably false by the fact that this LDBG predates VT and needs no adaptation whatsoever for VT to map perfectly to it. It was never adapted to fit anything. It is how it was.*

---Again, "predating" proves nothing!  And so far we only have your word that portion of that Hung Kuen form you focused on "maps perfectly" to Wing Chun.   And its just your theory that it was "never adapted."



*Everyone who knows the full system knows empty hand is a combination of pole and knife ideas.*

---So all of your WSL brethren believe this?  Why have we only heard it from you and Guy B.? 


*Here's a thread with someone else talking about it a few years before I joined this forum. I can't find the posts he was talking about, and don't know the lineage of the people who said it, but it shows I'm not the only one that knows VT empty hand came from weapons.*

Is Wing Chun taught backwards?

---From what I can tell, that actually wasn't really his theory, and no one else bought into it then either!  Are you saying you derived all of your theory from this guy's posts?   If not, then again....who in the WSL lineage has been teaching this to you guys?



*Yes, it is practically the same sequence of the same actions. Immediately obvious if you know YM's form.*

---Again, not identical if you watch and compare the videos!  But you are saying that the entire Wing Chun empty hand system....with all of its concepts and principles.....coordinated use of two hands at the same time.....concept of sticking to and following an opponent at close range...more or less "square on" positioning with a pivoting dynamic....etc......derived from this short pole form?....a pole form with only one "arm"....that has a completely different mechanic (standing sideways, different stances, no pivot, etc)...that works from long range because it is a long pole....the entire Wing Chun empty hand system was developed from this short pole form????


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Such a direction of development is not inconceivable. Kali empty hand?



Traditional FMA's do not actually have a very developed empty hand system.  Those that do have one borrow a lot from Silat and are often Filipino versions of Indonesian Silat.   In FMA you train/trained the weapons first and foremost because it was seen as a battlefield art.  You only needed to know empty hand in the event that you lost your weapon in combat.  So the older systems don't have a lot of empty hand at all.  The modern FMA systems borrowed from Karate, boxing, Silat, etc.   In FMA there is no highly developed and advanced system of empty hands like Wing Chun that was derived entirely from the weapons.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Traditional FMA's do not actually have a very developed empty hand system.  Those that do have one borrow a lot from Silat and are often Filipino versions of Indonesian Silat.   In FMA you train/trained the weapons first and foremost because it was seen as a battlefield art.  You only needed to know empty hand in the event that you lost your weapon in combat.  So the older systems don't have a lot of empty hand at all.  The modern FMA systems borrowed from Karate, boxing, Silat, etc.   In FMA there is no highly developed and advanced system of empty hands like Wing Chun that was derived entirely from the weapons.



You are correct to a large extent but miss something.  FMA does have "pure" unarmed forms like Panatukan, aka dirty boxing and another art called Kuntaw.  Now I don't know the origins of Panatukan, and yes admittedly there is a fair amount of Silat influence in Kuntaw, but all of FMA is influenced by the various empires that conquered, trade with various polities etc.

Then you have what are considered modern hybrids; among these are Pekiti Tersia Kali, the core of which was created in 1897 and then refined in the mid 20th century and evolves even today.  You also have the one I study, Inosanto Kali.  However as these are modern hybrids, in Guro Dan's words "mixed martial arts concepts" they aren't relevant to the conversation imo.

The unarmed content in more typical Kali-Arnis-Escrima is very focused and not "full featured" it revolves around creating the ability to access your own weapon, or if your pants are completely down, to try and disarm your opponent..


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Like I said, legends often have a foundation in truth.  So they can lend some level of support.



At best it can point in a direction to research, but if it cannot be substantiated it lends no support whatsoever.

Some times legends are just pulled out of youknowwhere.



> ---Photos are not the same as a video showing actual movement and mechanics.  But again, this is not the time to rehash that old argument.



Posted videos too.



> ---And again, I already pointed out that "predating" means nothing!  The alternate theory to yours works just as well with saying that the pole method predated the empty hands.



Your alternate theory was that the pole method was adapted, but the videos showing the same method demonstrate that to be false.



> ---What system is that?  What system has this "nearly identical" pole form AND a "very similar" knife form?  Any video?



Hung Syun Hung Kyun, and you just saw the LDBG that came from this.



> ---Again, "predating" proves nothing!  And so far we only have your word that portion of that Hung Kuen form you focused on "maps perfectly" to Wing Chun.   And its just your theory that it was "never adapted."



You see the exact same actions in practically the same sequence. Nothing has been adapted between the two styles. That is proof positive right there.



> ---So all of your WSL brethren believe this?  Why have we only heard it from you and Guy B.?



You can ask others. So long as they have learned the full system, they should know this.



> ---From what I can tell, that actually wasn't really his theory, and no one else bought into it then either!  Are you saying you derived all of your theory from this guy's posts?



Of course not. I just found that post. The theory was something the poster had read.

And of course no one who had never heard of this would be quick to accept it if they had learned something else and hadn't seen the evidence.

But, it's not a popularity contest.



> ---Again, not identical if you watch and compare the videos!



Exactly the same actions. Practically the same sequence. Obviously the same method! 

In fighting, they are indistinguishable from one another.



> the entire Wing Chun empty hand system was developed from this short pole form????



No. Empty hand is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole _and_ knives, not just the pole.



> the entire Wing Chun empty hand system....with all of its concepts and principles.....coordinated use of two hands at the same time.....



Obviously, if we have two arms we can use "two poles".



> concept of sticking to and following an opponent at close range...



No such concept.



> more or less "square on" positioning with a pivoting dynamic....etc......derived from this short pole form?....a pole form with only one "arm"....that has a completely different mechanic (standing sideways, different stances, no pivot, etc)...that works from long range because it is a long pole....



It would be silly to fight sideways with only one arm. 

Since we aren't holding a pole with both hands we can face squarely and move freely to enable simultaneous use of our "two poles", and our arms are not 7ft long, so they work at close range just fine.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> No, I didn't.





> The pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed....
> 
> ...If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.



So you do claim that the other styles are practically indistinguishable.  The thing is I have shown that, with the sword/knives, there are distinct differences.  KPM showed with the pole.  You keep making the claim and shown ready stances.  That shows nothing of use.  You then post two videos of the pole that have brief periods where things look similar BUT have large sections where things are drastically different, showing that the overall method is different. 

Video has been shown where WC empty hand doesn't seem to be as unique as you claim, using the same logic you do with the pole...yet somehow that evidence doesn't matter but yours does?  That is, well, ridiculous.



> Hung Syun Hung Kyun, has both LDBG (shown, same as YM's form) and double knives.



Simply because they use similar blades (and as I said if you actually know blades they are different) doesn't make the techniques the same.  Now if you want to try and show that "Old Hung Kyun" is the same as YM WC please do, show it, stop making fiat staements, because they prove nothing except you have no evidence.



> Irrelevant then.



No, not irrelevant.  you said things like...



> pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed



to support your argument.  We have shown with more than one example that this "indistinguishable" nature you keep referring to doesn't exist.




> How are the meat and potatoes a cop out?



First because you were the one who mentioned "methods" that are "indistinguishable" first, not "strategy and tactics".  You didn't raise the later until people started showing that CMA's that use the same weapons use VERY different methods.  suddenly "methods" wasn't the issue it became "well if you don't understand the strategy and tactics..."  Also you ignore something that is vitally important.  The "method" vs "strategy and tactics" is a chicken or the egg proposition.  Each is informed very much by the other.  So to say "well the biomechanics don't matter because you can't tell me the strategy or tactical mindset" has to main issues.  Most importantly, the biomechanics serve the strategic and tactical mindset of the art. Of course there is a question as to whether the biomechanics were developed to meet the strategic and tactical mindset or if the the strategy and tactics are chosen to make maximal use of the biomechanics, but that isn't the point here.  Next again, you have repeatedly used this as the "answer" every time someone calls you out on an easily disproven statement, but have yet to actually explain how it is even vaguely relevant.




> It would be a waste of time because you haven't learned BJD, barely know any WC (even the newest newb has seen YM kick in CK), and are just guessing. I would not bother reading your uninformed ramblings.



no because you would simply dance around the truth and keep spouting fiat statements without producing a single piece of independent and verifiable piece of proof that contradicts that which has been arrayed against you thus far.  I mean heck, you point to one mistake I made in an unrelated debate, diverting from the point you have produced NO real evidence to support your claim beyond "because I say so."


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> You are correct to a large extent but miss something.  FMA does have "pure" unarmed forms like Panatukan, aka dirty boxing and another art called Kuntaw.  Now I don't know the origins of Panatukan, and yes admittedly there is a fair amount of Silat influence in Kuntaw, but all of FMA is influenced by the various empires that conquered, trade with various polities etc.
> 
> Then you have what are considered modern hybrids; among these are Pekiti Tersia Kali, the core of which was created in 1897 and then refined in the mid 20th century and evolves even today.  You also have the one I study, Inosanto Kali.  However as these are modern hybrids, in Guro Dan's words "mixed martial arts concepts" they aren't relevant to the conversation imo.
> 
> The unarmed content in more typical Kali-Arnis-Escrima is very focused and not "full featured" it revolves around creating the ability to access your own weapon, or if your pants are completely down, to try and disarm your opponent..



Panantukan is heavily influenced by western boxing, and Kuntaw by Silat as you noted.  Neither are derived entirely from the weapons.  Pekiti Tirsia also has a pretty heavy silat influence.  Again, not derived entirely from the weapons.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> The weapons predate VT. There was no need to do any adaptation and nothing to adapt. It's just combining two weapon ideas to form a new and unique approach to empty hand combat. It's simple, but genius.
> 
> Such a direction of development is not inconceivable. Kali empty hand?



Kali empty hand isn't well developed in the "traditional" systems.  There they exist to permit you time to get your weapon out, or to, if completely screwed try to disarm your opponents.  There are specific unarmed arts (Panatukan and Kuntaw) and modern hybrids (PTK and Inosanto Kali).  Of the hybrids IK is the only one I know of that tries to relate the weapon techniques to the unarmed techniques but PTK basically hybrids existing unarmed arts into the system.

All of that is irrelevant to your argument however.  Your argument started on weapon methods from other arts being "indistinguishable" from WC but the empty hand being unique.  The problem is even one of the videos of another Kung Fu shows some very obvious differences between them and WC and then we have additional videos that have been linked that illustrate this further.  We are still waiting for you to show the "proto-forms" that are indistinguishable from WC  

All you need to do is show a video of a single TCMA whose swordsmanship is "indistinguishable" from WC and the argument would go away but we are still waiting.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Panantukan is heavily influenced by western boxing, and Kuntaw by Silat as you noted.  Neither are derived entirely from the weapons.  Pekiti Tirsia also has a pretty heavy silat influence.  Again, not derived entirely from the weapons.



But that is the way of all FMA, armed and unarmed.  You have to look at FMAs and how they evolved differently.  You have a series of different empires that controlled the Philippines, either in part or almost in total such as the Srivijaya Empire, the Majapahit Empire, The Spanish and the United States all influenced FMA.  Just look at terms used in FMA's armed combat.  Redondo, Espada y Daga, the shapes of some of their blades

Here is a Majapahit blade that is also found in FMA, as an example






What makes FMA so rich in variety is that due to the tribal nature of the peoples they would take the tribal and family arts but then add elements of the arts taught by their conquerors and also adapt to their conquerors technology, either adapting their weapons, or in the case of the Spanish, adapting techniques to account for their armor. Etc.  I suppose one could argue that FMA is one of the first "hybrid martial arts". 

You can actually see it regionally even today.  In the South, especially Mindanao, you see a greater Silat influence across the board because of the proximity to Indonesia and the Empires that either conquered or traded with the South.  Go to the North and you see greater Western Influence because neither the Spanish nor the USA ever managed to fully pacify the south, again especially Mindanao.

The history of FMA is VERY interesting.  I would recommend anyone interested in it to read...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TKICF0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

or watch

Amazon.com: The Bladed Hand: Jay Ignacio, Kent Vives, Sonny Sison: Movies & TV

the movie is available on Amazon Instant.


----------



## KPM

*At best it can point in a direction to research, but if it cannot be substantiated it lends no support whatsoever.*

---Anthropologists use legends and stories to help support theories all the time.  Like I said...just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it untrue.


*Your alternate theory was that the pole method was adapted, but the videos showing the same method demonstrate that to be false.*

---Wrong.  All those videos show is a similarity between two pole methods.  They were not identical. They don't prove whether the pole was adapted to the empty hand or if the empty hands were adapted to the pole.  As I've said before, your logic seems to be a bit questionable.



*Hung Syun Hung Kyun, and you just saw the LDBG that came from this.*

---You implied that the LDBG portion came from an older art and Hung Kuen had added them into the Bat Gwa pole form.  So which is it?  Are you saying Wing Chun derived from Hung Kuen, or an older martial art? 



*You see the exact same actions in practically the same sequence. Nothing has been adapted between the two styles. That is proof positive right there.*

---That are not identical.  They prove only that they are similar and likely related.  Even if they were identical, that still wouldn't disprove the idea of that portion of the Hung Kuen form being added into the Wing Chun system and then the empty hand methods adjusted to conform with it. 



*You can ask others. So long as they have learned the full system, they should know this.*

---You didn't really answer my question.  Since only WSL guys know the full system, shouldn't they all agree with your theory?  So do they or don't they?   And you have now avoided answering my question about who is teaching this theory twice now.  Why is that?  Let me state my question again....who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people?




*And of course no one who had never heard of this would be quick to accept it if they had learned something else and hadn't seen the evidence.*

---What evidence?



*Obviously, if we have two arms we can use "two poles".*

---"Two poles"?     Now who is making a "stretch" with their theory?!!  Where in the pole form does one "pole" come to the aide of another?  Where in the pole form does one "pole" create a compound action with another?  Where in the pole form does one "pole" block while another attacks?



*Since we aren't holding a pole with both hands we can face squarely and move freely to enable simultaneous use of our "two poles", and our arms are not 7ft long, so they work at close range just fine.*

---True.  And again, you point out a totally different body mechanic with empty hands as compared to the pole.  Making it highly unlikely that the empty hand method was based upon the pole.  You move very differently with a 7 foot pole than you do when empty handed!  So given the lack of evidence to support your theory, you'll have to forgive for not believing it, since, as you said...."what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  And so far you haven't provided any real evidence.   You haven't even attempted to show how the empty hands "track" so closely with the pole even after being asked to do that directly.   So until I see something more convincing, I'm not convinced.


----------



## ShortBridge

LFJ said:


> ...yet VT empty hand is unique in the TCMA world and is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.
> 
> ...



It's true that we can't really know history, because there are no verifiable records for most of what we chose to argue about. 

But Wing Chun empty hands are not unique in the world of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Maybe among the ones you've spent years studying in China, but not in my own experience with other southern systems. I'm not saying that Wing Chun is like anything else, but among hand techniques, there is a lot of overlap with other southern systems. There are crane forms that have entire sections, for example, that look like sections of Wing Chun forms.


----------



## ShortBridge

Eric_H said:


> Hendrik Santos and the people that copied his inane ramblings (Sergio) don't count as scholars on this one. Got any legitimate sources?



I do not claim to be a scholar of any type. I've read some of Hendrik's posts and am not influenced by them at all. I can't even say for certain that I understand what he's on about.

I have studied and still practice a bit of crane from a very credible source and my experience with it is not inconsistent with my experience with Wing Chun. There is certainly overlap. They are not the same, but they are not really different either. My belief, based on personal experience is that Wing Chun shares some techniques and approach with crane. 

Take that for what it's worth. I offer no statement of authority beyond that and offer no evidence. But I also can't be convinced otherwise any more than you could convince me that lacrosse, soccer, basketball, and hockey were each developed in a vacuum by talented and wise people with no knowledge of one another.


----------



## ShortBridge

Back to the original post, what might be an omission is the tri-pole kicking set. I don't have a good history or dates on it, but I read on Samuel Kwok's site that Yip Man brought it with him from Foshan, but didn't teach it for very long in Hong Kong for practical reasons. That reconciles more or less with what is said in my family as well. I don't claim to know, specifically this or anything else, but if you're making a list like the one that started this discussion, it's probably worth considering.


----------



## Juany118

ShortBridge said:


> I do not claim to be a scholar of any type. I've read some of Hendrik's posts and am not influenced by them at all. I can't even say for certain that I understand what he's on about.
> 
> I have studied and still practice a bit of crane from a very credible source and my experience with it is not inconsistent with my experience with Wing Chun. There is certainly overlap. They are not the same, but they are not really different either. My belief, based on personal experience is that Wing Chun shares some techniques and approach with crane.
> 
> Take that for what it's worth. I offer no statement of authority beyond that and offer no evidence. But I also can't be convinced otherwise any more than you could convince me that lacrosse, soccer, basketball, and hockey were each developed in a vacuum by talented and wise people with no knowledge of one another.



I think you illustrate the core issue.  You can have overlap and still be different.  Simply because you may overlap here or there doesn't = being "indistinguishable" from something else.  Sometimes it maybe because techniques are intentionally borrowed.  Other times it can be a matter of biomechanics.  The human body can only move in so many ways so at some point there may be natural similarities.

My main contention at least is simply that the weapons forms are no more, or less, unique than the empty hand, from a biomechanical standpoint


----------



## Juany118

Nvm


----------



## ShortBridge

What I was reacting to was "VT hand technique is unique". 

"Indistinguishable" is a different standard and I don't claim that.


----------



## Juany118

ShortBridge said:


> What I was reacting to was "VT hand technique is unique".
> 
> "Indistinguishable" is a different standard and I don't claim that.



Yes but the thing is someone else is speaking about certain things being indistinguishable.  I was simply trying to illustrate that some things overlap between systems isn't the "indistinguishable" that someone else has been using.


----------



## ShortBridge

Fair enough and I'll let you guys return to your regularly scheduled programming at this point.

But, in response to this: 



Juany118 said:


> ...Other times it can be a matter of biomechanics.  The human body can only move in so many ways so at some point there may be natural similarities.
> ...



Let me just say that while the above statement is absolutely true, I don't personally believe that commonality between Wing Chun and White Crane are incidental. I'm not trying to make any claims that need to be defended, just offering my perspective from my own study and experience. Anyone and everyone are free to disagree and even claim that they have personal knowledge only known to 3 people in the world and have seen the secret scrolls. I'm good with it.


----------



## Juany118

ShortBridge said:


> Fair enough and I'll let you guys return to your regularly scheduled programming at this point.
> 
> But, in response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me just say that while the above statement is absolutely true, I don't personally believe that commonality between Wing Chun and White Crane are incidental. I'm not trying to make any claims that need to be defended, just offering my perspective from my own study and experience. Anyone and everyone are free to disagree and even claim that they have personal knowledge only known to 3 people in the world and have seen the secret scrolls. I'm good with it.



Oh, I am not saying your experience is not accurate,  nor do I disagree with your analysis.  I was simply pointing out another avenue people sometimes overlook.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So you do claim that the other styles are practically indistinguishable.  The thing is I have shown that, with the sword/knives, there are distinct differences.  KPM showed with the pole.



I didn't say all styles. You showed unrelated styles. Irrelevant.



> You keep making the claim and shown ready stances.  That shows nothing of use.  You then post two videos of the pole that have brief periods where things look similar BUT have large sections where things are drastically different, showing that the overall method is different.



If you are going to keep joining the discussion, please follow.

The section of the form I pointed out is a pole method from a different style than the larger form it was imbedded into. It is markedly distinct from the rest of that form because it is from a different style.

The rest of that style is irrelevant. I've only used those videos because it is one of the only places you will find this style of LDBG preserved and readily available to be viewed on Youtube.



> Video has been shown where WC empty hand doesn't seem to be as unique as you claim, using the same logic you do with the pole...yet somehow that evidence doesn't matter but yours does?  That is, well, ridiculous.



I have not seen such video.



> Simply because they use similar blades (and as I said if you actually know blades they are different) doesn't make the techniques the same.



What blades and what styles are you even comparing?



> We have shown with more than one example that this "indistinguishable" nature you keep referring to doesn't exist.



You absolutely have not. The pole method is unmistakably the same.



> First because you were the one who mentioned "methods" that are "indistinguishable" first, not "strategy and tactics".





> suddenly "methods" wasn't the issue it became "well if you don't understand the strategy and tactics..."





> Also you ignore something that is vitally important.  The "method" vs "strategy and tactics" is a chicken or the egg proposition.



The strategy and tactics are the method! When I say "method", I'm referring to the "strategy and tactics".



> you have produced NO real evidence to support your claim beyond "because I say so."



Except of course for an identical pole method in an older style proving it was not YM's invention or adapted to fit VT.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Anthropologists use legends and stories to help support theories all the time.  Like I said...just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it untrue.



No, dude. It only provides a direction in which to search. Legends cannot be presented as supporting evidence for a truth claim!

Otherwise, there is supporting evidence that ghosts exist just because there are legends about a spirit world. But research in that direction reveals that the belief is unsubstantiated.

Legends are invalid as supporting evidence for a truth claim. Only observable facts are valid. Until your legend can lead to concrete evidence, it can be disregarded.



> All those videos show is a similarity between two pole methods.  They were not identical. They don't prove whether the pole was adapted to the empty hand or if the empty hands were adapted to the pole.



Only if you are stubbornly looking for an exact sequence. The actions are identical. The overall pattern is the same. More importantly, the fighting application is indistinguishable. It is unmistakably the same method.

The fact that it predates VT and has not been changed between that style and VT is proof that the pole method was not adapted to fit VT, and there was no VT to be adapted to it.



> ---You implied that the LDBG portion came from an older art and Hung Kuen had added them into the Bat Gwa pole form.  So which is it?  Are you saying Wing Chun derived from Hung Kuen, or an older martial art?



You are not following.

There are many things labeled Hung Kyun. That LDBG is from an older style than the NLBGG form it was embedded into. Two different styles.

It is from a three form system that includes pole, knives, and empty hand. The system is similar to VT.

You can immediately recognize the same pole method between the two styles. If I showed the form separately and unlabelled, pole drilling, and free fighting, anyone from YMVT would identify it as VT pole method.

The empty hand uses an upright and squared body structure, emphasizes "short bridge" and pressing attacks. But the way VT empty hand functions is very unique, in that it is based on tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.



> ---That are not identical.  They prove only that they are similar and likely related.  Even if they were identical, that still wouldn't disprove the idea of that portion of the Hung Kuen form being added into the Wing Chun system and then the empty hand methods adjusted to conform with it.



That's almost exactly the argument! The pole method (techniques and function) is identical and predates VT.

VT empty hands are modelled in part on the pole. Since there was no VT hands to begin with, there was nothing to adjust, only to create.



> Since only WSL guys know the full system, shouldn't they all agree with your theory?  So do they or don't they?   And you have now avoided answering my question about who is teaching this theory twice now.  Why is that?  Let me state my question again....who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people?



I have never said only WSL guys know the full system. YM taught a few people. If you look around online you will see other people talking about it. I'm not going to speak for other people. But it is common knowledge to those who know the system.



> ---What evidence?



The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.



> ---"Two poles"?     Now who is making a "stretch" with their theory?!!  Where in the pole form does one "pole" come to the aide of another?  Where in the pole form does one "pole" create a compound action with another?  Where in the pole form does one "pole" block while another attacks?



You expect us to fight with one arm then? Don't be silly. It's the tactical guidelines of the pole that are carried over into two arms. These are conceptual.



> *Since we aren't holding a pole with both hands we can face squarely and move freely to enable simultaneous use of our "two poles", and our arms are not 7ft long, so they work at close range just fine.*
> 
> ---True.  And again, you point out a totally different body mechanic with empty hands as compared to the pole.  Making it highly unlikely that the empty hand method was based upon the pole.



Again, tactical guidelines. It would be silly to fight sideways with one arm. Of course we are going to take advantage of the freedom of movement with two empty hands! Plus, you are missing the other half, being the knives.


----------



## LFJ

ShortBridge said:


> Wing Chun empty hands are not unique in the world of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Maybe among the ones you've spent years studying in China, but not in my own experience with other southern systems. I'm not saying that Wing Chun is like anything else, but among hand techniques, there is a lot of overlap with other southern systems. There are crane forms that have entire sections, for example, that look like sections of Wing Chun forms.



Hand shapes and physical resemblance are irrelevant. No other style functions as VT does.


----------



## wckf92

ShortBridge said:


> ...is the tri-pole kicking set. I don't have a good history or dates on it, but I read on Samuel Kwok's site that Yip Man brought it with him from Foshan, but didn't teach it for very long in Hong Kong for practical reasons. That reconciles more or less with what is said in my family as well.



@ShortBridge I agree, and what you say matches my understanding as well. It's yet another example (maybe) of YM being selective and only passing this down to a few...like the pole and knives. I've heard this training was the last thing YM taught Duncan, even after the knives (which are typically last in the curriculum).

 I didn't realize Kwok was trained in it as well.


----------



## KPM

*Otherwise, there is supporting evidence that ghosts exist just because there are legends about a spirit world. But research in that direction reveals that the belief is unsubstantiated.*

---Uh, no dude.  Again your logic is flawed.   If an anthropologist is working on establishing that a culture believed in an afterlife and practiced certain rituals based upon that, then legends about a spirit world are most certainly supporting evidence for a theory in that direction.  If an anthropologist is working through the origins of a certain tribe and its relationship to others, then that tribe's legends about its origins are most certainly supporting evidence for showing relationship with another.



*Only if you are stubbornly looking for an exact sequence.*

---You mean like you do when looking at comparisons of Wing Chun and some of the Fukien White Crane forms?    The standards I am holding you to in order to make a convincing argument to support your theory are pretty much the same standards you have held Hendrik/Sergio/Robert Chu/etc. to in their theory about a White Crane connection to Wing Chun.  And they provided much more supporting evidence than you have!


*The actions are identical. The overall pattern is the same. More importantly, the fighting application is indistinguishable. It is unmistakably the same method.*

---They are close but not identical.  And didn't you make an argument before for "superficial" similarities being irrelevant when discussing White Crane and Wing Chun? 


*The fact that it predates VT and has not been changed between that style and VT is proof that the pole method was not adapted to fit VT, and there was no VT to be adapted to it.*

---How many times do I have to point out that it absolutely does not "prove" anything other than similarity and therefore relationship.  Exactly WHAT that relationship is has not been proven at all!  Again dude, use a little logical thinking here.  In the Hung Kuen form he uses wider motions and angles that WSL did not use.  So at the very least the argument would be that this form was taken and adapted to be more linear.  That much should be clear to anyone!  That fact that it predates Wing Chun means nothing.  That form could have been added on to Wing Chun at some point, made more linear in its approach, and then some of the strategies and tactics taught by the pole form incorporated into the empty hand method.   Two-way street....Wing Chun empty hands could have lead to some minor adjustments in the form and the form could have also influenced how the empty hands were used and taught from that time forward.  Nothing you have said or shown "proves" that the empty hand method was derived entirely from that short pole form.  You can deny that all you want.  But it is the truth. 



*You are not following.*

---Oh, I'm following just fine!

*There are many things labeled Hung Kyun. That LDBG is from an older style than the NLBGG form it was embedded into. Two different styles.  It is from a three form system that includes pole, knives, and empty hand. The system is similar to VT.*

---And I acknowledged that as one of the options and directly asked you what the name of this system is and whether you had video to show of it.  Did you miss that part?  Are you not following this discussion?

---Three times how you have ignored my question of who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people.  Why is that?  Are you not following? 




*The empty hand uses an upright and squared body structure, emphasizes "short bridge" and pressing attacks. But the way VT empty hand functions is very unique, in that it is based on tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.*

---And you have not yet "proven" that, given that the empty hand methods function with a completely different biomechanics, that the pole did not simply influence, contribute to, and refine the preexisting empty hand method with its tactical guidelines.  That still seems much more probable to me!





*VT empty hands are modelled in part on the pole. Since there was no VT hands to begin with, there was nothing to adjust, only to create.*

---That is exactly the point which you have not even come close to proving or even supporting well so far!   I've asked you a couple of times to explain exactly where and how the empty hands "track" with the pole, but you have ignored that request both times.  That might help support what you have been saying.  Then again, maybe not!



*I have never said only WSL guys know the full system.*

---Dude!  You have said EXACTLY that in past arguments!  You have said more than once that "maybe Ip Man taught people other than WSL the full system, you that you hadn't come across anyone else yet!   You have said that everyone else's Wing Chun is "broken" other than WSL lineage!  



*The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.*

---Are you using the "Trump strategy"?  You know....the more times you say something the more it makes it true?     Sorry, no "alternative facts" are acknowledged here! 



*You expect us to fight with one arm then? Don't be silly. It's the tactical guidelines of the pole that are carried over into two arms. These are conceptual.*

---And what have you said so far to disprove the idea that those tactical guidelines were not simply added to a preexisting Wing Chun empty hand method on a conceptual basis and the empty hand method adjusted to some extent to make use of those concepts?  This makes far more sense than what you have been saying!



*Again, tactical guidelines. It would be silly to fight sideways with one arm. Of course we are going to take advantage of the freedom of movement with two empty hands! Plus, you are missing the other half, being the knives.*

---The knives are a whole other discussion.  Are you know trying to say that the knives also predated the empty hand methods?  Because there is pretty good evidence that the knives were a relatively late addition.

---Bottom line here.....you have not made a convincing argument for your theory at all.   I don't care how many times you say something "proves" it, that doesn't actually make it true.  And you have repeatedly avoided answer direct questions.   So there really is no reason to continue this discussion.


----------



## ShortBridge

wckf92 said:


> @ShortBridge I agree, and what you say matches my understanding as well. It's yet another example (maybe) of YM being selective and only passing this down to a few...like the pole and knives. I've heard this training was the last thing YM taught Duncan, even after the knives (which are typically last in the curriculum).
> 
> I didn't realize Kwok was trained in it as well.



Here's the quote that I lifted off of Samuel Kwok's website. It doesn't actually say that he was taught this set, it's just an historical account of it existing.

"...The Bong Kick is another defensive kick that is often not taught. The Bong Kick used to be trained on Moi Fa Joig (3 posts stuck in the ground to form a triangle). However when Ip Man moved to Hong Kong from China it became impractical to find somewhere to put posts in the ground..."

It is part of Duncan's closed door cirriculum, so if you take Kwok's statement and overlay it with Duncan's dates (mid-late '50s) that could be part of your timeline.

I am aware of 3 triangular poles being used in a mainland style that went from China to Malaysia and I've seen Southern Preying Mantis videos that use poles in this configuration. So, at least the concept of the device is not confined to Wing Chun.


----------



## wckf92

ShortBridge said:


> ChiIt is part of Duncan's closed door cirriculum,
> 
> I am aware of 3 triangular poles being used in a mainland style that went from China to Malaysia and I've seen Southern Preying Mantis videos that use poles in this configuration. So, at least the concept of the device is not confined to Wing Chun.



Would be interested to know more about that style you mention! We could start a different thread or you could PM me for further discussion? Thx


----------



## ShortBridge

wckf92 said:


> Would be interested to know more about that style you mention! We could start a different thread or you could PM me for further discussion? Thx



It's been a few years and I want to respect their choice to be more private than we are, but let me refresh my memory and I'll send you a PM.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If an anthropologist is working on establishing that a culture believed in an afterlife and practiced certain rituals based upon that, then legends about a spirit world are most certainly supporting evidence for a theory in that direction.



That's not how science works. You don't make up a story and look for things to support it.

If researching a culture, you look at all the available facts, form a hypothesis and continue to research from there.

In this case, legends are a starting point for research, not supporting evidence for anything. If they lead to the discovery of cultural relics suggestive of rituals related to those legends, only then is it time to suppose that an afterlife belief was part of the culture.

If the legends don't lead to any verifiable facts, then they are just stories, myths, or fables told by the people, not evidence that they believed them.



> If an anthropologist is working through the origins of a certain tribe and its relationship to others, then that tribe's legends about its origins are most certainly supporting evidence for showing relationship with another.



No, they're not. Again, it is only a start point for research.

Supporting evidence must be something concrete; can you put the tribes in the same place and time and objectively verify intermingling?

If not, origin stories are evidence of nothing, especially if those stories are not original and don't explicitly mention any intermingling between tribes. You are just guessing and using Wishful Thinking.



> *Only if you are stubbornly looking for an exact sequence.*
> 
> ---You mean like you do when looking at comparisons of Wing Chun and some of the Fukien White Crane forms?



Not at all. The important thing is how the methods function. In the case of these two pole methods, the actions in the forms are the same, the sequence is practically the same from start to finish, _and_ most importantly, the use of one from the other is indistinguishable in combat.

WC and FWC? A few similar hand shapes in the forms is about all. I've shown the same shapes and actions in completely unrelated styles. But most importantly, their free fighting methods are very different.



> *The actions are identical. The overall pattern is the same. More importantly, the fighting application is indistinguishable. It is unmistakably the same method.*
> 
> ---They are close but not identical.  And didn't you make an argument before for "superficial" similarities being irrelevant when discussing White Crane and Wing Chun?



They are identical, and not at all superficial, since they function _exactly_ the same in combat, too. White Crane and Wing Chun do not.



> That form could have been added on to Wing Chun at some point, made more linear in its approach,



The approach is exactly the same in combat. Are you not following? It is already a very linear approach.



> Wing Chun empty hands could have lead to some minor adjustments in the form



If there are any minor "adjustments" to the form, it's the result of more than a century separation. But the method is exactly the same in combat. You keep focusing on the finger.



> ---Oh, I'm following just fine!
> 
> *There are many things labeled Hung Kyun. That LDBG is from an older style than the NLBGG form it was embedded into. Two different styles.  It is from a three form system that includes pole, knives, and empty hand. The system is similar to VT.*
> 
> ---And I acknowledged that as one of the options and directly asked you what the name of this system is and whether you had video to show of it.  Did you miss that part?  Are you not following this discussion?



Following just fine? I told both you and Juany the name and you were looking at videos of the pole from that system.



> ---Three times how you have ignored my question of who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people.  Why is that?  Are you not following?



I've not ignored it. I just told you I'm not going to speak for others besides myself or take a survey for you, but yes, it is common knowledge to those who know the system. Guy and I have never met or discussed it before sharing the info on this forum.

I also gave you a link to a thread from some years ago of someone who said he saw others discussing it. So, people do know of it. Go search around or ask about if you're interested.



> ---And you have not yet "proven" that, given that the empty hand methods function with a completely different biomechanics, that the pole did not simply influence, contribute to, and refine the preexisting empty hand method with its tactical guidelines.  That still seems much more probable to me!



Impossible. The tactical guidelines from the pole and the knives _are_ the entire basis of the empty hand fighting concept and everything in the system.



> I've asked you a couple of times to explain exactly where and how the empty hands "track" with the pole,



I explained in your thread on the 6.5 points, how each matches in concept to the empty hand actions, and the strategy and tactics.



> *I have never said only WSL guys know the full system.*
> 
> ---Dude!  You have said EXACTLY that in past arguments!  You have said more than once that "maybe Ip Man taught people other than WSL the full system, you that you hadn't come across anyone else yet!   You have said that everyone else's Wing Chun is "broken" other than WSL lineage!



Strawman.



> *The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.*
> 
> ---Are you using the "Trump strategy"?  You know....the more times you say something the more it makes it true?     Sorry, no "alternative facts" are acknowledged here!



If it were adapted to VT empty hands, the VT version wouldn't still be exactly the same as a pre- and non-VT style.



> ---And what have you said so far to disprove the idea that those tactical guidelines were not simply added to a preexisting Wing Chun empty hand method on a conceptual basis and the empty hand method adjusted to some extent to make use of those concepts?



The conceptual base _is_ the method. Without the conceptual base, there is nothing left.

Take out the pole and knife ideas, and you have nothing. There is no method apart from this.



> ---The knives are a whole other discussion.  Are you know trying to say that the knives also predated the empty hand methods?



It is the same discussion. VT empty hand is a combination of pole and knife ideas. The weapons are the foundation upon which the empty hand system was conceptualized and developed. If instead you apply empty hand thinking to knives, you will die.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The tactical guidelines from the pole and the knives


What are they?


----------



## geezer

I find all this argumentation pointless. The argument that Wing Chun may have some common roots with Fukien White Crane could have merit. But, there just aren't enough facts for this to convince everyone. Are the strategies and tactics distinct?  Knowledgeable people like LFJ say so. OK. But then he also insists that the strategy and tactics of WSL VT are very different from the other branches of YM WC he has seen.

Well if such differences can arise in_ a single generation_, think about the changes that can evolve over centuries. Just my observation.


----------



## wckf92

ShortBridge said:


> It's been a few years and I want to respect their choice to be more private than we are, but let me refresh my memory and I'll send you a PM.



Thank you!


----------



## KPM

*That's not how science works. You don't make up a story and look for things to support it.

If researching a culture, you look at all the available facts, form a hypothesis and continue to research from there.*

---You just love to argue don't you???  Do you actually know anything about anthropology?   The examples I gave were perfectly valid.  The anthropologist isn't making up any stories!   Once again you are leading me to believe that you have trouble putting together good logic.





*Following just fine? I told both you and Juany the name and you were looking at videos of the pole from that system.*

---Then you are being very confusing.  You posted videos from the Hung Kuen system.  And then you stated that short sequence of the form you were referring to came from an older system.  So I  asked what that system was and if you had video.  And now you are saying that is Hung Kuen?   Make up your mind.  Is your mythical proto-Wing Chun system Hung Kuen, or something older?



*I've not ignored it. I just told you I'm not going to speak for others besides myself or take a survey for you, but yes, it is common knowledge to those who know the system. Guy and I have never met or discussed it before sharing the info on this forum.*

---I asked WHO in the WSL system is teaching this theory?  Who came up with it and has been telling it to everyone else?   Why is that so hard to answer?  You and Guy heard it from someone. You are clinging very tightly to it despite the fact that there is clearly not much at all to back it up.  So I assume it must be PB or some other prominent WSL teacher that has been telling people this.  So who is it?  Why do you keep ignoring that question?  Three times now!!!




*I explained in your thread on the 6.5 points, how each matches in concept to the empty hand actions, and the strategy and tactics.*

---But you are too lazy to make the effort to do it again to support your own theory???   I guess you don't take this discussion very seriously then.

---Look, as I said before....if you are just going to keep repeating the same thing with the belief that each time you say it it becomes more true we can just stop right here.  If you are unwilling to actually answer questions or elaborate on something that may provide some support for your theory, then there is no need to continue this discussion.   I am far from convinced.  It simply isn't plausible and has nothing so far to support it.  There is no need to just keep saying the same things over and over.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You posted videos from the Hung Kuen system.



That might be your problem. There is no "the" HK system.



> And then you stated that short sequence of the form you were referring to came from an older system.  So I  asked what that system was and if you had video.  And now you are saying that is Hung Kuen?   Make up your mind.  Is your mythical proto-Wing Chun system Hung Kuen, or something older?



It's HK. There are a number of styles with this label with vary large differences. There are the so-called "old" village styles that are pre- and non-WFH, and the "new" or modern styles that are most widespread today.

Some of the old styles are much more similar to VT than to modern HK, with "short bridge" and narrow stances like YJKYM. See the first half of this form, for example.

You might think it resembles White Crane too. Likely because they share origins. But VT functions very differently than all these village styles, because it's the only one based on weapon methods.

This LDBG I've shown you comes from one of the old styles, Hung-Syun Hung-Kyun, a three form system including 6.5 pole, double knives, and empty hand. It is quite different from the modern HK styles.

The LDBG of this style was embedded into the NLBGG form you saw by LSW who learned it from his grand-uncle prior to training under WFH. It is a markedly different style.

This is why I posted the video of NLBGG. It is one of the only places you'll find it preserved and readily available for viewing on Youtube.



> ---I asked WHO in the WSL system is teaching this theory?  Who came up with it and has been telling it to everyone else?



The originator/s of the method came up with it. WSL taught it and he learned it from YM.

If you're trying to single people out, like PB, to come with another strawman of who's right, who's wrong, you can forget it. If you want to take a survey, be my guest. But we don't need any Appeals to Majority, or Appeals to Authority. The data speaks for itself.



> *I explained in your thread on the 6.5 points, how each matches in concept to the empty hand actions, and the strategy and tactics.*
> 
> ---But you are too lazy to make the effort to do it again to support your own theory???   I guess you don't take this discussion very seriously then.



Lazy? I've been typing up a walls of text for you.

1. _fong-lung-cheung_ (releasing dragon spear) = punch
2. _ping-cheung_ (leveling spear) = _lan-sau_
3. _leung-yi_ (two moves) = _jam-sau_, defends while lining up the punch, hence "two moves"
4. _lau-seui _(stirring water) = _bong-sau_ or _gaang-sau_, low deflection
5. _kam-gwan_ (covering pole) = _jat-sau_, knocks the pole down after _lau-seui_ taking the attack line
6. _dang-gwan_ (ascending pole) = arching _lan-sau_ motion at the start and finish of the form
6.5 _che-cheung _(slanting pole) = final action recovering poor position, half point because it starts from extension, not from body like other actions

It is the exact same LDBG method in the HSHK style. Each of these match in concept and function between the pole and hands, as well as in tactical importance.

The primary and auxiliary hand actions map to the primary and auxiliary pole actions, i.e. _fong-lung-cheung_ (pole thrust) and the punch are the main actions, _leung-yi_ and _kam-gwan _are auxiliary actions for the pole to open the line for the thrust, just as _paak-sau_ and _jat-sau_ do for the punch. All other actions are for returning to the primary.

Tactically, the guidelines are using short shocking power for displacement and aggressively capturing space for the strike. The shaft displaces while the tip remains aimed and blasts in with the strike. There is no stick and follow.

In empty hand, we face squarely to enable simultaneous use of "two poles", using the forearms (shaft) to displace while maintaining aim and striking with fist (tip). This ability is developed in _daan-chi-sau_, where two "poles" are in a face-off to develop the other's ability. Initially two beats for training become one in fighting.

Without knowing the tactical guidelines from the pole, and that they are the basis of the empty hand method, many get trapped in a game of "stick, follow, roll" instead of displace and hit directly. In fighting, the former doesn't work, the latter does.

Now, it is impossible for the VT empty hand method to coincidentally map so completely and seamlessly to the pole if it were not conceptualized and developed in large part based on the pole method.

If you say the pole method could have been modelled after the VT empty hand method, then the exact pole method _should not_ exist in a pre- and non-VT style.

But it does. This is a flaming fact!

VT empty-hand method came in part from this pole. Knife thinking is the other element that makes fighting close-range against the opponent's "two weapons" effective.


----------



## Juany118

Bowing out after this but here we go.  If we look at the history of Wing Chun we actually can't find any verifiable evidence of its existence prior to the 19th Century.  So if we are going to go based on facts that we can prove we have to say that the art is only about 200 years old.  Because of this logic dictates that WC, across the board from empty hand must be the product of previous arts, even if a different strategic mindset resulted in greater adaptation in terms of the empty hand form.

I say this because while weapons are a "force multiplier" and provide additional options such as potentially greater reach,  they actually can result in additional limitations.  If you lose a long staff or pole arm it can limit your stances, mobility and require both hands.  If you use swords, edge alignment and the degree of your arcs of attack can be limited.  Example if you use a blade like this (my personal favorite)






 You better get used to it because the nature of the curve means you can bite yourself if you are used to more traditional curved blades.

Because of the limitations on the weapon you wield you and then add in the fact of the tactical considerations of facing a weapon and you will likely see MORE similarities than you will unarmed BUT simply because there are more similarities with weapons doesn't mean that there are none when it comes to the unarmed portion.


----------



## KPM

---Ok.  Now this is a good post!  Why did you not do this 2 pages ago rather than just repeat over and over that you had "proved" something that you had not??


*It's HK. There are a number of styles with this label with vary large differences. There are the so-called "old" village styles that are pre- and non-WFH, and the "new" or modern styles that are most widespread today.*

---Now this is interesting and good info!  Do you have any more video of this particular style?   But my question would be this....if this is a 3 form system, has empty hand that resembles Wing Chun, has the LDBK form and the knives, why you NOT think that the WHOLE system was an ancestor of Wing Chun rather than just the pole (and the knives to some extent)?


*Some of the old styles are much more similar to VT than to modern HK, with "short bridge" and narrow stances like YJKYM. See the first half of **this form**, for example.*

----It is similar to the Crane portion of the Hung Gar "Tiger/Crane" form. 

*You might think it resembles White Crane too. Likely because they share origins. But VT functions very differently than all these village styles, because it's the only one based on weapon methods.*

---I would say they all three resemble each other likely because they all three share origins!   Wing Chun functions differently simply because it has evolved and developed along a different pathway over the last 100 years or more.  Maybe because it evolved to be more in-line with the weapons.  Still doesn't prove is was developed entirely FROM the weapons!


*This LDBG I've shown you comes from one of the old styles, Hung-Syun Hung-Kyun, a three form system including 6.5 pole, double knives, and empty hand. It is quite different from the modern HK styles.*

---Again, very interesting info.  I'd like to see more of this particular style.  Is that name specific for this style?

*
The originator/s of the method came up with it. WSL taught it and he learned it from YM.*

---Once again, you are being rather confusing in the  way you are writing things.  Are you saying that both YM and WSL taught that Wing Chun empty hands was developed entirely from the weapons?


*
If you're trying to single people out, like PB, to come with another strawman of who's right, who's wrong, you can forget it. If you want to take a survey, be my guest. But we don't need any Appeals to Majority, or Appeals to Authority. The data speaks for itself.*


---I'm not trying to create a strawman.  I'm just curious about who originally came up with this idea and has started teaching it to people.  And I'm trying to understand why you would so stubbornly support it when there obviously isn't really much to back it up.



*Lazy? I've been typing up a walls of text for you.*

---Until this post, you have simply been repeating the same thing over and over.   You could have provided the information here 2 pages ago!


*1. fong-lung-cheung (releasing dragon spear) = punch
2. ping-cheung (leveling spear) = lan-sau
3. leung-yi (two moves) = jam-sau, defends while lining up the punch, hence "two moves"
4. lau-seui (stirring water) = bong-sau or gaang-sau, low deflection
5. kam-gwan (covering pole) = jat-sau, knocks the pole down after lau-seui taking the attack line
6. dang-gwan (ascending pole) = arching lan-sau motion at the start and finish of the form
6.5 che-cheung (slanting pole) = final action recovering poor position, half point because it starts from extension, not from body like other actions*

---We would make similar correlations and even more in Tang Yik pole!  But no one has ever claimed it was because all of the empty hand methods were based on the pole!   And I pointed out that this is rather generic when you posted it before.  But I'll go through it again.

1.  LOTS of southern CMA's have a centerline straight punch!
2.  Plenty of southern CMA's also have a Lan Sau-like motion, heck Tai Chi does that a lot and uses stances and mechanics more similar to the pole than Wing Chun empty hands!
3. You don't think other CMA's line up and punch directly from a defensive motion?   Southern Mantis comes to mind.
4. Nearly every martial art has a low deflection technique that resembles a low Bong or a Gan!
5.  Southern Mantis most definitely has a "Jut Sau"-like motion.
6.  You don't point out an empty hand correlation here.  Empty hand doesn't include an "arcing" Lan Sau.  In fact, I think by your definition that would be  "chasing hands"!
6.5  No empty hand correlation noted here either.

--- Heck, I can do better than that with the Tang Yik 6.5 pole:

1.  Cheung (full thrust) =  straight punch
2.  Chin (semi-circle) = Huen Sau
3.  Si (to tear or rip) = Fak Sau
4.  Tan (striking down on the opponent's pole) = Jum Sau
5.  Tik (half thrust) = Biu Gee
6.  Choat (ascending pole) = Sao Sau or Tun Sau
7.  Got (big swinging strike) = Gwai Choi
8.  Po Kwun = Gan Sau
9.  Lan Kwun = Lan Sau
10.  Gan Kwun = Gan Sau
11.  Recovery from the Cheung = Jut Sau
12.  Angling from side to center is a central strategy in both pole and empty hand

---But again, no one in Weng Chun circles have ever concluded that the empty hands derived from the pole!  They simply acknowledge that if the empty hand and the pole go together in the same system, you would expect them to have commonalities!


*It is the exact same LDBG method in the HSHK style. Each of these match in concept and function between the pole and hands, as well as in tactical importance.*

---That's all you've got?   You really think that "proves" that the entire empty hand method derived from the pole?  Again, there is nothing there to suggest that both the pole AND the existing empty hand methods weren't "adjusted" or "adapted" to fit each other better over several generations of development.


*Tactically, the guidelines are using short shocking power for displacement and aggressively capturing space for the strike. The shaft displaces while the tip remains aimed and blasts in with the strike. There is no stick and follow.*

---Southern Mantis also uses short shocking power and aggressively capturing space.  That is not unique to Wing Chun at all.


*In empty hand, we face squarely to enable simultaneous use of "two poles", using the forearms (shaft) to displace while maintaining aim and striking with fist (tip). This ability is developed in daan-chi-sau, where two "poles" are in a face-off to develop the other's ability. Initially two beats for training become one in fighting.*

---Nothing unique here either.  Southern Mantis and other Hakka styles have one arm exercises to develop something similar and then progress to two arm exercises.   I'd be willing to be bet that your Hung Syun Hung Kyun style does as well.  

*
Without knowing the tactical guidelines from the pole, and that they are the basis of the empty hand method, many get trapped in a game of "stick, follow, roll" instead of displace and hit directly. In fighting, the former doesn't work, the latter does.*

---But that does not rule out the possibility that someone took the game of "stick, follow, roll" and realized that seeing it with the tactical guidelines of the pole would improve it and make it better!  IF the empty hands were developed from the pole, wouldn't everyone being avoiding the game of "stick, follow, roll" because it would never be taught that way?


*Now, it is impossible for the VT empty hand method to coincidentally map so completely and seamlessly to the pole if it were not conceptualized and developed in large part based on the pole method.*

---"Completely"????  What you showed was certainly not "complete", nor particularly unique to Wing Chun.   You can keep telling yourself you have "proven" something if you want to.  That doesn't make it true.


*If you say the pole method could have been modelled after the VT empty hand method, then the exact pole method should not exist in a pre- and non-VT style.*

---I never said that!   I said simply that the pole was an add on to the system and that both the pole and empty hands both likely adapted somewhat to suit that marriage.

*But it does. This is a flaming fact!*

---How many times do I have to point out that the pole form existing before Wing Chun was developed is not proof of anything.  Early Wing Chun developed from White Crane/Emei snake....or from combining elements of the original Shaolin styles.....or from the evolution of a village style like your Hung Syun Hung Kyun.....could easily have added the older LDBK pole method and then further evolved the empty hands to align with it.   NOTHING you have presented says that the only way Wing Chun could have been developed was by deriving it entirely from the weapons!


----------



## geezer

As I follow this thread, I see both LFJ and KPM making valid points from their personal perspective, but they will never agree since their basic view on WC/VT are so different to begin with!

The Hung Gar pole form LFJ posted _does_ closely resemble the LDBK form I learned. So these kinds of pole movements and, yes the _strategy _may have existed previously to the evolution of the VT/WC that was taught by Yip Man. Heck, Yip Man's story of the origin of his art states as much with the attribution of the pole techniques to Chi-Shi who taught them to Leung Yee Tai. Legends often contain a grain of truth.

Probably the pole _was_ an old skill separate from the hand system that was assimilated, and  may well have _strategically_ informed and directed the development of the empty hands, ultimately yielding  the WC/WT that we see today.

How far you want to take this is up to you. Certainly many WC/VT practitioners have noted theoretical and strategic relationships between spear, pole, and even Western fencing and WC/VT empty hands. LFJ insists that the pole must be the foundation for VT empty hands. OK fine. To me that seems a bit dogmatic and strongly opinionated. But I do see his point. KPM has a sort of allergic reaction to dogma. I get that too.

 Oh well... I guess there's no solving _that_ disagreement. Carry on...


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ---Ok.  Now this is a good post!  Why did you not do this 2 pages ago rather than just repeat over and over that you had "proved" something that you had not??
> 
> 
> *It's HK. There are a number of styles with this label with vary large differences. There are the so-called "old" village styles that are pre- and non-WFH, and the "new" or modern styles that are most widespread today.*
> 
> ---Now this is interesting and good info!  Do you have any more video of this particular style?   But my question would be this....if this is a 3 form system, has empty hand that resembles Wing Chun, has the LDBK form and the knives, why you NOT think that the WHOLE system was an ancestor of Wing Chun rather than just the pole (and the knives to some extent)?



I have to agree because I have heard this from a couple people who are Sifu's and very Familiar with HG (aka HK).  They speak of the "old" form.  I even heard one describe that to assist in doing the forms they had a square separated into a grid like pattern but the total size was quite small (can't remember how small) to encourage the "short stepping" and more angular foot work.  Also I have been told the "short bridging" methods are similar.  I think part of the issue was that as the better known "Wong" version of HG is firmly built upon the "old/village" version I see it as a direct evolution so say Grandfather to Grandchild vs Cousins.  My main issue from the jump has been the ideas that

1. Wing Chun is built around, or starts, with the weapons
2. The empty hand form is unique.

Regarding point 1. There is correlation, not causation.  One of many reasons some people may say that 1. is true is because it is in BJD that the "long step" for lack of a better term is clearly introduced, in some WC lineages.  The "longer stepping" at times is something I immediately notice when I see BJD.  I even mentioned the need for longer stepping when confronting weapons in a thread some months ago when someone was speaking of having issues with addressing someone armed with a knife in training. The problem is while one could say "you sometimes need longer step in empty hand" can also fall into the "correlation does not = causation" because while is it POSSIBLE that it starts with weapons?  Yeah.  At the same time you run into two logical issues. 

1.  It makes no sense to have one of the key foundations of your MA taught at the end.
2.  It is equally likely someone said "okay, with empty hand we can short step" but that is not an option when confronting weapons so when weapons are in play we my expand our stepping."



> ---How many times do I have to point out that the pole form existing before Wing Chun was developed is not proof of anything.  Early Wing Chun developed from White Crane/Emei snake....or from combining elements of the original Shaolin styles.....or from the evolution of a village style like your Hung Syun Hung Kyun.....could easily have added the older LDBK pole method and then further evolved the empty hands to align with it.   NOTHING you have presented says that the only way Wing Chun could have been developed was by deriving it entirely from the weapons!



Regarding point 2 as the above kinda falls into that.  As I said above I have spoken with HG Sifus who speak of the similarities in the older versions, including the empty-hand (again back to my main point that the empty hand is unique.) 


I have also heard some people say they see at least as much Southern Praying Mantis, if not more than White Crane, in WC. 






Many of the Southern Praying Mantis Styles tie themselves to the Hakka people of the Guangdong region either directly or indirectly.  Here is an interesting article on the Hakka arts I stumbled across last night, that also speaks of WC.  Wing Chun and the Hakka Arts:  Is there a connection?

All of that said I will go back to the conclusion I have come to after this interesting discussion.  Now the following may annoy some people on all sides but here we go...

With the obvious similarities between the WC and FWC origin stories.  I have begun to think, that as many MAs do, that the story was used to make WC appear older than it is.  What sounds better?  "this art has been taught in secret by those who fight against tyranny for 200 years?" or "over the last few decades we have been refining this art based on many of the arts in the Guangdong region." ?  

Based on the age of the Bubishi (17th century?), and WC's first emergence into the public eye (19th century), I suspect now that WC while it's own art indeed took many bits and pieces from a host of arts; FWC? Hakka based arts (such as Chow Ga)? Who knows what else, then cut and pasted an existing story, changing the names to "protect the innocent" (aka story), in order to give the appearance of more ancient beginnings .  As far as which came first in terms of weapons and unarmed, I will simply say again correlation doesn't = causation and I will rely on points 1 and 2 that I made above in terms of the logic that "weapons" came first, and while some of the core principles may be unique to WC, tell me what art these principles are from?



> ...[the] techniques are centered at the elbow whilst most martial arts use the shoulder as the pivot or launch point for a strike. Elbow-centric techniques are best for self-defense because:-
> 
> They need less room for execution.
> Strikes happen more rapidly because there's less distance for the hand to travel.
> It is harder for the attacker to defend himself because he has less time to react.
> Positioning the elbows towards the centerline allows faster response to any attack and directly covers the chest.



So I find it off to say the "empty hand" is unique simply based on similarities we can see in techniques and some core principles.

Just a thought before bed.


----------



## Darrencowan

DanT said:


> This is a short summery on research I have done through both readings and speaking to various Sifus on the historical changes to Yip Man's wing chun curriculum, from teaching in Foshan to Hong Kong.
> 
> Age 24 (1917 - Yip Man returns to Foshan):
> -Mook Jong had several different short forms
> -Bat Jam Do form non-existent, drills used instead
> -Chi Sao not practiced till after Cham Kiu (approx 3 years)
> -Siu Nim Tao practiced for at least 2 years before Cham Kiu learned
> -No footwork till Cham Kiu (just turning stance)
> 
> Age 45 (1938 - Yip Man teaches neighbours wing chun for self defence vs Japanese):
> -curriculum restructured to increase combat skills quickly
> -Footwork taught almost right away
> -kicks simplified
> -wooden dummy forms combined, result is one single form of 72? moves
> -only kick on wooden dummy now is front kick
> -Cham Kiu taught after 1 year
> -Chi Sao introduced after a few months
> -No Bat Jam Do or Staff taught
> 
> Age 56 (1949 - Yip Man flees to Hong Kong, teaches full time):
> (At this point, he needed a curriculum  that would keep students interested and quickly start wining at beimo fights to attract more students. The curriculum also needed to last longer to retain students over a longer period of time):
> -Mook Jong form increased from 72? Moves to 108 then 116 then back to 108
> -footwork and chi sao still introduced as soon as possible
> -more kicks reintroduced to Mook Jong
> -Bat Jam Do form created? Or at least learnt from Yeun Kay Shan and the taught
> -Staff form taught / created
> 
> As you can see from above, Yip Man's curriculum changed depending on the circumstance he found himself in.




Awesome thread.  Thank you so much for sharing.  Very educational. Bows.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> The Hung Gar pole form LFJ posted _does_ closely resemble the LDBK form I learned. So these kinds of pole movements and, yes the _strategy _may have existed previously to the evolution of the VT/WC that was taught by Yip Man. Heck, Yip Man's story of the origin of his art states as much with the attribution of the pole techniques to Chi-Shi who taught them to Leung Yee Tai. Legends often contain a grain of truth.
> 
> Probably the pole _was_ an old skill separate from the hand system that was assimilated, and  may well have _strategically_ informed and directed the development of the empty hands, ultimately yielding  the WC/WT that we see today.
> 
> ...



But you just essentially stated what I have been saying about the pole's relationship to Wing Chun the entire time!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> 1. _fong-lung-cheung_ (releasing dragon spear) = punch
> 2. _ping-cheung_ (leveling spear) = _lan-sau_
> 3. _leung-yi_ (two moves) = _jam-sau_, defends while lining up the punch, hence "two moves"
> 4. _lau-seui _(stirring water) = _bong-sau_ or _gaang-sau_, low deflection
> 5. _kam-gwan_ (covering pole) = _jat-sau_, knocks the pole down after _lau-seui_ taking the attack line
> 6. _dang-gwan_ (ascending pole) = arching _lan-sau_ motion at the start and finish of the form
> 6.5 _che-cheung _(slanting pole) = final action recovering poor position, half point because it starts from extension, not from body like other actions
> 
> 
> The primary and auxiliary hand actions map to the primary and auxiliary pole actions, i.e. _fong-lung-cheung_ (pole thrust) and the punch are the main actions, _leung-yi_ and _kam-gwan _are auxiliary actions for the pole to open the line for the thrust, just as _paak-sau_ and _jat-sau_ do for the punch. All other actions are for returning to the primary.
> 
> .



Upon further reflection........consider another theory.  "Old school" western boxing MUST have developed directly from the LDBK as well!  In fact, I think the empty hand method of "London Prize Ring" era western boxing fits with the LDBK even BETTER than Wing Chun empty hands!  Therefore is MUST be true!  

1.  OSB (old school boxing) has a very straight centerline punch, just like Wing Chun.
2.  OSB uses the forearm to "bar the mark" or defend punches to the mid-section and also use the forearm to push an opponent away to make space to hit that is very similar to a Lan Sau
3.  OSB will block or deflect inward with the forearm to line up on the center and follow up immediately with a straight punch just like doing a Jum Sau and punch.
4.  OSB uses a "rolling parry" with the forearm for a low punch that is very much like a Bong Sau, also blocks outward against a low punch with a technique very much like a Gan Sau
5.  OSB is known to use a downward blow like a hammerfist against an opponent's guard to help make an opening for a follow up punch.

If you look at body mechanics.....OSB stood in a "side-facing" posture rather than a more "squared" posture and resembled the pole method more than empty hand Wing Chun does.  While both arms were used in OSB, the lead arm was put forward extended directly on the centerline just like the ready position with the pole.   The punch was most certainly the "main action."   The parries used in OSB were also seen as "auxiliary actions" to make it possible to simply punch the opponent.  Everything was very direct....remove an obstacle from your path when necessary and then strike straight.....return to the primary!  No sticking or rolling.  None to very little kicking.  Very linear.   OSB fighting looked much more like Wing Chun pole than Wing Chun empty hands do!

Therefore, old school western boxing MUST have been derived from the LDBK!  How could it be otherwise!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Upon further reflection........consider another theory.  "Old school" western boxing MUST have developed directly from the LDBK as well!  In fact, I think the empty hand method of "London Prize Ring" era western boxing fits with the LDBK even BETTER than Wing Chun empty hands!  Therefore is MUST be true!
> 
> 1.  OSB (old school boxing) has a very straight centerline punch, just like Wing Chun.
> 2.  OSB uses the forearm to "bar the mark" or defend punches to the mid-section and also use the forearm to push an opponent away to make space to hit that is very similar to a Lan Sau
> 3.  OSB will block or deflect inward with the forearm to line up on the center and follow up immediately with a straight punch just like doing a Jum Sau and punch.
> 4.  OSB uses a "rolling parry" with the forearm for a low punch that is very much like a Bong Sau, also blocks outward against a low punch with a technique very much like a Gan Sau
> 5.  OSB is known to use a downward blow like a hammerfist against an opponent's guard to help make an opening for a follow up punch.
> 
> If you look at body mechanics.....OSB stood in a "side-facing" posture rather than a more "squared" posture and resembled the pole method more than empty hand Wing Chun does.  While both arms were used in OSB, the lead arm was put forward extended directly on the centerline just like the ready position with the pole.   The punch was most certainly the "main action."   The parries used in OSB were also seen as "auxiliary actions" to make it possible to simply punch the opponent.  Everything was very direct....remove an obstacle from your path when necessary and then strike straight.....return to the primary!  No sticking or rolling.  None to very little kicking.  Very linear.   OSB fighting looked much more like Wing Chun pole than Wing Chun empty hands do!
> 
> Therefore, old school western boxing MUST have been derived from the LDBK!  How could it be otherwise!


Heck some people have said that WC was in part a result of British Sailors beating Kung Fu practitioners with bare knuckled Western Boxing. @lklawson I believe noted this once, though partially tongue in cheek I believe.


----------



## Danny T




----------



## Gerry Seymour

Danny T said:


> View attachment 20351


Bull****. That's not a stick yet. The image is clearly cropped to exclude the tree it's still attached to. That's a ******* branch.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Now this is interesting and good info!  Do you have any more video of this particular style?   But my question would be this....if this is a 3 form system, has empty hand that resembles Wing Chun, has the LDBK form and the knives, why you NOT think that the WHOLE system was an ancestor of Wing Chun rather than just the pole (and the knives to some extent)?



Most of the old style has been absorbed into the Lam family Hung-Kyun. That is the best place to see it's influence. It's rare to find on its own. The most relevant is the pole work, though, and there are more vids of that that clearly show the same VT pole method and training, if interested.

As I said, the VT empty hand method functions in a very unique way, unlike any other style from the time and area. Superficial similarities like hand shapes, narrow stances, short strikes, etc. don't add up to much if the strategy and tactics are actually very different. 

I look deeper than the surface before giving serious consideration.



> ---I would say they all three resemble each other likely because they all three share origins!   Wing Chun functions differently simply because it has evolved and developed along a different pathway over the last 100 years or more.



They all likely share relatives, but VT boxing shares little that is not superficial with other hand methods. The only clear relationship is via the weaponry.



> ---Again, very interesting info.  I'd like to see more of this particular style.  Is that name specific for this style?



Yes. The "old" Hung-Kyun styles have different names. This one is what Lam Sai-Wing learned from his grand-uncle. It was kept by the males in the Lam family. So, few others learned it and it was absorbed into the modern Hung-Kyun curriculum he later learned from Wong Fei-Hung, that actually removed a lot of elements from the old styles.



> ---Once again, you are being rather confusing in the  way you are writing things.  Are you saying that both YM and WSL taught that Wing Chun empty hands was developed entirely from the weapons?



Well, since the history is unrecorded we can't point to historical documents for official confirmation, but this is certainly what the system and history of the weapons show, and yes, how the system is interpreted via WSL > YM.



> I'm just curious about who originally came up with this idea and has started teaching it to people.  And I'm trying to understand why you would so stubbornly support it when there obviously isn't really much to back it up.



Whoever created the system must have come up with the concept. There is actually a lot to back it up. Having the big picture makes complete sense of the method. The presence of these ideas throughout every part of the system is overwhelming.



> ---Until this post, you have simply been repeating the same thing over and over.   You could have provided the information here 2 pages ago!



Was busy with you essentially coming back at me saying these two guys aren't identical twins because one has a freckle on his forehead. That's the significance of minor differences in their forms. YM's form has more repetition. It's undeniably the same pole method in theory and application.



> 1.  LOTS of southern CMA's have a centerline straight punch!
> 2.  Plenty of southern CMA's also have a Lan Sau-like motion, heck Tai Chi does that a lot and uses stances and mechanics more similar to the pole than Wing Chun empty hands!
> 3. You don't think other CMA's line up and punch directly from a defensive motion?   Southern Mantis comes to mind.
> 4. Nearly every martial art has a low deflection technique that resembles a low Bong or a Gan!
> 5.  Southern Mantis most definitely has a "Jut Sau"-like motion.
> 6.  You don't point out an empty hand correlation here.  Empty hand doesn't include an "arcing" Lan Sau.  In fact, I think by your definition that would be  "chasing hands"!
> 6.5  No empty hand correlation noted here either.



Individual analogues for a few actions don't add up to the same method, especially if they are not used in the same way for the same purpose. Southern Mantis is quite contradictory to VT strategy.

No other TCMA employs all the same tactics in the same way, aligning primary and auxiliary actions in the same specific strategy as VT boxing and the LDBG.

In other words, no other TCMA is a "two pole" boxing method.



> ---But again, no one in Weng Chun circles have ever concluded that the empty hands derived from the pole!



Because it didn't, and is quite different?



> ---That's all you've got?



No. There is a ton more, at every step of the way through the system, but I can't realistically walk you through the entire system on a forum. So, I had to keep it general.



> Again, there is nothing there to suggest that both the pole AND the existing empty hand methods weren't "adjusted" or "adapted" to fit each other better over several generations of development.



I really hope you won't make me say this again, but the LDBG method is exactly the same between HSHK and YMVT. This proves there was no adjustment or adaptation for it to fit VT.



> ---Southern Mantis also uses short shocking power and aggressively capturing space.  That is not unique to Wing Chun at all.



Not at all in the same way with the same strategy and tactics.



> ---Nothing unique here either.  Southern Mantis and other Hakka styles have one arm exercises to develop something similar and then progress to two arm exercises.   I'd be willing to be bet that your Hung Syun Hung Kyun style does as well.



Not similar. No other style functions like this.

Look here. If you know what you're looking at, it's clearly a "two pole" boxing method.

There is no Southern Mantis or Hakka style that is a "two pole" boxing method like this.



> ---But that does not rule out the possibility that someone took the game of "stick, follow, roll" and realized that seeing it with the tactical guidelines of the pole would improve it and make it better!  IF the empty hands were developed from the pole, wouldn't everyone being avoiding the game of "stick, follow, roll" because it would never be taught that way?



No, lol, because very few people learned the whole system from YM. "Stick, follow, roll" is a result of not knowing. Many people teach what they don't know.



> ---"Completely"????  What you showed was certainly not "complete", nor particularly unique to Wing Chun.



Yes, complete, and yes, unique to YMVT. It is just impractical to explain every detail of the system on here.



> ---I never said that!   I said simply that the pole was an add on to the system and that both the pole and empty hands both likely adapted somewhat to suit that marriage.



Which has been demonstrated to be false by the exact method existing in a pre- and non-VT style. Why do you keep going back to this theory?



> ---How many times do I have to point out that the pole form existing before Wing Chun was developed is not proof of anything.



It being exactly the same between HSHK and YMVT is proof that it wasn't adapted to fit VT hands.



> Early Wing Chun developed from White Crane/Emei snake....or from combining elements of the original Shaolin styles.....or from the evolution of a village style like your Hung Syun Hung Kyun.....could easily have added the older LDBK pole method and then further evolved the empty hands to align with it.



Unlikely, given that it is not just a move here or move there added to something unrelated, but is in fact the entirety of the system from ground up. It all maps to the pole theory, plus some knife thinking to make it effective.

Even if there was a previous boxing method, it would have undergone such a complete overhaul that it is meaningless to even mention now.

It's indistinguishable from an original style having been completely removed and replaced, or from there having been no previous boxing method.



KPM said:


> Upon further reflection........consider another theory.  "Old school" western boxing MUST have developed directly from the LDBK as well!  In fact, I think the empty hand method of "London Prize Ring" era western boxing fits with the LDBK even BETTER than Wing Chun empty hands!  Therefore is MUST be true!
> 
> 1.  OSB (old school boxing) has a very straight centerline punch, just like Wing Chun.
> 2.  OSB uses the forearm to "bar the mark" or defend punches to the mid-section and also use the forearm to push an opponent away to make space to hit that is very similar to a Lan Sau
> 3.  OSB will block or deflect inward with the forearm to line up on the center and follow up immediately with a straight punch just like doing a Jum Sau and punch.
> 4.  OSB uses a "rolling parry" with the forearm for a low punch that is very much like a Bong Sau, also blocks outward against a low punch with a technique very much like a Gan Sau
> 5.  OSB is known to use a downward blow like a hammerfist against an opponent's guard to help make an opening for a follow up punch.
> 
> If you look at body mechanics.....OSB stood in a "side-facing" posture rather than a more "squared" posture and resembled the pole method more than empty hand Wing Chun does.  While both arms were used in OSB, the lead arm was put forward extended directly on the centerline just like the ready position with the pole.   The punch was most certainly the "main action."   The parries used in OSB were also seen as "auxiliary actions" to make it possible to simply punch the opponent.  Everything was very direct....remove an obstacle from your path when necessary and then strike straight.....return to the primary!  No sticking or rolling.  None to very little kicking.  Very linear.   OSB fighting looked much more like Wing Chun pole than Wing Chun empty hands do!
> 
> Therefore, old school western boxing MUST have been derived from the LDBK!  How could it be otherwise!



And like SPM or any Hakka style, it doesn't function as a "two pole", or even one pole boxing method with the same theory and application of strategy. Also doesn't contain the LDBG in its training.

You're picking at hairs. Must look deeper.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So if we are going to go based on facts that we can prove we have to say that the art is only about 200 years old.  Because of this logic dictates that WC, across the board from empty hand must be the product of previous arts, even if a different strategic mindset resulted in greater adaptation in terms of the empty hand form.



Premise: VT is only about 200 years old.
Conclusion: VT must be a product of previous boxing arts.

Logic? This is a non sequitur.



Juany118 said:


> One of many reasons some people may say that 1. is true is because it is in BJD that the "long step" for lack of a better term is clearly introduced, in some WC lineages.



That's not my reasoning. Who says 1. is true for that reason?



> It makes no sense to have one of the key foundations of your MA taught at the end.



This has already been explained to you.

Everyone agrees beginners should train hands before knives. This doesn't mean that is the direction in which the system was developed.

Knife thinking can and should be explained to a beginner to give the big picture and goal, but their training starts with hands.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> No other TCMA employs all the same tactics in the same way, aligning primary and auxiliary actions in the same specific strategy as VT boxing and the LDBG.


Isn't that basically what differentiates any one art from another, though? If two arts shared all those points, it would be difficult to argue they are different arts.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Isn't that basically what differentiates any one art from another, though? If two arts shared all those points, it would be difficult to argue they are different arts.



That's exactly why those are all different arts and not based on the pole like VT. It's the full package, not a similar hand here or there.

That's also exactly why the LDBG pole method of HSHK and YMVT _are_ the same method. They are indistinguishable in theory and application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> That's exactly why those are all different arts and not based on the pole like VT. It's the full package, not a similar hand here or there.
> 
> That's also exactly why the LDBG pole method of HSHK and YMVT _are_ the same method. They are indistinguishable in theory and application.


My point was that this level of uniqueness isn't...well, unique. It's the difference between any two arts. As for the non-uniqueness of the staff work, from a purely external viewpoint, neither of those things has much to do with which is the original part of the art. There are Japanese arts that have sword forms that are clearly from another style. Those sword forms fit very snugly into the style with little or no changes. Yet there's significant documentation and/or oral history showing that the sword work was added to the art after formation (in some cases) or sword and empty-hand methods were sourced from different arts because someone found two parts that fit together that well.

I'm not saying that means the weapons weren't the original bits of WC/VT, with the empty-hand added later. I'm just pointing out that the uniqueness of the empty hand doesn't prove anything specific, nor does the non-uniqueness of the weapons work, nor does the close fit between them.

In the arguments I've seen in this debate, I've seen nothing convincing of either position. I'm also not sure how much it should matter.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> The Hung Gar pole form LFJ posted _does_ closely resemble the LDBK form I learned. So these kinds of pole movements and, yes the _strategy _may have existed previously to the evolution of the VT/WC that was taught by Yip Man.



Appreciate your honesty. I know I'm not the only one to immediately recognize the method in there!



> Probably the pole _was_ an old skill separate from the hand system that was assimilated, and  may well have _strategically_ informed and directed the development of the empty hands, ultimately yielding  the WC/WT that we see today.



The reason I don't go this route is that the VT boxing method so completely and seamlessly maps to the LDBG theory and application that any preexisting base style is unrecognizable in the system. Meaning there is nothing that is not pole or knife based (anymore?), meaning, it is really meaningless to speak of a possible preexisting base style when the result is indistinguishable from VT having been developed just from the weapons.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I'm just pointing out that the uniqueness of the empty hand doesn't prove anything specific, nor does the non-uniqueness of the weapons work, nor does the close fit between them.



In this case, I disagree. As I've been saying;

The level to which the VT boxing method explicitly maps to the pole in theory, form, drilling, and application is impossible to be coincidence.

And the fact that the exact pole method in another style predates the boxing method proves it was not adjusted/modified/altered/evolved to fit VT.

You could say VT boxing came from a preexisting base style that evolved to align with the pole method, but it is indistinguishable from being purely weapon based from inception, and therefore meaningless.

It only makes sense based on the observable evidence that pole + knives = boxing, in the case of YMVT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> In this case, I disagree. As I've been saying;
> 
> The level to which the VT boxing method explicitly maps to the pole in theory, form, drilling, and application is impossible to be coincidence.
> 
> And the fact that the exact pole method in another style predates the boxing method proves it was not adjusted/modified/altered/evolved to fit VT.
> 
> You could say VT boxing came from a preexisting base style that evolved to align with the pole method, but it is indistinguishable from being purely weapon based from inception, and therefore meaningless.
> 
> It only makes sense based on the observable evidence that pole + knives = boxing, in the case of YMVT.


As I pointed out, it need not be coincidence. There are Japanese styles where the weapons and empty-hand come from clearly different sources and fit together (including the "mapping" you refer to) snugly. They were selected from those sources because of it. So, if someone is creating an art and has a great empty-hand method, he might research staff methods from other arts looking for a reasonable fit. He might find a perfect fit, or might find a nearly-perfect fit that informs some changes in the empty-hand method.

A key point in this is that our brains are pattern-matchers. We're hard-wired to try to fit things into matching patterns, and our brains will do so with high clarity, even when the match isn't exact. I'm not saying that's all there is to this close mapping, but it remains a possible explanation for there being this very close matching that seems absolute, while others see some differences that seem key to them.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> As I pointed out, it need not be coincidence. There are Japanese styles where the weapons and empty-hand come from clearly different sources and fit together (including the "mapping" you refer to) snugly. They were selected from those sources because of it.



I highly doubt it's to the same degree. Easier if all you're matching are general ideas. More difficult if it's an entire training system from ground up, including each part of each form and drilling leading to the same strategic end.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I highly doubt it's to the same degree. Easier if all you're matching are general ideas. More difficult if it's an entire training system from ground up, including each part of each form and drilling leading to the same strategic end.


You're missing that the training system was put together by one person/set of people. They can use the right words, principles, and imagery to fit perfectly together that which fit pretty danged well to start with. If they selected an external source for the pole (which seems likely in either case), they would have selected one that fit closely enough that some adjustments (to either the pole, or in this case to the empty hand) would make them fit better, and then the teaching is done in such a way that it all comes together perfectly.

Again, we could easily reverse what I've just said, and it fits either way. The result would be the same whether the pole is found and added to empty-hand work, or the empty-hand work is either found/added or developed based on the pole. The same evidence works for both (actually all three) scenarios.

Would a perfect fit be likely? No, but that doesn't mean it never happens. It may even be that you're both partly correct. Perhaps the empty-hand came first, but was heavily adjusted to fit with this "found" pole method. That fits the evidence, as well.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ That is exactly what I have been saying!!


----------



## KPM

*Yes. The "old" Hung-Kyun styles have different names. This one is what Lam Sai-Wing learned from his grand-uncle. It was kept by the males in the Lam family. So, few others learned it and it was absorbed into the modern Hung-Kyun curriculum he later learned from Wong Fei-Hung, that actually removed a lot of elements from the old styles.*

---Good information.  Thanks!



*Well, since the history is unrecorded we can't point to historical documents for official confirmation, but this is certainly what the system and history of the weapons show, and yes, how the system is interpreted via WSL > YM.*

---Well then, it seems rather odd that we have an article written by YM himself for a HK magazine and he mentions nothing of this at all!   It also seems rather odd, that YM's group of close long-time students other than WSL don't know this history or theory.  Is this another one of those things that YM taught ONLY to WSL?  And did WSL teach this to all of his close students?  I've never seen anyone else talk about it!   If WSL believed it to be true, it seems like it would be pretty common knowledge at this point.



*Whoever created the system must have come up with the concept. There is actually a lot to back it up. Having the big picture makes complete sense of the method. The presence of these ideas throughout every part of the system is overwhelming.*

---Are these ideas present throughout every part of non-YM Wing Chun systems?  Are they present throughout Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK?  Are they present throughout Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK?   Are they present throughout Yiu Choi WCK?



*
I really hope you won't make me say this again, but the LDBG method is exactly the same between HSHK and YMVT. This proves there was no adjustment or adaptation for it to fit VT.*

---There was adjustment, even if was just to remove the angulations and make it more linear.  Anyone with two eyes can see in those comparison videos that they are not identical.  And even if the LDBG form was used exactly "as is", that still does not rule out it being added to an existing empty hand method and then that empty hand method being reworked to some extent to align its strategies and tactics with that of the pole.  I really hope you won't keep making me point out this obvious fact to you.   And now I'm not the only one that has pointed it out!




*No, lol, because very few people learned the whole system from YM. "Stick, follow, roll" is a result of not knowing. Many people teach what they don't know.*

---But realize that your theory of Wing Chun origins would predate YM and apply to ALL Wing Chun.  Not just YM Wing Chun.   If WSLVT is the ONLY form of Wing Chun that thinks this way and has such close correlations between pole and empty hand, then that should be a huge red flag that there is something wrong with your theory!  Do those same correlations  "track" between pole and empty hand even for Ho Kam Ming WCK?  Or Tsui Tsung Tin WCK?  Or Leung Sheung WCK?  Or is it just WSLVT?



*Which has been demonstrated to be false by the exact method existing in a pre- and non-VT style. Why do you keep going back to this theory?*

---I was really hoping you wouldn't make me say this again....buuuuttttt.... JUST BECAUSE IT PRE-EXISTED PRIOR TO WING CHUN EMPTY HANDS PROVES NOTHING AND MAKES NOTHING "FALSE"!!!  Geez!  Use a little logic!  I'm not the only one that has recognized this!




*Even if there was a previous boxing method, it would have undergone such a complete overhaul that it is meaningless to even mention now.*

---I disagree.  There is no reason to think that a style of empty hands similar to the Hakka arts or Fukien White Crane could not have taken strategy and tactics from the pole and used that to rework the system.  It would then be a different system, but not unrecognizable.


----------



## geezer

It's not surprising that LFJ and KPM can look at the same evidence and draw such different conclusions.

LFJ has used very similar logic to argue that Yip Man's VT did not evolve or change as many claim.  Rather, he holds that that WSL-VT, by virtue of its functionality and systemic cohesion is correct VT as YM intended. I believe he has said that the other branches of WC he has experienced are different, lacking the effectiveness and logical integration or systemic cohesion. They are the result of incomplete learning and are "broken" VT.

His interpretation of earlier VT being created separately from other older boxing methods and being engineered so as to reflect the strategy of the long pole shows an identical perspective.

I understand the evidence, and his conclusions, but do _not_ share his perspective. IMO it is far more likely that VT has developed organically and incrementally from what went before. Like KPM and others, I guess I have more of an evolutionist  vs. creationist outlook.


----------



## ShortBridge

My consternation with the voice of WSL/PB on these forums is that they aren't offered as "the conclusions I've reached" as you suggested, but "Only we know the truth and you are ignorant of the facts".

I respond to those two positions very differently, as do I think, most people. It's tiring and disappointing, but I don't expect it to stop.


----------



## Nobody Important

Lam family Wing Chun consisted of 6 1/2 Point Pole, Arrow Palm fist set & Flowing Moon Double Knives. It was taught to Lam Sai Wing by his grandfather. Lam Sai Wing incorporated it into his Hung Kuen he learned from Wong Fei Hung. All three forms are contained mostly intact in Lam family Hung Kuen. 6 1/2 Point Pole was added to 8 Diagram Pole.

It was said that it was a method of Red Boat Wing Chun. The knives were choreographed by LSW's grandfather. The pole was based on the 5th Brother Pole of Siu Lam, and came via way of White Crane. Tibetan White Crane still has this form. Lam family Hung Kuen prays to White Crane ancestors on their alter. 

Arrow Palm is a common theme in mainland Wing Chun, some say it is the "lost" 4th set of Wing Chun. It's legend states it was a form that came from White Crane via Fang Qiniang. It is widely accepted that Lao Hung Kuen & Wing Chun were taught side by side due to common ancestor, White Crane. 

5th Brother pole is old and famous, over the years it has been modified to take on characteristics of the art it was absorbed by. Difficult to say it is responsible for the development of empty hand, more likely empty hand transformed the pole movements to create consistency. Concepts are pliable. 5th Brother Pole contains all elements of 6 1/2 Pole and more.

There is no evidence to support that Wing Chun was derived from pole movements. All history of Wing Chun stated pole and knives were added after empty hand art was developed.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ Welcome back!  Glad to see you posting again!    Good information above!   My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."   From what you are saying, it makes it sound even more like this a more likely theory than what LFJ has been describing.  And this is very interesting.  I have not heard of this style prior to this discussion.  Do you know of any video of the "Arrow Palm" form?   You say "widely accepted"....but widely accepted by whom?  I haven't read this in any of the Wing Chun histories or in other people's research on Wing Chun origins.


----------



## ShortBridge

I have heard of a lost 4th form, but don't know anything about it or if it's true. I'd love to know the name of the Crane form that it is said to be related to if possible.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> ^^^^^^ Welcome back!  Glad to see you posting again!    Good information above!   My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."   From what you are saying, it makes it sound even more like this a more likely theory than what LFJ has been describing.  And this is very interesting.  I have not heard of this style prior to this discussion.  Do you know of any video of the "Arrow Palm" form?   You say "widely accepted"....but widely accepted by whom?  I haven't read this in any of the Wing Chun histories or in other people's research on Wing Chun origins.


This is one of the better examples. Form has taken on Hung Kuen characteristics though.





Arrow Palm/Fist concept seen throughout WC in War Punching exercise, Stretching Arrow Cut, Three Arrow Cut, Arrow Punching etc. Some branches even have an Arrow Palm and/or Arrow Fist set. Sometimes it is referred to as Post Set due to Jeung/Zhang (palm) being phonetically similar to Jung/Zhuang (post), depending on dialect.


----------



## Nobody Important

ShortBridge said:


> I have heard of a lost 4th form, but don't know anything about it or if it's true. I'd love to know the name of the Crane form that it is said to be related to if possible.


The form is said to be Jin Jeung (Arrow Palm), sometimes referred to as Post Fist. The Hung Kuen version of this form I posted above, remember though, that form has taken on Hung Kuen characteristics as it was absorbed by Hung Kuen.


----------



## Nobody Important

Part of You Choi lineage 4th form. Fok Chiu's Shooting Arrow Punch. This form, if I'm not mistaken, is based on the San Sik movements that were used to create the knife form & formal dummy set.


----------



## ShortBridge

Very interesting to see those forms, thank you for sharing.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> It's not surprising that LFJ and KPM can look at the same evidence and draw such different conclusions.
> 
> LFJ has used very similar logic to argue that Yip Man's VT did not evolve or change as many claim.  Rather, he holds that that WSL-VT, by virtue of its functionality and systemic cohesion is correct VT as YM intended. I believe he has said that the other branches of WC he has experienced are different, lacking the effectiveness and logical integration or systemic cohesion. They are the result of incomplete learning and are "broken" VT.
> 
> His interpretation of earlier VT being created separately from other older boxing methods and being engineered so as to reflect the strategy of the long pole shows an identical perspective.
> 
> I understand the evidence, and his conclusions, but do _not_ share his perspective. IMO it is far more likely that VT has developed organically and incrementally from what went before. Like KPM and others, I guess I have more of an evolutionist  vs. creationist outlook.



The only thing is, and you may disagree, he presents evidence but not evidence that actually supports the conclusion.  Yes other Arts have sections of their pole work that resemble WC.  Other arts have knife work that resembles WC.  The problem is this.

In order for the "weapons is the start" to have any validity the open hand form almost has to be unique.  The problem is many southern Mantis schools (and other Hakka arts, TWC and, according to many HG Sifus the "old HG", all have elements that are share the same similarities to WC.  This is ignored however.

As an example, the quote I shared earlier regarding elbow focus and centerline actually came from a source on Southern Praying Mantis, the Chow Gar lineage to be precise.  

So we have correlation becoming causation, but ultimately this only happens due to the following apparent thought process.  WSLVT-PB is the one true YM-VT.  YM-VT was not modified, it is the true translation of WC/VT.  I was taught that WC empty hand is unique and started with weapons.  Ergo this is the truth.

Now I can 100% agree with @gpseymour and you that the bit about "which first, weapon or empty hand?" I would argue the main land styles don't say this, some say the opposite and with YMVT being a child of these arts it seems unlikely BUT this isn't 100% conclusive.

The one issue though that I think is just wrong is the "empty hands are unique and the weapons aren't". You can have an art that is "it's own self" without a part of it being "unique." It actually beggars logic that a relatively younger TMA evolved in such a vacuum, and when you look at older arts that not only have similar techniques but similar foundational principles, it goes beyond simple deduction. /Shrug.


----------



## DanT

I didn't add this to keep it simple but:

-Wing Chun in non Yip Man lineages have 22 short forms that people learn before Sil Lim Tao. Yip Man got rid of these and only taught one "arrow punch" AFTER, not before Sil Lim Tao. It is normally taught now after wooden dummy as a preparation for the staff, but it's original purpose was a long range punching method, as I learned it.


----------



## DanT

List of the 22 short "forms" taught before Sil Lim Tao in non-Yip Man lineages:

1. Buddha Palm
2. Phoenix Eye Hammer
3. Tiger Tail Hammer
4. Pheasant Kick
5. Dragon Pearl
6. Small Heun Sao 
7. Big Heun Sao
8. Three War Fist (Sanchin)
9. Plowing Bridge
10. Bong and Backfist
11. Po Pai Jeung Exercise
12. Obstruct and Prop
13. Hook and Slice
14. Fish Flip
15. Controlling Bridge
16. Crane Wing
17. Evade and Biu Sao
18. Double Dragon
19. Bowing Horse Hammer
20. Three Palms
21. Pulling Eight
22. Suppressing Tiger

A student would traditionally spend about a month on each short form. They wouldn't learn Sil Lim Tao until after all 22 were perfect. Each short form is usually 5-10 moves in length. Some of them mimic parts of Sil Lim Tao.


----------



## Nobody Important

Slightly larger section of Shooting Arrow Fist.






To me, it has some overlap with the Hung Kuen version.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^^^^ Welcome back!  Glad to see you posting again!    Good information above!   My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."   From what you are saying, it makes it sound even more like this a more likely theory than what LFJ has been describing.  And this is very interesting.  I have not heard of this style prior to this discussion.  Do you know of any video of the "Arrow Palm" form?   You say "widely accepted"....but widely accepted by whom?  I haven't read this in any of the Wing Chun histories or in other people's research on Wing Chun origins.



Here is a question?  Why does their need to be *A* proto-WC?  The more I look at things there was no single source.  Now maybe I am projecting something from FMA scholarship here.  While tradition states there is a "mother art" (aka proto-art) when you really look at it this is impossible due to circumstances.  I think the same thing would be true here.  You MAY be able to go back and find an art that is a common ancestor for WC and Hakka related arts from the Guangdong area with similar techniques (Baak Mei, various Southern Mantis),  and even principles.  Even TWC is said to perhaps be related to Hakka MAs because of the Hakka migrations resulting in Hakka being in both Fujian and Guangdong. Here is a Hakka shot 






But did Hakka evolve entirely independently or was it influenced by the fact that Hakka tended to join the military due to living in mountains where farming prospects weren't that great?  

Then you have what appears to be some elements related to "old"/village Hung Kuen, in the pole form, possibly elements of FWC as well.  It seems to me that, in this case, searching for a single "proto-art" is search for a unicorn.  That such a thing doesn't exist because WC appears to be an amalgam, with some refinement, of many arts and these arts in turn are likely amalgams, with refinement, of other arts. /Shrug


----------



## Nobody Important

DanT said:


> List of the 22 short "forms" taught before Sil Lim Tao in non-Yip Man lineages:
> 
> 1. Buddha Palm
> 2. Phoenix Eye Hammer
> 3. Tiger Tail Hammer
> 4. Pheasant Kick
> 5. Dragon Pearl
> 6. Small Heun Sao
> 7. Big Heun Sao
> 8. Three War Fist (Sanchin)
> 9. Plowing Bridge
> 10. Bong and Backfist
> 11. Po Pai Jeung Exercise
> 12. Obstruct and Prop
> 13. Hook and Slice
> 14. Fish Flip
> 15. Controlling Bridge
> 16. Crane Wing
> 17. Evade and Biu Sao
> 18. Double Dragon
> 19. Bowing Horse Hammer
> 20. Three Palms
> 21. Pulling Eight
> 22. Suppressing Tiger


What non-Yip Man lineages would these be from? Only about 2/3 are recognizable by name to me. In Yuen family we have 48 San Sik in total. 20-24 learned prior to Siu Lim Tau.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Nobody Important said:


> Part of You Choi lineage 4th form. Fok Chiu's Shooting Arrow Punch. This form, if I'm not mistaken, is based on the San Sik movements that were used to create the knife form & formal dummy set.



In this form, I only see the arms movement and I don't see the body movement. How can you generate maximum punching power if you don't "put your body behind your punch"?


----------



## DanT

Nobody Important said:


> What non-Yip Man lineages would these be from? Only about 2/3 are recognizable by name to me. In Yuen family we have 48 San Sik in total. 20-24 learned prior to Siu Lim Tau.


Most non Yip Man lineages have 22-48ish. These in particular are from Gualo Wing Chun (non Cha Wah Shun).


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Here is a question?  Why does their need to be *A* proto-WC?  The more I look at things there was no single source.  Now maybe I am projecting something from FMA scholarship here.  While tradition states there is a "mother art" (aka proto-art) when you really look at it this is impossible due to circumstances.  I think the same thing would be true here.  You MAY be able to go back and find an art that is a common ancestor for WC and Hakka related arts from the Guangdong area with similar techniques (Baak Mei, various Southern Mantis),  and even principles.  Even TWC is said to perhaps be related to Hakka MAs because of the Hakka migrations resulting in Hakka being in both Fujian and Guangdong. Here is a Hakka shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did Hakka evolve entirely independently or was it influenced by the fact that Hakka tended to join the military due to living in mountains where farming prospects weren't that great?
> 
> Then you have what appears to be some elements related to "old"/village Hung Kuen, in the pole form, possibly elements of FWC as well.  It seems to me that, in this case, searching for a single "proto-art" is search for a unicorn.  That such a thing doesn't exist because WC appears to be an amalgam, with some refinement, of many arts and these arts in turn are likely amalgams, with refinement, of other arts. /Shrug


Everything comes from something. It's human nature to want to understand how things came to be. With Wing Chun proof is hard to come by, best to align yourself with ideas that support your belief. To do otherwise is to create confusion that you may not be able to untangle and compartmentalize.


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In this form, I only see the arms movement and I don't see the body movement. Why?


Best to ask the person who shot the video, maybe it's on purpose or an error, etc.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Everything comes from something. It's human nature to want to understand how things came to be. With Wing Chun proof is hard to come by, best to align yourself with ideas that support your belief. To do otherwise is to create confusion that you may not be able to untangle and compartmentalize.



I totally agree that there is a beginning to everything, and the scholarship should be done to discover those beginnings.  That is not the same as saying there is a single "alpha", or proto-art.

The mental artifacts man creates, whether a martial art, a science, literature, painting etc are almost always influenced by other things.  Nothing evolves in an vacuum.  So if you have an art like WC, that appears to have Hakka and non-Hakka influences how can one say that there is a single "Alpha".

I am not saying we can't say "okay there's a bit of Mantis, here is a bit of Baak Mei, there is a bit of FWC, there is a bit of "old"/village HK." The thing is though that these each take us in different directions.  We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources.) Then maybe some influence from the more "straight ahead" arts taught to the Imperial Army.  Then you have the effects of migrating through various regions.  As an example, over time the Hakka, who used to be the ruling Han, migrated from the north to the south in waves, usually triggered by warfare and upheaval.

All I am saying is that there appears to be a strong possibility that in the end we see a history that looks like a family tree in reverse.  The art you are looking at, in this case WC, is the "Omega". As we go back into the past the tree expands to multiple sources, rather than narrowing to one.  It is interesting indeed to try and figure out all the possible twists and turns.  All I am saying is that if we insist on looking for a single "Alpha" we blind ourselves to other possibilities.

Sorry, the would be history teacher has kicked in full force due to the turn this thread took


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In this form, I only see the arms movement and I don't see the body movement. How can you generate maximum punching power if you don't "put your body behind your punch"?


The form was only posted to illustrate the "Arrow" method in Wing Chun as possible relationship to Red Boat Hung Gar Wing Chun "Arrow" method and not on validity of performance.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I totally agree that there is a beginning to everything, and the scholarship should be done to discover those beginnings.  That is not the same as saying there is a single "alpha", or proto-art.
> 
> The mental artifacts man creates, whether a martial art, a science, literature, painting etc are almost always influenced by other things.  Nothing evolves in an vacuum.  So if you have an art like WC, that appears to have Hakka and non-Hakka influences how can one say that there is a single "Alpha".
> 
> I am not saying we can't say "okay there's a bit of Mantis, here is a bit of Baak Mei, there is a bit of FWC, there is a bit of "old"/village HK." The thing is though that these each take us in different directions.  We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources.) Then maybe some influence from the more "straight ahead" arts taught to the Imperial Army.
> 
> All I am saying is that there appears to be a strong possibility that in the end we see a history that look at it like a family tree in reverse.  The art you are looking at, in this case WC, is the "Omega". As we go back into the past the tree expands to multiple sources, rather than narrowing to one.  It is interesting indeed to try and figure out all the possible twists and turns.  All I am saying is that if we insist on looking for a single "Alpha" we blind ourselves to other possibilities.


Who's saying that there is a single "alpha" method from which WC comes? Not me, but I also can't subscribe that it comes from a gigantic collective pool of bits & bobs. Too, over analytical. Wing Chun is diverse, each branch has reason as to why they believe what they do, and is 100% valid. It doesn't mean it's true for others. There is a source, but that is only part of the equation, what others have added is what makes their interpretation, it is also what makes them unique. It would be a boring world if we never evolved ideas.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Who's saying that there is a single "alpha" method from which WC comes? Not me, but I also can't subscribe that it comes from a gigantic collective pool of bits & bobs. Too, over analytical. Wing Chun is diverse, each branch has reason as to why they believe what they do, and is 100% valid. It doesn't mean it's true for others. There is a source, but that is only part of the equation, what others have added is what makes their interpretation, it is also what makes them unique. It would be a boring world if we never evolved ideas.


It seems to be LFJ's argument, hence why @KPM mentioned proto-WC.  LFJ earlier stated that WC started with the weapons.  He specifically noted to pole form of "old" village HK as a point of origin.  This formed the base in his opinion and then a new and unique empty hand form was built upon it.  Hence KPM's statement...



> ...My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."...



Sorry if I didn't make my initial post more clear on the point.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> ... Not me, but I also can't subscribe that it comes from a gigantic collective pool of bits & bobs.



Oh to further clarify I agree, I am not saying WC is a giant collective in and of itself.  I am sure some similarities are down to simple biomechanics.  If you have an overall methodology in mind then techniques will be used that conform to the methodology, the human body can only move in so many ways after all.  The "spreading" family tree I speak of is a consequence of moving into the past.

Example, pure mental floss here, do not take this as an actual theory.  Let's, for the sake of argument, say that WC's primary "original sources" are FWC, Southern (Hakka) Mantis and "old"/village HK.  Now if we keep looking back into the history of each of these arts, what is their ancestry? And then what is the ancestry of the "great grand parent" etc. So it becomes gigantic but only as a general intellectual exercise, not in terms of direct influence on WC/VT.

I also agree with you in terms of the other styles of WC.  Each evolved in their own way for their own reasons.  As an example I think the idea of a video I posted in another thread as well as the beginning of this thread, explains why YM WC is different... An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong

In short a guy who made his art his own and never thought he would have to teach finds himself forced to teach as a matter of survival.  He thus had to remember/create from whole cloth a curriculum that suited his purposes and environment.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> It seems to be LFJ's argument, hence why @KPM mentioned proto-WC.  LFJ earlier stated that WC started with the weapons.  He specifically noted to pole form of "old" village HK as a point of origin.  This formed the base in his opinion and then a new and unique empty hand form was built upon it.  Hence KPM's statement...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if I didn't make my initial post more clear on the point.


No problem, if that is what LFJ believes and that's how his method is structured, I don't have issue with it anymore than I do with those that claim crane & snake heritage or distillation of Siu Lam methods. My issue is, and always will be, with the statement that one's dogma is applicable and true for all. It is readily apparent that not all Wing Chun systems subscribe to the same theories, methods or concepts outside a few core ones. 

Weapons methods can clearly be seen within the empty hand movements of some arts. Invariably it can be a chicken or egg thing. It could be that some actually used weapons to refine empty hand instead of deriving from. The old methods of CMA taught weapons first, an empty hand is useless on the battle field. Empty handed arts came into being during times of peace and historically have been used to train and instill military spirit, not actual combat use. Makes no sense to severely injure your soldiers by repeatedly testing them with live weapons. Boxing & grappling have long been used as a means to safely train a warrior spirit, some concepts between weapons and empty hand overlap. After all, the weapon is just an extension of the hand.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> No problem, if that is what LFJ believes and that's how his method is structured, I don't have issue with it anymore than I do with those that claim crane & snake heritage or distillation of Siu Lam methods. My issue is, and always will be, with the statement that one's dogma is applicable and true for all. It is readily apparent that not all Wing Chun systems subscribe to the same theories, methods or concepts outside a few core ones.
> 
> Weapons methods can clearly be seen within the empty hand movements of some arts. Invariably it can be a chicken or egg thing. It could be that some actually used weapons to refine empty hand instead of deriving from. The old methods of CMA taught weapons first, an empty hand is useless on the battle field. Empty handed arts came into being during times of peace and historically have been used to train and instill military spirit, not actual combat use. Makes no sense to severely injure your soldiers by repeatedly testing them with live weapons. Boxing & grappling have long been used as a means to safely train a warrior spirit, some concepts between weapons and empty hand overlap. After all, the weapon is just an extension of the hand.




The thing is that his method seems to be shared only by "his" YM WC.  Never have I heard, nor my friends who study under 2 other "schools" of the Lineage (Yip Ching and Moy Yat, I asked them due to this conversation.). They all say that you need firm understanding of the unarmed arts to use the weapons and then the weapons help expand and reinforce your unarmed game but without the unarmed game you can't have the weapons game.  This, to us and our Sifu's, means it started with the weapons.  So this disconnect between YM Lineages confuses me.  I even noted the "chicken and the egg" thing as a possibility, but the fact the foundation of the art is at the back end seems off.

Example, LFJ mentioned Kali as an example of a weapon based aren't and   Kali, Arnis, Eskrima are indeed arts with the weapons as the base.  Those weapons however are up front. The first things I learned?  Doce Pares (literally the 12 pairs, but it is the 12 angles of attack) and Cob-Cob (a cooperative double stick drill), THEN you learn how the empty hand techniques fit in.

As for your last bit indeed, but one also has to take into account, with unarmed arts, that they were often taught when weapons were outlawed, so you could still defend yourself and avoid the "authorities" catching you "carrying." Since a weapon won't always be available to you, perhaps rarely you learn that first.  Then you either select short weapons that are an extension of your arm (BJD) and/or something that is innocuous and common place, the pole.  But you can't walk everywhere with a pole and BJD are only so concealable.  The armed arts of FMA are different because it has descended from Warrior Arts akin to the various forms of Kenjutsu, armed HEMA, etc.  I have always found it interesting that, at least today, a weapon focused Chinese MA doesn't seem to survive, or maybe never existed?  There is no "Kenjutsu".  Interesting thing to ponder.

Now this evolution of course isn't Universal, but there are so many reasons that Mas evolve the way they do it's not funny .


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Well then, it seems rather odd that we have an article written by YM himself for a HK magazine and he mentions nothing of this at all!   It also seems rather odd, that YM's group of close long-time students other than WSL don't know this history or theory.  Is this another one of those things that YM taught ONLY to WSL?  And did WSL teach this to all of his close students?  I've never seen anyone else talk about it!   If WSL believed it to be true, it seems like it would be pretty common knowledge at this point.



YM taught only a few students the system. Why would he explain it to a magazine?

It is common knowledge to those who know the system. You haven't heard about it because you haven't studied the system.



> ---Are these ideas present throughout every part of non-YM Wing Chun systems?  Are they present throughout Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK?  Are they present throughout Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK?   Are they present throughout Yiu Choi WCK?



It seems not, but that's irrelevant if as you say some of these went on without the weapon base.

If the weapons were not taught, the weapon theory wouldn't be taught, and over time it's conceivable that the boxing method would evolve in a different direction without the weapons to guide it.



> ---There was adjustment, even if was just to remove the angulations and make it more linear.



No angulations are removed. It's a linear method. The forms are just homework, anyway. If you want to talk about the methods you need to talk about theory and application. In this, they are identical.



> And even if the LDBG form was used exactly "as is", that still does not rule out it being added to an existing empty hand method and then that empty hand method being reworked to some extent to align its strategies and tactics with that of the pole.



That's a guess without supporting evidence.



> *No, lol, because very few people learned the whole system from YM. "Stick, follow, roll" is a result of not knowing. Many people teach what they don't know.*
> 
> ---But realize that your theory of Wing Chun origins would predate YM and apply to ALL Wing Chun.  Not just YM Wing Chun.



Other systems appear to be doing something very different as far as boxing methods. As I said, without the weapon theory, the boxing method is free and likely to evolve into something else, which seems to be the case.



> JUST BECAUSE IT PRE-EXISTED PRIOR TO WING CHUN EMPTY HANDS PROVES NOTHING AND MAKES NOTHING "FALSE"!!!  Geez!  Use a little logic!  I'm not the only one that has recognized this!



I did not say "just because".

It is the fact that it preexisted AND remains unchanged between the preexisting style and YMVT.

This rules out the theory of the pole having been adjusted to match VT so seamlessly.

You can _say _a preexisting base style was readjusted to match the pole, but you need to demonstrate that.



> *Even if there was a previous boxing method, it would have undergone such a complete overhaul that it is meaningless to even mention now.*
> 
> ---I disagree.  There is no reason to think that a style of empty hands similar to the Hakka arts or Fukien White Crane could not have taken strategy and tactics from the pole and used that to rework the system.  It would then be a different system, but not unrecognizable.



This is a theory without evidence.

Any such preexisting base style is now unrecognizable because no other TCMA functions like VT.

A _paak-sau_ here, a _laan-sau_ there, or a vertical-fist punch do not add up to a recognizable base system if the overall strategy and tactics are contradictory.



KPM said:


> My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."



Because there is no evidence to support that theory.

Based on all observable facts, the only part that clearly shows relationship to VT with far more than superficial similarity is the weaponry.

My theory is a conclusion based on solid evidence. Your theory is a guess without evidence.

If you want to propose a possible preexisting base style, you must support it with solid evidence. There is none.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Yes other Arts have sections of their pole work that resemble WC.



Why are you still here if you're not going to pay attention?

It's not a section. It's an entire form from a distinct pole method. It is just short, like YMVT pole.



> In order for the "weapons is the start" to have any validity the open hand form almost has to be unique.



It is.



> The problem is many southern Mantis schools (and other Hakka arts, TWC and, according to many HG Sifus the "old HG", all have elements that are share the same similarities to WC.  This is ignored however.



As I told KPM, superficial similarities do not add up to anything. Otherwise, you could be saying Old School Boxing was the preexisting base style of VT.

The real problem is, all those styles are contradictory to VT strategy and tactics, and there is 0 evidence that any of them could have been a base style of VT.

You are guessing without evidence.



> WSLVT-PB is the one true YM-VT.



You've gotta be kidding me............ Again?!

We have dismantled this strawman 1,000 times! What is your problem?! 

I guess it has been a week since you last said it.



> The one issue though that I think is just wrong is the "empty hands are unique and the weapons aren't".



I've shown an identical LDBG method. Now show me an even similar "two pole" boxing method.


----------



## Nobody Important

Leung Yee Tai was said to be a practitioner of Fut Gar. He knew the 5th brother pole from Siu Lam which was taught to Wong Wa Bo who simplified it to conform with Wing Chun as it contained similar principles. It became known as 6 1/2 Point Pole because when the 5th Yang brother retreated to Siu Lam he removed the spear head from his pole and created staff techniques based upon 6 1/2  major points, though minor points are included.

Wing Chun theory consists of more than 6 1/2 points.

Often when weapons or empty hand forms are absorbed into a system, they take on many of  the characteristics and principles of that system, sometimes making them unrecognizable.

Weapons are said to have no family.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Why are you still here if you're not going to pay attention?
> 
> It's not a section. It's an entire form from a distinct pole method. It is just short, like YMVT pole.
> 
> 
> 
> It is.
> 
> 
> 
> As I told KPM, superficial similarities do not add up to anything. Otherwise, you could be saying Old School Boxing was the preexisting base style of VT.
> 
> The real problem is, all those styles are contradictory to VT strategy and tactics, and there is 0 evidence that any of them could have been a base style of VT.
> 
> You are guessing without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> You've gotta be kidding me............ Again?!
> 
> We have dismantled this strawman 1,000 times! What is your problem?!
> 
> I guess it has been a week since you last said it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown an identical LDBG method. Now show me an even similar "two pole" boxing method.



I will only comment on "superficial" similarities.  First one could say your argument, using the pole video is "superficial." However here is a description of a firm Mantis principle.



> techniques are centered at the elbow whilst most martial arts use the shoulder as the pivot or launch point for a strike. Elbow-centric techniques are best for self-defense because:-
> 
> They need less room for execution.
> Strikes happen more rapidly because there's less distance for the hand to travel.
> It is harder for the attacker to defend himself because he has less time to react.
> Positioning the elbows towards the centerline allows faster response to any attack and directly covers the chest.


They also use virtually the same concept of "gates" among other things.  The number of similarities go beyond what we can superficially see in terms of the empty hand.  Now this doesn't mean there aren't differences, there sure as heck are.  If there weren't we would be studying Chow Gar and not WC/VT but WC didn't not evolve, empty hand or armed, in a vacuum.  Sometimes I have wondered if the reason people so focus, at times exusively on Fax is because of the similarities in the legend of creation and the fact WC often uses the Crane in symbology, because if you look closer to home you see an art right there that clearly also shares many fundamental principles.  Is it iron clad?  No but having not only similarities in practice but in some very fundamental principles makes it worthy of consideration vs dismissal.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Leung Yee Tai was said to be a practitioner of Fut Gar. He knew the 5th brother pole from Siu Lam which was taught to Wong Wa Bo who simplified it to conform with Wing Chun as it contained similar principles. It became known as 6 1/2 Point Pole because when the 5th Yang brother retreated to Siu Lam he removed the spear head from his pole and created staff techniques based upon 6 1/2 major points, though minor points are included.



There is nothing to prove these people existed, and there was never historically a "Southern Shaolin Monastery" either.

The furthest back we can prove real people for the VT boxing method is to Leung Jan, and for the LDBG pole method is to Lam Geui-Chung, both from the early 19th century.

The rest is unsubstantiated legend.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First one could say your argument, using the pole video is "superficial."



Looking at video without understanding anything in it, but still not. 

It's the exact same actions in practically the same sequence.

The important thing is that they are identical in both theory and application.



> However here is a description of a firm Mantis principle.



It is superficial because the strategy and tactics between SPM and VT are actually contradictory.

SPM and other Hakka styles function similarly. But they are all contradictory to VT theory and application.

It doesn't matter if they share visually similar hands or the concept of a centerline, because their interactions with centerline are very different.



> WC didn't not evolve, empty hand or armed, in a vacuum.



Yes, but if you wish to propose a preexisting base style for VT, you need to substantiate that with solid evidence.

Otherwise, you're just guessing based on what you think seems likely.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> There is nothing to prove these people existed, and there was never historically a "Southern Shaolin Monastery" either.
> 
> The furthest back we can prove real people for the VT boxing method is to Leung Jan, and for the LDBG pole method is to Lam Geui-Chung, both from the early 19th century.
> 
> The rest is unsubstantiated legend.


There is always a kernel of truth in oral legends. No need to heed them if skeptical, no need to dismiss if they don't coincide with your belief of Wing Chun origins. They are just stories, yet when laid out , logic gives a glimpse into validity of these old tales. Sometimes the characters aren't as important as the message. Please excuse me if I don't suddenly start burning incense to your "new" founder of Wing Chun, the venerable Lam Guei-Chung.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Looking at video without understanding anything in it, but still not.
> 
> It's the exact same actions in practically the same sequence.
> 
> The important thing is that they are identical in both theory and application.
> 
> 
> 
> It is superficial because the strategy and tactics between SPM and VT are actually contradictory.



I was waiting for you to revert to the "strategy" trope.  A strategy that apparently only WSLVT-PB people know and which you have yet to enlighten us on, if even only superficially.  The fact that you have yet to prevent this strategy also shows that at best you are doing the same thing I am doing, make a conclusion here without presenting the evidence to back it up.  However the more you look the more you see things such as this...



> For a skilled practitioner in a defense position, it is not necessary to block an attacker's punch. Instead, the short-range powers can be used initially to control the attacker's force. It is difficult for a non-Southern Praying Mantis practitioner to understand this kung fu fighting concept, but a skillful Southern Praying Mantis practitioner, if attacked, won't block for defense, though he will follow through with his own punch.



I laughed my butt off when I read the "...It is difficult for a non-Southern Praying Mantis..."

And simply because some overarching strategy isn't met doesn't mean that the similarities are superficial.  Many techniques and base principles can be refined to fit multiple strategies.  Admittedly not all but many.  Since you won't enlighten the rest of us as to the "secret" strategy of WSLVT-PB however I suppose the walls of the Ivory Tower stand.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> There is always a kernel of truth in oral legends. No need to heed them if skeptical, no need to dismiss if they don't coincide with your belief of Wing Chun origins. They are just stories, yet when laid out , logic gives a glimpse into validity of these old tales. Sometimes the characters aren't as important as the message.



Well, that's fine, but if they don't lead to anything that can be substantiated, they are not a reliable pathway to truth.



> Please excuse me if I don't suddenly start burning incense to your "new" founder of Wing Chun, the venerable Lam Guei-Chung.



I did not say he was the founder. As far as I know, there's no evidence he had anything to do with VT. It could have started with LJ and others, or even further back before either of these guys.

I have not written an origin story, because VT history is unrecorded.

But looking at observable facts, VT's only clear and undeniable relationship with any other system is to the weaponry of HSHK.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I was waiting for you to revert to the "strategy" trope.



This it what defines the system.

I've doubted your experience in WC, but I'm beginning to think you're not even a real MAist.



> A strategy that apparently only WSLVT-PB people know



Strawman.



> The fact that you have yet to prevent this strategy also shows that at best you are doing the same thing I am doing, make a conclusion here without presenting the evidence to back it up.



We've discussed it a thousand times before.



> And simply because some overarching strategy isn't met doesn't mean that the similarities are superficial.



Not only isn't met, but is directly contradicted!

Since you have no experience in VT or SPM, you should stop googling for similarities when you understand neither.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Well, that's fine, but if they don't lead to anything that can be substantiated, they are not a reliable pathway to truth.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say he was the founder. As far as I know, there's no evidence he had anything to do with VT. It could have started with LJ and others, or even further back before either of these guys.
> 
> I have not written an origin story, because VT history is unrecorded.
> 
> But looking at observable facts, VT's only clear and undeniable relationship with any other system is to the weaponry of HSHK.


HSHK is a version of Wing Chun, this I heard directly from a disciple of Lam Jo. By your own admission you believe Wing Chun to be formulated from LDBK. Lam Guei Chung is only verifiable ancestor of LDBK method, therefore by deduction he must be the founder of Wing Chun.

Your stories are no more definitive than anyone else's. I cannot prove the existence of my great, great, great grandfather, I rely on stories told to me by my father, his father and others that knew him or of him. Simply because I cannot "prove" his existence doesn't mean he never existed. I am living proof that he did. He, like many ancestors in Wing Chun, we're not famous. No great tales exist about him just as no great tales exist about Leung Lan Kwai or Wong Wa Bo. Why would anyone lie about knowing, learning from or being related to someone insignificant by most accounts? Sure, stories become myth and are elaborated over time, things get misconstrued, but when there isn't anything fabulous about that story why can't it be true?


----------



## Nobody Important

Left Handed 6 1/2 Point Pole of Lam Guei Chung. The story behind it is that it was taught by Ji Sim to the Opera performers. Same story as Leung Lam Kwai learning it from Ji Sim and passing it on to Wong Wa Bo. It is also said to be orthodox Siu Lam (Fut Gar) and that it was paired with Jin Jeung (aka: Heat Penetrating Palm & Post Fist) and Hang Yuet Seung Dao, all related to what some consider the last art to come out of Siu Lam, White Crane. It is nearly identical to Yuen family pole, minus a few things. Looks similar to Yip Man and Kulo 3 1/2 point pole as well.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> This it what defines the system.
> 
> I've doubted your experience in WC, but I'm beginning to think you're not even a real MAist.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> We've discussed it a thousand times before.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't met, but is directly contradicted!
> 
> Since you have no experience in VT or SPM, you should stop googling for similarities when you understand neither.



As hominem's followed by a false accusation of strawman.   Ultimately in many an argument, and if you wish I will link all the times, you dismiss a counter argument with the "strategy" of WSLVT-PB argument.  Everytime someone has asked you "well elaborate on the strategy, what is in that strategy that makes this argument not correct?" Believe it or not, while I can't speak for others, if you were to answer this one simple question it might actually allow me to see where you are coming from, hell I because both you and Guy repeatedly made it clear that the other YM VT Lineages, in you opinion lack this core strategy. Hence the comment regarding WSLVT-PB.  People here from the Ching and Chun, Moy Yat, Cheung, not just Main Land have all asked what this different strategy is and the requests are simply ignored or condescendingly dismissed.

You have even used this to defend your position that your VT is the true YM VT today.  Yet you have yet to explain it.  If you don't see how simply saying "the strategy is wrong", with explanation as to why or what that strategy is, can actually hinder polite discussion and creates discord and toxicity, I don't know what to say.

Really this entire debate could possibly be solved, even if it was simply people saying "okay I guess we'll just agree to disagree" if you would simply explain what this "strategy" is.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> HSHK is a version of Wing Chun, this I heard directly from a disciple of Lam Jo. By your own admission you believe Wing Chun to be formulated from LDBK. Lam Guei Chung is only verifiable ancestor of LDBK method, therefore by deduction he must be the founder of Wing Chun.



By faulty deduction. This conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The LDBG is said to go back further in history, but we don't have verifiable evidence of that.

Not being able to trace it back further doesn't justify the conclusion that LGC either invented the pole method, or the VT boxing method clearly based on it.

All we can say is that he is the first verifiable ancestor of the LBDG.

As far as VT, the furthest we can go is LJ.

The rest is folktale and guessing.



> Sure, stories become myth and are elaborated over time, things get misconstrued, but when there isn't anything fabulous about that story why can't it be true?



A story isn't determined to be true based on how realistic it sounds. A truth claim requires verifiable evidence.

Legends aren't valid evidence unless they can be substantiated or lead to solid facts.



Nobody Important said:


> Left Handed 6 1/2 Point Pole of Lam Guei Chung...
> ...Looks similar to Yip Man



Don't forget, most importantly, it is also identical in theory and application.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> you dismiss a counter argument with the "strategy" of WSLVT-PB argument.



I have never mentioned PB's name if not to counter your strawman about his VT.



> Hence the comment regarding WSLVT-PB.



A strawman.



> Really this entire debate could possibly be solved, even if it was simply people saying "okay I guess we'll just agree to disagree" if you would simply explain what this "strategy" is.



I have explained it, here and elsewhere, to you directly, 1,000's of times. Just like I have dismantled your strawman repeatedly, almost every week. And you keep coming back with it.

You googled info to tell me and others from my lineage that we're wrong in the explanation of the strategy of our own system which you haven't the slightest understanding of yourself.

I don't think I'm going to attempt it with you again, just to have you google and tell me I'm wrong, and a week later once again tell me I haven't explained it yet.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> By faulty deduction. This conclusion does not follow from the premise.
> 
> The LDBG is said to go back further in history, but we don't have verifiable evidence of that.
> 
> Not being able to trace it back further doesn't justify the conclusion that LGC either invented the pole method, or the VT boxing method clearly based on it.
> 
> All we can say is that he is the first verifiable ancestor of the LBDG.
> 
> As far as VT, the furthest we can go is LJ.
> 
> The rest is folktale and guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> A story isn't determined to be true based on how realistic it sounds. A truth claim requires verifiable evidence.
> 
> Legends aren't valid evidence unless they can be substantiated or lead to solid facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget, most importantly, it is also identical in theory and application.


You're the one making the premise, not me, I just pointed out your claim.

True, evidence is required, but you need to start somewhere, and when something seems plausible it's only logical to try & prove or disprove. At this point we only have possibility with no evidence to counter probability. There is no evidence either way, so until it is debunked credibly, it should be treated as plausible.

I don't see why it would be different, it's Wing Chun. The only aspects of the Hung Kuen Wing Chun to be altered are the knives (by Lam Guei Chung's own altering)  and the Arrow Palm set, which has taken on the characteristics of Hung Kuen proper via Lam Sai Wing altering it. He also altered LDBK by blending it with 8 Diagram Pole. To be fair that video is a reworking by Pavel Mavek's group. No one knows what that art actually looks like any more. I'm sure if it was blended with something else it would look ever more different.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (*since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources*.)



This is off-topic but again you're attempting to speak of something with which you have 0 experience or knowledge.

There are many systems shared between Shaolin and Daoist lineages. It's the martial arts and how they are spread around China. Religions don't create barriers between them. All the styles around the mountainous area of Shaolin share the recognizably distinct flavor of the region and ultimately share the same origin, including Muslim arts.

Btw, this is found on a stele in the Shaolin Monastery. It shows 3 faces in 1, Buddhism, Daoism, & Confucianism.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> You're the one making the premise, not me, I just pointed out your claim.



And you're the one making the conclusion which I never claimed and which doesn't follow from the premise.



> There is no evidence either way, so until it is debunked credibly, it should be treated as plausible.



There is evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having been based on LDBG.

There is no evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having come from a preexisting base style and reworked to align with the LDBG.

Until the latter comes up with something solid, only the former is based on evidence, and therefore most likely from the standpoint of currently observable facts.



> To be fair that video is a reworking by Pavel Mavek's group. No one knows what that art actually looks like any more.



I posted a video of it from 1949.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> And you're the one making the conclusion which I never claimed and which doesn't follow from the premise.
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having been based on LDBG.
> 
> There is no evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having come from a preexisting base style and reworked to align with the LDBG.
> 
> Until the latter comes up with something solid, only the former is based on evidence, and therefore most likely from the current standpoint of observable facts.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of it from 1949.


Are you not the one making the claim that WC is based on the pole? My conclusion is based on the fact that you believe it to be true, you go on to state that there is evidence to support in via the video of the HK pole form. Seems like a double standard to call me out on something you are adamantly supporting but deny me to say you support. 

Yes, the video from 1949 is an old WFH movie starring a Tibetan White Crane master. The sequence is the same, though we don't know for certain if there was more. PM's video is based on that one extrapolated sequence. The same sequence is also in the Tibetan White Crane 13 Spear Pole + more.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I have never mentioned PB's name if not to counter your strawman about his VT.
> 
> 
> 
> A strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained it, here and elsewhere, to you directly, 1,000's of times. Just like I have dismantled your strawman repeatedly, almost every week. And you keep coming back with it.
> 
> You googled info to tell me and others from my lineage that we're wrong in the explanation of the strategy of our own system which you haven't the slightest understanding of yourself.
> 
> I don't think I'm going to attempt it with you again, just to have you google and tell me I'm wrong, and a week later once again tell me I haven't explained it yet.



First you dont have to say "I study PB's version" explicitly when you refer to every other well known WSL student mentioned as "okay but modified" at best or "doesn't truly understand" at worst.  It also seemed logical to conclude this because of the discussion where you vigorously defended the amount of time PB spent personally training with WSL and the outright anger you had when someone proposed a certain reason for PB's VT being different than others.  That out of the way

Well I am not the only one who missed it when you detailed the strategy because I am not the only one here who isn't under your "school of thought" who still asks for clarification.

In reference to your statement of the quote I posted, two things. I assume, since we are talking strategy, that you are referring to the "impose your will" on the opponent which is the only thing I ever contradicted you on.  I did this not because I searched for it but because I knew that quote already.  While my study with WSL via GL was brief (comparatively) and I have purged more than a bit from my memory banks as a consequence of studying TWC, one thing always stuck with me.  Being told that quote by my Sifu to add to one of GL's axioms "why should I oppose his first action?  Do not oppose his action.". Now before you said GL was "okay" but that he modified stuff.  Who knows but that was why.  This seemed to be counter to attempting to "impose" oneself.

If this is the strategy you speak of here, "impose your will on the opponent" then I don't see how anything is contradicted in CG.  There is a saying you see in many a conversation or interview about Southern Praying Mantis, in general, which says, "if your enemy comes to your door make him stay but if he tries to flee chase him down.". That seems very much like "imposition" to me.

There are differences between WC as I know it and CG as well no doubt.  I am not even categorically saying that CG had an impact on WC.  All I am saying is, something similar to you actually because we actually agree on a couple things.  There is no evidence for a Southern Shaolin Temple.  Simple temple ruins do not = that.  Origin myths that seem virtually copied from another style are also suspicious.  So we are left looking for what the real story is. 

I am genuinely interested in what you mean by the "strategy" being so different as to make all apparent similarities impossible.  To understand that I need to know what you speak of.  Maybe it will trigger a memory that is over 15 years old and buried so I could stop doing certain things that weren't strictly TWC?  Maybe I'll say, "well from that perspective I can see the point but it's not strictly relevant to the perspective of TWC." Maybe I'll even say "he's right, time to look elsewhere." I don't know what the result will be but I'll never know without some elaboration on the strategy that is the crux of this particular issue atm


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> List of the 22 short "forms" taught before Sil Lim Tao in non-Yip Man lineages:
> 
> 1. Buddha Palm
> 2. Phoenix Eye Hammer
> 3. Tiger Tail Hammer
> 4. Pheasant Kick
> 5. Dragon Pearl
> 6. Small Heun Sao
> 7. Big Heun Sao
> 8. Three War Fist (Sanchin)
> 9. Plowing Bridge
> 10. Bong and Backfist
> 11. Po Pai Jeung Exercise
> 12. Obstruct and Prop
> 13. Hook and Slice
> 14. Fish Flip
> 15. Controlling Bridge
> 16. Crane Wing
> 17. Evade and Biu Sao
> 18. Double Dragon
> 19. Bowing Horse Hammer
> 20. Three Palms
> 21. Pulling Eight
> 22. Suppressing Tiger
> 
> A student would traditionally spend about a month on each short form. They wouldn't learn Sil Lim Tao until after all 22 were perfect. Each short form is usually 5-10 moves in length. Some of them mimic parts of Sil Lim Tao.



This is the 22 Point Ku Lo system.  It is a spin off of Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun....a "public" version so to speak.  And these are specifically the translations used by John Fung, who teaches this system as well as Tai Chi in Australia.  There is said to have been some San Sik that Ip Man taught in Foshan and dropped when he got to Hong Kong.  But this is not it.  And this was never taught as a preliminary to the standard 3 forms in any system.   The 22 point system as well as its root the Pin Sun system was a stand alone independent system.   Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK has 12 San Sik taught before a student starts the Siu Nim Tao form.  But these 12 San Sik were added by Sum Nung based on his training before meeting Yuen Kay Shan.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> There is nothing to prove these people existed, and there was never historically a "Southern Shaolin Monastery" either.
> 
> The furthest back we can prove real people for the VT boxing method is to Leung Jan, and for the LDBG pole method is to Lam Geui-Chung, both from the early 19th century



Interesting.
Did these two know each other?


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Here is a question?  Why does their need to be *A* proto-WC?  The more I look at things there was no single source.  Now maybe I am projecting something from FMA scholarship here.  While tradition states there is a "mother art" (aka proto-art) when you really look at it this is impossible due to circumstances.  I think the same thing would be true here.  You MAY be able to go back and find an art that is a common ancestor for WC and Hakka related arts from the Guangdong area with similar techniques (Baak Mei, various Southern Mantis),  and even principles.  Even TWC is said to perhaps be related to Hakka MAs because of the Hakka migrations resulting in Hakka being in both Fujian and Guangdong. Here is a Hakka shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did Hakka evolve entirely independently or was it influenced by the fact that Hakka tended to join the military due to living in mountains where farming prospects weren't that great?
> 
> Then you have what appears to be some elements related to "old"/village Hung Kuen, in the pole form, possibly elements of FWC as well.  It seems to me that, in this case, searching for a single "proto-art" is search for a unicorn.  That such a thing doesn't exist because WC appears to be an amalgam, with some refinement, of many arts and these arts in turn are likely amalgams, with refinement, of other arts. /Shrug



I agree with everything you wrote!  But "proto-Wing Chun" would have been the first attempt at that amalgamation of various styles.  Then it would have evolved and developed with time.  Or it might have been something like an early form of White Crane that gradually shifted emphasis and added other things to become Wing Chun.  So the "proto-Wing Chun" may have been a gradually evolving and developing thing until it gained an separate identity of its  own.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Are you not the one making the claim that WC is based on the pole? My conclusion is based on the fact that you believe it to be true,



Your conclusion still doesn't follow from that. 

That we can verify earlier ancestors does not mean the earliest guy we can find was the founder or that he was involved in created VT boxing based on the pole method he trained.



> Yes, the video from 1949 is an old WFH movie starring a Tibetan White Crane master. The sequence is the same, though we don't know for certain if there was more.



So, once again, based on currently observable facts, it is practically indistinguishable from YMVT pole in form, and identical in theory and application.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First you dont have to say "I study PB's version" explicitly when you refer to every other well known WSL student mentioned as "okay but modified" at best or "doesn't truly understand" at worst.



You can't just make things up. That is the definition of a strawman.



> the discussion where you vigorously defended the amount of time PB spent personally training with WSL



You mean shared the facts.



> and the outright anger you had when someone proposed a certain reason for PB's VT being different than others.



You mean the disparaging comments you made about his handicap, which were demonstrated to be false.



> In reference to your statement of the quote I posted, two things. I assume, since we are talking strategy, that you are referring to the "impose your will" on the opponent which is the only thing I ever contradicted you on.



Because you don't know VT. Nor do you know SPM, which is a reactive style.



> While my study with WSL via GL was brief (comparatively)



Didn't even get passed SNT.



> Now before you said GL was "okay" but that he modified stuff.  Who knows but that was why.  This seemed to be counter to attempting to "impose" oneself.



If so, you have your reason why.



> If this is the strategy you speak of here, "impose your will on the opponent" then I don't see how anything is contradicted in CG.



Because you don't know how either VT or SPM function, yet are attempting a comparison from ignorance.


----------



## wckf92

@LFJ 
So were the knives equally important in the conception of VT as the pole? Around the same time?


----------



## KPM

*YM taught only a few students the system. Why would he explain it to a magazine?*

---No, the better question is "why wouldn't he?????"  Why would it be a secret? Why would he purposefully write an incorrect history for all posterity?  Why would he not teach this openly to ALL of his students and not just WSL?   I've said this before....you really need to examine the logic you have been using.  None of it adds up!


*It is common knowledge to those who know the system. You haven't heard about it because you haven't studied the system.*

---THE system being WSLVT, of course!!!     Again, as I said before, if your theory doesn't apply to ALL Wing Chun and can only be explained within WSLVT....that should be a huge red flag that there is something wrong with the theory!



*It seems not, but that's irrelevant if as you say some of these went on without the weapon base.*

---Oh, it is very relevant!  See my comment above!


*If the weapons were not taught, the weapon theory wouldn't be taught, and over time it's conceivable that the boxing method would evolve in a different direction without the weapons to guide it.*

---So let me get this straight.  You believe that there is no way that an empty hand method could be adapted or evolved to incorporate weapons concepts, but that a weapons-based empty hand method CAN change or evolve to lose the weapons concepts?   Again, you really need to examine your logic! 


*
No angulations are removed. It's a linear method.*

---Did you watch the videos you posted????  



*That's a guess without supporting evidence.*

---Its just as much a guess as your theory, and actually has more supporting evidence!  We've been over this already.



*Other systems appear to be doing something very different as far as boxing methods. As I said, without the weapon theory, the boxing method is free and likely to evolve into something else, which seems to be the case.*

---So let me get this straight.  You believe that the origin of all Wing Chun was the weapons, but that ONLY WSLVT has retained this weapon emphasis and all other versions of Wing Chun...both Hong Kong and Mainland versions....have lost or evolved away from this weapons theory boxing method??    I've got one word for you....."plausibility."



*It is the fact that it preexisted AND remains unchanged between the preexisting style and YMVT.*

---IF that were consistent within ALL YMVT....or better yet ALL Wing Chun in general you would have a better argument.  But it seems to apply only to WSLVT.    And I already pointed out that it wouldn't matter whether it was the exact same LDBK form or not.  It still does not rule out the idea of an existing empty hand method being "evolved" and changed by the addition of weapons concepts. 


*
You can say a preexisting base style was readjusted to match the pole, but you need to demonstrate that.*

---And you would need to demonstrate the opposite!  All you can show is correlation, and that does not prove origins at all.  Again, examine your logic!



*This is a theory without evidence.*

---Just as yours is a theory without evidence.



*Because there is no evidence to support that theory.*

---Just as much as you have to support yours!



*My theory is a conclusion based on solid evidence. Your theory is a guess without evidence.*

---Please!     You haven't provided any solid evidence other than showing a LDBK form from Hung Kuen that looks like WSL's pole form and some correlation between the LDBK and the empty hands.  How that correlation came to be is still a matter of conjecture that could go either way. 

---Here's another theory for you.....Ip Man seems to have taught different pole forms at different times of his career.  So he couldn't have know this Hung Kuen version of the LDBK from the beginning.  So it couldn't have been what he learned from Chan Wah Shun/Ng Chung So.  So it couldn't have been the base for the entire system from the beginning.  It could very well be that either Ip Man or WSL himself picked up this version of the pole later on and then worked to refine the empty hands understanding to match weapons theory as closely as possible.  This would explain why you only see this correlation between the two in WSLVT.  You cannot disprove this theory unless you can show another version of Wing Chun that has this close correlation between pole and empty hands and that also teaches that the empty hands were derived from the pole.


*If you want to propose a possible preexisting base style, you must support it with solid evidence. There is none.*

---There is just a much evidence for a older version of White Crane being a base style as you have provided for that LDBK form being the base style.  And you still haven't said who the main teacher of this theory is within the WSL lineage.  I acknowledge that you are a pretty smart guy.  But in this case you seem willing to suspend good logic and judgment and accept this theory as fact rather than as just an interesting possibility.  That implies someone with some clout is teaching this.  So again, who is it?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Left Handed 6 1/2 Point Pole of Lam Guei Chung. The story behind it is that it was taught by Ji Sim to the Opera performers. Same story as Leung Lam Kwai learning it from Ji Sim and passing it on to Wong Wa Bo. It is also said to be orthodox Siu Lam (Fut Gar) and that it was paired with Jin Jeung (aka: Heat Penetrating Palm & Post Fist) and Hang Yuet Seung Dao, all related to what some consider the last art to come out of Siu Lam, White Crane. It is nearly identical to Yuen family pole, minus a few things. Looks similar to Yip Man and Kulo 3 1/2 point pole as well.



This is actually more similar to Tang Yik pole than it is to WSL's pole.  But very short.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> I agree with everything you wrote!  But "proto-Wing Chun" would have been the first attempt at that amalgamation of various styles.  Then it would have evolved and developed with time.  Or it might have been something like an early form of White Crane that gradually shifted emphasis and added other things to become Wing Chun.  So the "proto-Wing Chun" may have been a gradually evolving and developing thing until it gained an separate identity of its  own.



Just wanted to clarify.  I just realized that here, an a couple other places I typed FWC but my phone's autocorrect made it TWC, since I obviously type that more often 

I guess I am uncertain as to what degree such a state of Flux existed because I am actually in agreement with what I THINK LFJ is saying, namely that WC is a 19th Century construct and it started getting taught to the heads of many lineages in that same Century.  That's not a lot of time, imo, for there to be a not fully formed "proto-art" to exist and evolve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I totally agree that there is a beginning to everything, and the scholarship should be done to discover those beginnings.  That is not the same as saying there is a single "alpha", or proto-art.
> 
> The mental artifacts man creates, whether a martial art, a science, literature, painting etc are almost always influenced by other things.  Nothing evolves in an vacuum.  So if you have an art like WC, that appears to have Hakka and non-Hakka influences how can one say that there is a single "Alpha".
> 
> I am not saying we can't say "okay there's a bit of Mantis, here is a bit of Baak Mei, there is a bit of FWC, there is a bit of "old"/village HK." The thing is though that these each take us in different directions.  We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources.) Then maybe some influence from the more "straight ahead" arts taught to the Imperial Army.  Then you have the effects of migrating through various regions.  As an example, over time the Hakka, who used to be the ruling Han, migrated from the north to the south in waves, usually triggered by warfare and upheaval.
> 
> All I am saying is that there appears to be a strong possibility that in the end we see a history that looks like a family tree in reverse.  The art you are looking at, in this case WC, is the "Omega". As we go back into the past the tree expands to multiple sources, rather than narrowing to one.  It is interesting indeed to try and figure out all the possible twists and turns.  All I am saying is that if we insist on looking for a single "Alpha" we blind ourselves to other possibilities.
> 
> Sorry, the would be history teacher has kicked in full force due to the turn this thread took


This starts to have a lot in common with linguistic historical research.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> SPM and other Hakka styles function similarly. But they are all contradictory to VT theory and application.


Can you outline some of those differences briefly? I've picked up a few bits of VT strategy/tactics in discussions, but I'm entirely unfamiliar with SPM.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> This it what defines the system.
> 
> I've doubted your experience in WC, but I'm beginning to think you're not even a real MAist.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> We've discussed it a thousand times before.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only isn't met, but is directly contradicted!
> 
> Since you have no experience in VT or SPM, you should stop googling for similarities when you understand neither.


It has been discussed many times, but I don't recall ever seeing an answer to requests for clarification. Just saying "strategy and tactics" is more vague than you appear to think. If I refer to the strategy & tactics of NGA without spelling them out, it's unlikely another practitioner - even a senior instructor - would know precisely what I'm referring to unless I am explicit. That's not because of a lack of understanding but because there's no formal, universal expression of them. Each instructor teaches them with different words, and some teach them implicitly, rather than explicitly. 

So, when someone doesnt understand what you mean, it may be because your experience is different, and your words mean something different to them than you intend.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Why would he purposefully write an incorrect history for all posterity?



Why would anyone put much stock in fairytales?



> not just WSL?



Juany's strawman?



> ---THE system being WSLVT, of course!!!



Juany's strawman if you add PB's name.



> ---So let me get this straight.  You believe that there is no way that an empty hand method could be adapted or evolved to incorporate weapons concepts, but that a weapons-based empty hand method CAN change or evolve to lose the weapons concepts?



No. But there is no evidence of the first theory in the case of VT.

A rudderless boxing method could change course in any direction.



> ---Its just as much a guess as your theory, and actually has more supporting evidence!  We've been over this already.



It has 0 evidence.



> ---So let me get this straight.  You believe that the origin of all Wing Chun was the weapons, but that ONLY WSLVT has retained this weapon emphasis and all other versions of Wing Chun...both Hong Kong and Mainland versions....have lost or evolved away from this weapons theory boxing method??



I can only speak about YMVT. I can't tell you what happened over more than 100 years in other lineages, but that they are completely different systems as they exist today.



> I already pointed out that it wouldn't matter whether it was the exact same LDBK form or not.  It still does not rule out the idea of an existing empty hand method being "evolved" and changed by the addition of weapons concepts.



You need to present evidence if you are going to propose this theory. 



> ---And you would need to demonstrate the opposite!  All you can show is correlation, and that does not prove origins at all.  Again, examine your logic!



Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.



> *This is a theory without evidence.*
> 
> ---Just as yours is a theory without evidence.



LDBG from HSHK is solid supporting evidence. It is not proof that VT boxing came from it, but that is supporting evidence in that direction, and is in fact proof that it wasn't adapted to VT.



> *Because there is no evidence to support that theory.*
> 
> ---Just as much as you have to support yours!



You have presented nothing but guesses based on what you think is likely.



> ---Here's another theory for you.....Ip Man seems to have taught different pole forms at different times of his career.  So he couldn't have know this Hung Kuen version of the LDBK from the beginning.  So it couldn't have been what he learned from Chan Wah Shun/Ng Chung So.  So it couldn't have been the base for the entire system from the beginning.



False, and ignorance of the pole method behind the forms.



> ---There is just a much evidence for a older version of White Crane being a base style as you have provided for that LDBK form being the base style.



False. You have not shown even the slightest relationship between White Crane and VT. They are contradictory systems with very few superficial elements between them.

VT boxing and LDBG match completely at every level.



> And you still haven't said who the main teacher of this theory is within the WSL lineage.



There is no main teacher under WSL.



> in this case you seem willing to suspend good logic and judgment and accept this theory as fact rather than as just an interesting possibility. That implies someone with some clout is teaching this.



I have not written an origin story and claimed it as fact. I have only presented the observable facts as they currently stand, and they show VT boxing matching weapons that came before.

I have explained in detail why I find this most convincing, and it is wholly through technical analysis and historical fact. I never once made an Appeal to Authority, thank you very much!


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Interesting.
> Did these two know each other?



It would not be surprising. It is conceivable that the two of them developed a boxing method distinct from the various neighboring styles of the time, borrowing simple elements like YJKYM to start from, but ultimately coming up with a very different style that contradicts all the others.

It would take more work to verify the relationship they had, if indeed any. It could well have been generations before them, but since the history is not recorded beyond that point, we can't form a definitive origin story. And I am not making any such claim.



wckf92 said:


> @LFJ
> So were the knives equally important in the conception of VT as the pole? Around the same time?



Equally _important_, yes, but not equally integrated. The strategy between knives and boxing are opposite, for good reason. BJ is pretty much all knife thinking, though.

What is integrated into the core of VT boxing from the knives is the tactical guidelines that make the "two pole" boxing method effective.

The pole method works because it is long range and the opponent only has one pole, too. Ballistically displace their pole and blast into the opening. End of fight. That's the saying, the pole doesn't make a second sound.

But, you can't just run in like that when short range boxing someone also with "two weapons". You may remove one, but the other can still hit you. So, to make the "two pole" boxing method effective, isolation principles from the knives are introduced, greatly increasing our odds as we now have at least twice as many weapons as the opponent.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Your conclusion still doesn't follow from that.
> 
> That we can verify earlier ancestors does not mean the earliest guy we can find was the founder or that he was involved in created VT boxing based on the pole method he trained.
> 
> 
> 
> So, once again, based on currently observable facts, it is practically indistinguishable from YMVT pole in form, and identical in theory and application.


I was being sarcastic, but I guess it went over your head.

Yes the form is similar, this doesn't mean that it is proof that WC was derived from it. It simply shows that Yip Man's form is legitimate & not made up as evidence from a possibly unrelated lineage. Who did Lam Guei Chung study under? Choy Fung Long was a student of both Wong Fei Hung & Chan Wah Shun, who's to say Lam Sai Wing didn't get the form from him & attribute it to his "grandfather". Lam family has made lots of changes to original Hung Kuen as taught by WFH and attributed to "ancestors". I have a good friend that studies Hung Kuen from WFH who's sidaigung was a training brother of LSW. Outside of flavor the arts aren't even similar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> LDBG from HSHK is solid supporting evidence. It is not proof that VT boxing came from it, but that is supporting evidence in that direction, and is in fact proof that it wasn't adapted to VT.


Actually, it isn't solid supporting evidence, because it is at least as likely to have been added (without modification) as to have been the source of a new style (without modification). Since others see some differences you don't, and you see similarities they don't, it's hard to even say whether this is unmodified. All of this even ignores other possibilities, and that is the weakest point of your certainty in your argument. It's possible you are right. I see nothing to disprove your theory. However, the evidence you put forth seems to fit at least two other possibilities about as well. Thus, you may be correct, but there's no certainty to be had from the available evidence.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You can't just make things up. That is the definition of a strawman.



So you acknowledge the circumstantial evidence that would indicate you do study PB' school then say I made something up?  That is illogical, murder convictions happen on said evidence. 

I wasn't calling PB "crippled" either.  That accusation actually annoyed me.  That said part of the topic at hand was that other WC forms did things PB's doesn't.  Prime among them was standing grappling and takedowns.  Biomechanics being what they are that could be a valid reason.  The reason why it annoyed me is that I study with a fellow student with physical issues that force him to adapt.  I shouldn't even had to have pointed that out because using such a condition as a "weapon" is reprehensible.



> Because you don't know how either VT or SPM function, yet are attempting a comparison from ignorance.



Well here is the thing, without explaining the strategy you can't make such a statement.  The only way your statement would hold water is if the techniques and principles are completely incompatible, akin to going on a sniper mission with a pistol or a 12 that's shotgun loaded with shot and not rifled slug.  You can make techniques and foundational principles fit many a strategy.

In our little community, and he can correct me if I am wrong @gpseymour  is the instructor of one.  We have had many conversations and in his art you see that somehow Aikido and Karate (shotokan?) have been combined into an art not based on the old strategies but rather because biomechanically, and in terms of some basic fundamental principles, they work harmoniously under the new strategy.  The idea that there is some sort of ideological purity in a particular martial arts strategy that precludes outside influence is rarely born out. 

So again what is this strategy?  Without that we can't tell if it is as you say, a pistol on a sniper mission, or something else.  You have avoided this question time and again, at least to the perception of most of the rest of us.  If it is the pistol on the sniper mission I at least have no issue moving on to a new theory because, Ultimately, everyone here is trying to build a circumstantial case and once those cases start getting "Shakey" I know from rl experience it's time to move on before your case falls apart completely.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Can you outline some of those differences briefly? I've picked up a few bits of VT strategy/tactics in discussions, but I'm entirely unfamiliar with SPM.



The major difference;

SPM is a reactive style. VT is a proactive style.

The methods are directly contradictory.



gpseymour said:


> It has been discussed many times, but I don't recall ever seeing an answer to requests for clarification.



I spelled it out in a wall of text when KPM asked. It is general, because it's impractical for me to explain the entire system on here, but explains the strategy and tactics between LDBG and VT boxing.



gpseymour said:


> Actually, it isn't solid supporting evidence, because it is at least as likely to have been added (without modification) as to have been the source of a new style (without modification).



Only, there is no evidence for a "proto-style" it could have been added to. It only makes sense as a source of a new style, if you know anything about Hakka styles at all. 



> Thus, you may be correct, but there's no certainty to be had from the available evidence.



I don't speak in terms of absolute certainty when we have no historical records to officially verify. But the available evidence supports the theory I've presented, and no evidence supports an alternative or disproves this theory. So..., that's what we have to go on right now. Anything else is an unjustified leap.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Yes the form is similar, this doesn't mean that it is proof that WC was derived from it.



Similarity to the form was not all I presented. That's the least important.



> It simply shows that Yip Man's form is legitimate & not made up as evidence from a possibly unrelated lineage.



Well, then at least we've put that to bed then. 

It was the claim that YM created his own form in the OP of this thread, and the claim that he simplified something longer from YKS, that prompted this entire discussion.

We should be able to agree that these claims are untrue.



> Who did Lam Guei Chung study under? Choy Fung Long was a student of both Wong Fei Hung & Chan Wah Shun, who's to say Lam Sai Wing didn't get the form from him & attribute it to his "grandfather".



That would make a full circle.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So you acknowledge the circumstantial evidence that would indicate you do study PB' school then say I made something up?  That is illogical, murder convictions happen on said evidence.



?

I acknowledge none of the nonsense in your strawman arguments.  



> I wasn't calling PB "crippled" either.  That accusation actually annoyed me.  That said part of the topic at hand was that other WC forms did things PB's doesn't.  Prime among them was standing grappling and takedowns.  Biomechanics being what they are that could be a valid reason.  The reason why it annoyed me is that I study with a fellow student with physical issues that force him to adapt.  You demonstration of falsehood btw amount to "because."



The demonstration was that others share exactly PB's understanding of YMVT and do not have a handicap. 

You continue to ignore this every time you bring his name back up in your "the only one who" anything strawman.

Your offensive implication is that PB is unable to do the full system due to his condition, and that all who share his understanding train a handicapped version of VT if they don't do grappling.

To continue saying this is a lie and extremely insulting.



> Well here is the thing, without explaining the strategy you can't make such a statement.  The only way your statement would hold water is if the techniques and principles are completely incompatible,



They are.



> So again what is this strategy?...
> ...You have avoided this question time and again,



Explained 1,000 times.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The major difference;
> 
> SPM is a reactive style. VT is a proactive style.
> 
> The methods are directly contradictory.


I'll assume you and I mean the same thing by those terms (not a given - I've heard NGA described as both at different times). I would assert that the same techniques and physical principles can be applied to both strategies/approaches. So, someone well-versed in a reactive style may decide a proactive approach is preferable and adapt the style to be used that way. I don't think even this fundamental difference precludes one being the source of the physical principles and techniques of the other. 

A good analog is something @Juany118 referred to about NGA. Our strikes are mostly sourced from Shotokan. I have a student with a heavy Shotokan background, and our approach to striking is quite different (we were working on this just last night), though the mechanics are nearly the same. 




> I spelled it out in a wall of text when KPM asked. It is general, because it's impractical for me to explain the entire system on here, but explains the strategy and tactics between LDBG and VT boxing.


Do you recall which thread it was in? I'd like to go back and read it.




> Only, there is no evidence for a "proto-style" it could have been added to. It only makes sense as a source of a new style, if you know anything about Hakka styles at all.



There may be no evidence simply because the proto-style never branched (so only the final style remains). As you have pointed out, historical records beyond a brief period are crappy, so it's unsurprising some information we could use to settle this one way or the other is missing. Frustrating, but true. 





> I don't speak in terms of absolute certainty when we have no historical records to officially verify. But the available evidence supports the theory I've presented, and no evidence supports an alternative or disproves this theory. So..., that's what we have to go on right now. Anything else is an unjustified leap.


My point is that others see other evidence as equally compelling, and much of the evidence supports conflicting theories equally. There's really no solid basis for preferring one possible origin over another. I've seen three theories here that have merit. Two seem stronger than the other, though the evidence against the third has alternative interpretations, too. 

In the end, I'm not sure it matters, except as an intellectual pursuit (my favorite kind, BTW).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Your offensive implication is that PB is unable to do the full system due to his condition, and that all who share his understanding train a handicapped version of VT if they don't do grappling.
> 
> To continue saying this is a lie and extremely insulting.


Neither insulting nor offensive, IMO. If someone with the same disability came to me, I could teach the. NGA. It would not be precisely the same NGA, because they can't grip on one side. They might (like any other student), turn out to be an exemplar of the principles of NGA. I Mir make adjustments to my NGA based upon what I see as improvements that derived from the adjustments I make for them. I might then go on to teach that version to others, because it works and is simpler, more concise, maybe even more effective. 

Nothing "handicapped" about the result if it happens to be effective. Even if I chose to omit some techniques, it might be because I see the student being just as effective without them.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I'll assume you and I mean the same thing by those terms (not a given - I've heard NGA described as both at different times). I would assert that the same techniques and physical principles can be applied to both strategies/approaches. So, someone well-versed in a reactive style may decide a proactive approach is preferable and adapt the style to be used that way. I don't think even this fundamental difference precludes one being the source of the physical principles and techniques of the other.



The strategies are fundamentally contradictory and the tactics of each are designed specifically to function in those terms. Flip the script and they no longer function.



> Do you recall which thread it was in? I'd like to go back and read it.



This thread!



> There may be no evidence simply because the proto-style never branched (so only the final style remains). As you have pointed out, historical records beyond a brief period are crappy, so it's unsurprising some information we could use to settle this one way or the other is missing. Frustrating, but true.



Then it's pointless to talk about a "proto-style". It's indistinguishable from a fully new constructed one.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Neither insulting nor offensive, IMO. If someone with the same disability came to me, I could teach the. NGA. It would not be precisely the same NGA, because they can't grip on one side.



That's not the case with VT. That's why it is insulting, not just to PB, but to the entire WSL lineage.


----------



## wingchun100

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relying on gossip
> about "history" is pointless. In Ip Man wingchun- logically and practically
> one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.


 
How true.

In the past, Chinese history was passed down by word of mouth.

Have you ever played that game where 5-8 people stand side by side...person #1 whispers something into person #2's ear, and they pass it down the line, and by the time it reaches the last person, the original quote has gotten distorted?

Well, if that can happen between 5-8 people, what do you think would happen when you try passing down the history of such a large country between generations?


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I'll assume you and I mean the same thing by those terms (not a given - I've heard NGA described as both at different times). I would assert that the same techniques and physical principles can be applied to both strategies/approaches. So, someone well-versed in a reactive style may decide a proactive approach is preferable and adapt the style to be used that way. I don't think even this fundamental difference precludes one being the source of the physical principles and techniques of the other.
> 
> A good analog is something @Juany118 referred to about NGA. Our strikes are mostly sourced from Shotokan. I have a student with a heavy Shotokan background, and our approach to striking is quite different (we were working on this just last night), though the mechanics are nearly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recall which thread it was in? I'd like to go back and read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be no evidence simply because the proto-style never branched (so only the final style remains). As you have pointed out, historical records beyond a brief period are crappy, so it's unsurprising some information we could use to settle this one way or the other is missing. Frustrating, but true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that others see other evidence as equally compelling, and much of the evidence supports conflicting theories equally. There's really no solid basis for preferring one possible origin over another. I've seen three theories here that have merit. Two seem stronger than the other, though the evidence against the third has alternative interpretations, too.
> 
> In the end, I'm not sure it matters, except as an intellectual pursuit (my favorite kind, BTW).




Your last bit sums this up for me.  As a practical matter I actually could care less about how WC/VT came about.  I just never got rid of the History bug that made me want to teach it before I became a LEO instead.  So I see stuff like this and I see multiple connections.  Some are going to be false, dead ends, but you only find that out by looking at all the evidence, considering every possible theory.  When alleged evidence is withheld, you can't use it and if you wish to continue can only do so on the tracks you have evidence for.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> It would not be surprising. It is conceivable that the two of them developed a boxing method distinct from the various neighboring styles of the time, borrowing simple elements like YJKYM to start from, but ultimately coming up with a very different style that contradicts all the others.
> 
> It would take more work to verify the relationship they had, if indeed any. It could well have been generations before them, but since the history is not recorded beyond that point, we can't form a definitive origin story. And I am not making any such claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Equally _important_, yes, but not equally integrated. The strategy between knives and boxing are opposite, for good reason. BJ is pretty much all knife thinking, though.
> 
> What is integrated into the core of VT boxing from the knives is the tactical guidelines that make the "two pole" boxing method effective.
> 
> The pole method works because it is long range and the opponent only has one pole, too. Ballistically displace their pole and blast into the opening. End of fight. That's the saying, the pole doesn't make a second sound.
> 
> But, you can't just run in like that when short range boxing someone also with "two weapons". You may remove one, but the other can still hit you. So, to make the "two pole" boxing method effective, isolation principles from the knives are introduced, greatly increasing our odds as we now have at least twice as many weapons as the opponent.



Thank you. I think I understand.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> ?
> 
> 
> Explained 1,000 times.


The rest was just not worth responding too.  It was like reading "alternative facts"

 If it you had done this, someone else wouldn't have said this...



> My consternation with the voice of WSL/PB on these forums is that they aren't offered as "the conclusions I've reached" as you suggested, but "Only we know the truth and you are ignorant of the facts



And multiple people, including those allegedly told the strategy.  Wouldn't have liked said comment.  If we were told the strategy, and it made some amount of sense, then other people wouldn't have said this or cared to give a damn enough to hit the agree button.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I just never got rid of the History bug that made me want to teach it before I became a LEO instead.



Thank goodness for that!


----------



## DanT

KPM said:


> This is the 22 Point Ku Lo system.  It is a spin off of Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun....a "public" version so to speak.  And these are specifically the translations used by John Fung, who teaches this system as well as Tai Chi in Australia.  There is said to have been some San Sik that Ip Man taught in Foshan and dropped when he got to Hong Kong.  But this is not it.  And this was never taught as a preliminary to the standard 3 forms in any system.   The 22 point system as well as its root the Pin Sun system was a stand alone independent system.   Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK has 12 San Sik taught before a student starts the Siu Nim Tao form.  But these 12 San Sik were added by Sum Nung based on his training before meeting Yuen Kay Shan.


Yes yes you're right but the 12 San Sik are based entirely on these 22 points. And yeah I got these translations from John's web site. Also I wanted to point out more how the arrow punch and sanchin can be found in this as well. In some lineages San Sik were taught before Sil Lim Tao, but were later removed and now only two remain. If you look at non-Yip Man lineages a lot of them have these San Sik or a variation of them.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Thank goodness for that!



I know because Teaching is my retirement job in a few years.  Don't worry though, I caught another an hominem.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> That's not the case with VT. That's why it is insulting, not just to PB, but to the entire WSL lineage.


 
But others in the lineage teach standing grappling, takedowns and trapping, which is limited by the issue in question.  As such how is this insulting to anyone? 

A talented man kept trying and finally found a Sifu who would figure things out WITH him.  They made WC/VT work for him when all the Sifu's he spoke to prior said "good luck kid, WC/VT isn't for you anymore.

That isn't insulting, it's a damn affirming.  That I think is why I have been boggled by this most of all.  I consider PB a man to admire for having the courage he did to keep going and WSL an incredible teacher due to this sequence of events.  I think a similar thing when I see my classmate at work and wonder "would I be that strong?"

I just don't get it.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Don't worry though, I caught another an hominem.



I caught another misspelling and misuse of the term "ad hominem"!


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> But others in the lineage teach standing grappling, takedowns and trapping, which is limited by the issue in question.



Who?



> A talented man kept trying and finally found a Sifu who would figure things out WITH him.



WSL already had VT figured out.



> They made WC/VT work for him when all the Sifu's he spoke to prior said "good luck kid, WC/VT isn't for you anymore.



He never encountered the same system prior.



> I just don't get it.



Because you don't listen and believe your own false version of their history.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The strategies are fundamentally contradictory and the tactics of each are designed specifically to function in those terms. Flip the script and they no longer function.


Again, I'm unfamiliar with Southern Mantis, so this doesn't help.



> This thread!


Ah, I think this is what you're referring to:


LFJ said:


> The empty hand uses an upright and squared body structure, emphasizes "short bridge" and pressing attacks. But the way VT empty hand functions is very unique, in that it is based on tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.





LFJ said:


> The primary and auxiliary hand actions map to the primary and auxiliary pole actions, i.e. _fong-lung-cheung_ (pole thrust) and the punch are the main actions, _leung-yi_ and _kam-gwan _are auxiliary actions for the pole to open the line for the thrust, just as _paak-sau_ and _jat-sau_ do for the punch. All other actions are for returning to the primary.
> 
> Tactically, the guidelines are using short shocking power for displacement and aggressively capturing space for the strike. The shaft displaces while the tip remains aimed and blasts in with the strike. There is no stick and follow.
> 
> In empty hand, we face squarely to enable simultaneous use of "two poles", using the forearms (shaft) to displace while maintaining aim and striking with fist (tip). This ability is developed in _daan-chi-sau_, where two "poles" are in a face-off to develop the other's ability. Initially two beats for training become one in fighting.
> 
> Without knowing the tactical guidelines from the pole, and that they are the basis of the empty hand method, many get trapped in a game of "stick, follow, roll" instead of displace and hit directly. In fighting, the former doesn't work, the latter does.



I didn't process those fully at the time, apparently. Those are significant alignments between pole and empty-hand (I'm assuming your assessment here is accurate - you'd know better than I). The issue is that this would also be the case if an empty-hand method existed, and was adjusted to be more effective. Again, it's not contradictory to your conclusion, but not contradictory to at least one of the other possibilities that have been presented.



> Then it's pointless to talk about a "proto-style". It's indistinguishable from a fully new constructed one.


I've never really thought of it as a "proto-style". I've been considering the possibility that the physical principles were sourced from an existing art (perhaps one of those noted with superficial similarities, perhaps not). I suppose the possibility of a hybridization of empty-hand work is possible, which would yield a proto-style. Either way, if it originated as either a derived style or hybridization into a new style, including mostly or only empty-hand, and someone along the way started incorporating some principles to improve it (to, perhaps, avoid the stick, follow, and roll), they'd pull principles from somewhere. Perhaps they had some spear experience or knew someone who did, and used those principles to improve the style. Then they want a pole form (not wanting spear, because it's harder to come by or more dangerous to train with, or whatever), and start looking at other arts. They find this pole form that appears derived from spear. They see it as a good fit, borrow it with little or no adjustment, and then fit the training methods around it so it fits seamlessly into the art.

Or, they found the form first, thought it would be a good basis for empty-hand work, and borrowed bits and pieces from elsewhere (thus the similarities) and fit them around the tactics of the pole.

The evidence seems to work equally for both sides. There's no strong evidence that WC existed without the weapons (that anyone has presented here), and also none that it existed without the empty-hand. We know other arts have done both, so neither is all that unlikely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> That's not the case with VT. That's why it is insulting, not just to PB, but to the entire WSL lineage.


No, it's not insulting. To either part of that. Let's look at this logically. Even assuming the grappling portion wasn't there, WSL almost certainly assumed he'd make some adjustments. He had to examine what worked and didn't while PB was learning. In the end, that examination may have meant there were no changes necessary, but he had to ask the question if he was to give his best to PB. In all likelihood, some change was necessary, at least early on. One of PB's arms is slightly shorter in reach, which means he either has to stand a couple of inches closer than would be ideal for his longer arm (a tiny adjustment), or he adjusts his stance slightly (physically a small adjustment, maybe larger in the context of VT), or he accepts that each arm has a slightly different set of best options at any given moment (no physical change, but seems the largest change from VT principles). Any of these might make little difference in PB's VT. All (except arguably the 3rd) might not even be noticeable to those not highly trained in the style. Now, if there had been techniques that just didn't make sense for PB to work with (not the same as saying he can't do them, by the way), then after WSL tried those with him, he might discard them or alter them (not saying he needed to, but that would be the most likely result if the case came up). If he finds that any adjustments he works out are beneficial (not just to PB, but to VT), he would certainly keep them and pass them along to others.

Here's a better analog, perhaps. I have knee problems. I don't often use deep stances any more. I've actually found that this improves a few of my techniques by adding mobility and fluidity. I now teach those techniques with shorter steps and more relaxed stances. That came about because my knees led me to investigate whether I could use those techniques that way, and that led to what I see as an improvement. There's no reason any of that should be insulting to me or to my students who learn from me.


----------



## KPM

*Why would anyone put much stock in fairytales?*

---When Ip Man provided info for that magazine article it was intended as a history, not a fairy tale.  Why are you trying to discount it?  Is it because it doesn't neatly fit with your theory??



*Juany's strawman?*

---Huh?  Hardly!!  You have  said over and over and over on this very forum that the only system you have encountered that was the "real" VT and not a "broken" version was WSLVT.  So now when you state that people that "know the whole system" will agree with your theory, all we can do is conclude that you are referring to WSLVT people.  That's no strawman.  That's just going by what you have argued in the past.  So just who ARE you referring to?



*No. But there is no evidence of the first theory in the case of VT.*

---And no real evidence for the second theory either.  This has been pointed out to you over and over.  So both theories would seem to be equally valid.



*It has 0 evidence.*

---You can keep saying that all you want.  That doesn't make it true.  The "Trump approach" is not going to work here!



*I can only speak about YMVT. I can't tell you what happened over more than 100 years in other lineages, but that they are completely different systems as they exist today.*

---You didn't really answer my question.  Probably because you won't admit what it would suggest.


*You need to present evidence if you are going to propose this theory.*

--Already have in the past.  And you just ignored the point I was making.   



*Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.*

---Correlation is correlation independent of the theory!   Look, this discussion is now obviously going nowhere because you are back to just repeating everything, ignoring my points, and using faulty logic.  It is clear that you are so dogmatically stuck on this theory that you won't even use good reasoning.  I can only assume that this is because it is a theory supported by your hero PB (or someone similar since for some reason you refuse to tell us). 


*VT boxing and LDBG match completely at every level.*

---And see here is proof that you cling to this theory so dogmatically that you aren't even using good reasoning.  They absolutely do NOT "match completely at every level."   Clearly the biomechanics used empty hand are quite different than those used with the pole.  There are no low wide stances when empty hand, and no pivoting around the center with the pole.  Very different! 



*There is no main teacher under WSL.*

---That's not what I said and you know it!  I asked who is the main teacher in the WSL lineage endorsing this theory.



*I have explained in detail why I find this most convincing, and it is wholly through technical analysis and historical fact. I never once made an Appeal to Authority, thank you very much!*

---But you state it as if it is a proven fact.  Which it is not.  That is the issue here!   But you've said all you can say.  You aren't listening to anyone else's reasoning, and you are purposefully ignoring questions.  So, again, there really is no reason to continue this discussion.  You have put forth an interesting theory, but that's all it is.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I don't speak in terms of absolute certainty when we have no historical records to officially verify. But the available evidence supports the theory I've presented, and no evidence supports an alternative or disproves this theory. So..., that's what we have to go on right now. Anything else is an unjustified leap.



"No evidence supports" he says....ignoring nearly 200 years of oral history passed from teacher to student.     "No evidence disproves" he says...ignoring the fact that EVERY other Wing Chun method other than WSLVT lacks this "complete tracking" of the pole to the empty hands.      "Anything else is an unjustified leap" he says....ignoring the fact that his theory is the one that goes against everything people have been taught about Wing Chun for generations now.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> The issue is that this would also be the case if an empty-hand method existed, and was adjusted to be more effective.



But, once again, there is no evidence for that theory, so why cling to it? 

I prefer to stick to what we do have, what we do know, and what we can actually prove.

If you know the VT boxing method maps to the pole, you might look for older pole methods that function this way that it could have come from.

And the identical pole method is found to exist in a pre-VT style!

If you think the VT boxing method derived from older boxing methods, you might look for older styles that function like VT that it could have come from.

None exist. It is unique in TCMAs.

"Oh, but it could have! It's possible! You haven't proven that it's not possible!"

Okay, get back to me when you have evidence for it.



gpseymour said:


> No, it's not insulting. To either part of that. Let's look at this logically. Even assuming the grappling portion wasn't there, WSL almost certainly assumed he'd make some adjustments. He had to examine what worked and didn't while PB was learning. In the end, that examination may have meant there were no changes necessary, but he had to ask the question if he was to give his best to PB. In all likelihood, some change was necessary, at least early on. One of PB's arms is slightly shorter in reach, which means he either has to stand a couple of inches closer than would be ideal for his longer arm (a tiny adjustment), or he adjusts his stance slightly (physically a small adjustment, maybe larger in the context of VT), or he accepts that each arm has a slightly different set of best options at any given moment (no physical change, but seems the largest change from VT principles). Any of these might make little difference in PB's VT. All (except arguably the 3rd) might not even be noticeable to those not highly trained in the style. Now, if there had been techniques that just didn't make sense for PB to work with (not the same as saying he can't do them, by the way), then after WSL tried those with him, he might discard them or alter them (not saying he needed to, but that would be the most likely result if the case came up). If he finds that any adjustments he works out are beneficial (not just to PB, but to VT), he would certainly keep them and pass them along to others.
> 
> Here's a better analog, perhaps. I have knee problems. I don't often use deep stances any more. I've actually found that this improves a few of my techniques by adding mobility and fluidity. I now teach those techniques with shorter steps and more relaxed stances. That came about because my knees led me to investigate whether I could use those techniques that way, and that led to what I see as an improvement. There's no reason any of that should be insulting to me or to my students who learn from me.



Well, look, where things start to get even more insulting is when people are told their actually history, but still carry on guessing and asserting absolute falsehoods. They don't even have enough respect to ask PB personally, or take it from those who have. They'd rather come back and tell you what they think is true about a system they have no experience with and people they don't know!

Yes, that is insulting, and it's also insulting to invalidate someone's feelings of insult.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---When Ip Man provided info for that magazine article it was intended as a history, not a fairy tale.  Why are you trying to discount it?  Is it because it doesn't neatly fit with your theory??



Wrong.



> You have  said over and over and over on this very forum that the only system you have encountered that was the "real" VT and not a "broken" version was WSLVT.



All that exists is what I've encountered?



> ---And no real evidence for the second theory either.  This has been pointed out to you over and over.  So both theories would seem to be equally valid.



Wrong.



> ---You can keep saying that all you want.  That doesn't make it true.  The "Trump approach" is not going to work here!










> ---You didn't really answer my question.  Probably because you won't admit what it would suggest.



I don't know or particularly care what happened within other systems over 100 years. They are so different as to be meaningless to me anymore.



> *Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.*
> 
> ---Correlation is correlation independent of the theory!



What?



> There are no low wide stances when empty hand, and no pivoting around the center with the pole.



Because we aren't holding a pole. There is no pivoting around the center unarmed either.



> I asked who is the main teacher in the WSL lineage endorsing this theory.



There is no main teacher in WSLVT doing anything.



> *I have explained in detail why I find this most convincing, and it is wholly through technical analysis and historical fact. I never once made an Appeal to Authority, thank you very much!*
> 
> ---But you state it as if it is a proven fact.



I have not. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that is not my claim because VT history is unrecorded!

I have stated that the facts are proven facts, because they are, and that the conclusion I've presented based on the facts is the only one with evidence, therefore, the most likely to be true and only one worth talking about until actual evidence comes in for an alternative theory.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> But, once again, there is no evidence for that theory, so why cling to it?
> 
> I prefer to stick to what we do have, what we do know, and what we can actually prove.
> 
> If you know the VT boxing method maps to the pole, you might look for older pole methods that function this way that it could have come from.
> 
> And the identical pole method is found to exist in a pre-VT style!
> 
> If you think the VT boxing method derived from older boxing methods, you might look for older styles that function like VT that it could have come from.
> 
> None exist. It is unique in TCMAs.
> 
> "Oh, but it could have! It's possible! You haven't proven that it's not possible!"
> 
> Okay, get back to me when you have evidence for it.


I think I've been quite clear that the evidence you put forth isn't exclusive to your argument. It provides roughly equal support to other possibilities. Unless you have some evidence that supports your preferred argument either uniquely or at least substantially better, there's no sense getting uptight about others not having different evidence than yours.

You want to stick to what we know and can prove. All we know (from the arguments here, anyway) and can prove (again, accepting your statements because you know more than I on this topic) is that VT's empty-hand and pole are tightly related, and that a nearly identical pole form apparently pre-dates VT. Anything presented here beyond that has been an attempt to draw a conclusion from those facts, or is a claim disputed by one side or the other (so, cannot be taken as "proven").



> Well, look, where things start to get even more insulting is when people are told their actually history, but still carry on guessing and asserting absolute falsehoods. They don't even have enough respect to ask PB personally, or take it from those who have. They'd rather come back and tell you what they think is true about a system they have no experience with and people they don't know!
> 
> Yes, that is insulting, and it's also insulting to invalidate someone's feelings of insult.


It's not insulting to discuss issues like this. It requires ZERO knowledge of the system to discuss what I've been discussing, as it simply addresses the concepts and the approach an instructor would take if someone has a limitation. Your feeling of being insulted is your own feeling. I can't change that, but I can (and will) argue that there's nothing insulting about the comments I've read in this regard. They've been respectful of PB, and in some cases actually seemed to be saying quite good things about his perseverance. And, no, I'm not going to ask PB. I don't know him, and really have no need to know one way or the other. If I was studying under him, I'd probably be interested in hearing about that period of training, and how he overcame what many instructors considered an impossible limitation.

All I've done is address whether the comments made were insulting. I haven't addressed your feeling about them, at all. That's not mine to discuss. Your reaction here makes it appear that you really want this to be insulting. That may not be the case, but it appears that you feel defensive about PB. No reason to be. Whether significant adjustments were needed or not, he has excelled. That he's missing a hand is just a fact. It's just a thing, and a thing he hasn't let hinder him. He deals with it, and performs better than many who don't have to deal with it.


----------



## KPM

*Because we aren't holding a pole. There is no pivoting around the center unarmed either.*

---You pivot in Chum Kiu don't you?   No pivoting with the pole.  The mechanics used empty hand and the mechanics used with a pole are very different.  Therefore they do not "match completely at every level" as you stated before.  Because the biomechanics used during execution of the method is certainly a  very important "level"!!!  



*There is no main teacher in WSLVT doing anything.*

---Once again you are either being evasive, or you are really being somewhat dense.  I didn't ask about one "main" teacher in WSLVT.  Let me try and state it again is as clear a fashion as I  can so you can understand it......What prominent teacher within the WSLVT system is teaching this theory to people within that lineage? 




*I have stated that the facts are proven facts, because they are, and that the conclusion I've presented based on the facts is the only one with evidence, therefore, the most likely to be true and only one worth talking about until actual evidence comes in for an alternative theory.*

---The only facts that you have presented is that there is a version of LDBK very similar to the WSLVT version that predates WSLVT, and that WSLVT empty hands tracks very closely with pole strategy and tactics.  Everything else you have said is a theory. 

---And two things can have correlations independent of any theory of how those correlations came about.  You don't understand that simple aspect of reasoning????

---Now, do want to continue sounding stupid?  Or are you ready to drop this discussion?


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I think I've been quite clear that the evidence you put forth isn't exclusive to your argument. It provides roughly equal support to other possibilities.



It doesn't. If you want to suggest a possible preexisting style, you need to show additional evidence supporting that.



> All we know (from the arguments here, anyway) and can prove (again, accepting your statements because you know more than I on this topic) is that VT's empty-hand and pole are tightly related, and that a nearly identical pole form apparently pre-dates VT. Anything presented here beyond that has been an attempt to draw a conclusion from those facts, or is a claim disputed by one side or the other (so, cannot be taken as "proven").



Not just form, but indeed the theory and application of the method.

What we get from this is that VT boxing came from this pole method. That is was developed exclusively through translating weaponry into empty hand is possible and has all the evidence it needs to be a valid theory.

If you want to say it came from the pole plus another boxing method or methods, you need to provide additional evidence for that. Discussing possibility or likelihood is not enough.



> It's not insulting to discuss issues like this. It requires ZERO knowledge of the system to discuss what I've been discussing,



But the answer has already been given. End of discussion. It is disrespectful to ignore that and continue asserting falsehoods like Juany always does.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Heck some people have said that WC was in part a result of British Sailors beating Kung Fu practitioners with bare knuckled Western Boxing. @lklawson I believe noted this once, though partially tongue in cheek I believe.


The first time I saw it suggested was as an article in the pages of Black Belt magazine way back in the mid-1980's.  Wish I'd kept that issue.  I don't remember the author.  IMS, among other things he did was compare an old photo of London Prize Ring boxer John L. Sullivan to a drawing of Ip Man.  He drew comparisons in the stance, foot-base, hand position, and head position.  He then argued that there is no reliable documentation of WC existing prior to contact with 19th Century British sailors who, he argued, likely practiced London Prize Ring rules boxing.

Wish I could find that article again.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---You pivot in Chum Kiu don't you?   No pivoting with the pole.



Wrong.



> What prominent teacher within the WSLVT system is teaching this theory to people within that lineage?



To my knowledge, every single one that learned the system fully and hasn't changed it.



> ---The only facts that you have presented is that there is a version of LDBK very similar to the WSLVT version that predates WSLVT, and that WSLVT empty hands tracks very closely with pole strategy and tactics.  Everything else you have said is a theory.



Those are facts. Thank you. They prove the pole was not adapted to fit VT. 

The theory, that VT boxing is based on this pole is therefore rooted in fact.

There are no facts to support a proto-VT boxing style theory.



> ---And two things can have correlations independent of any theory of how those correlations came about.



There is no correlation between the boxing methods of VT and any other TCMA.


----------



## KPM

lklawson said:


> The first time I saw it suggested was as an article in the pages of Black Belt magazine way back in the mid-1980's.  Wish I'd kept that issue.  I don't remember the author.  IMS, among other things he did was compare an old photo of London Prize Ring boxer John L. Sullivan to a drawing of Ip Man.  He drew comparisons in the stance, foot-base, hand position, and head position.  He then argued that there is no reliable documentation of WC existing prior to contact with 19th Century British sailors who, he argued, likely practiced London Prize Ring rules boxing.
> 
> Wish I could find that article again.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah Kirk.  I remember that to.  It was an article by Karl Godwin.


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> IMS, among other things he did was compare an old photo of London Prize Ring boxer John L. Sullivan to a drawing of Ip Man.



That's what people come up with looking at photos and drawings.


----------



## KPM

*Wrong.*

---Maybe for WSLVT?  I'm not even convinced of that!  Certainly not wrong for most every other version of Wing Chun!



*To my knowledge, every single one that learned the system fully and hasn't changed it.*

---So PB teaches this theory?  All WSLVT instructors other than DP and Gary Lam teach this theory?  Strange that we haven't heard it more often!  After all, PB has been teaching publicly and traveling doing seminars for how many years now?



*The theory, that VT boxing is based on this pole is therefore rooted in fact.*

---No, as I stated those facts seem to only apply to WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general.  And THAT should be a huge red flag as far as origin theories go!   But if we wanted to generalize it, then the theory that VT boxing at some point added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole is just as consistent with those 2 facts.


*There is no correlation between the boxing methods of VT and any other TCMA.*

---Wow!  You still aren't following are you???  Let me lay it out for you:

You said:  _You can say a preexisting base style was readjusted to match the pole, but you need to demonstrate that._

 I replied:  _And you would need to demonstrate the opposite! All you can show is correlation, and that does not prove origins at all.  _

Then you said: _ Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory._

(The "alternate theory" being that an existing empty hand system added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole method.  NOT whether Wing Chun empty hands correlate with other TCMA.)

My response was then:   _Correlation is correlation independent of the theory!_
And I followed it up with:  _ And two things can have correlations independent of any theory of how those correlations came about

---_So, let me lay that out for you as well since on this thread you have been very good at being evasive and seem to purposefully miss points:    Just because there are correlations between the pole method and the empty hand methods does not prove or even explain how those correlations actually came about.  Those correlations could have been established by developing an empty hand method directly from the pole method, or those correlations could have been established by taking an existing empty hand method and reworking it to line up with the pole method.  The simple fact that correlations exist does not prove one theory or the other.  The fact that there is a pre-existing LDBK form that matches closely with the WSLVT pole form does not prove that the entire WSLVT empty hand method or any other Wing Chun empty hand method derived from that form.  It only proves that WSL's form came from that older version of LDBK.  The "alternative" theory of the pole form influencing an existing system of empty hands so that it developed close correlations with that pole form is still a very valid theory based upon those 2 facts.   Now if you don't have the logical capacity to follow that, I can't help you! 
_
---_So, do you want to call it good, and admit that you have an interesting theory that is still far from being proven.  Or do you want to continue sounding, well....let's just say somewhat irrational?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> It doesn't. If you want to suggest a possible preexisting style, you need to show additional evidence supporting that.


Except that I didn't suggest it. I simply pointed out it is as possible within the evidence you provide. I don't need to show additional evidence, because I'm not trying to prove it as a theory. I'm simply showing that the evidence you are using isn't evidence exclusive to your theory. Providing alternatives is how we test evidence. If the evidence supports alternatives, then we either need more evidence to draw a conclusion, or we need a new conclusion.



> Not just form, but indeed the theory and application of the method.


Which he found when he found the form. My point is that he (whoever this would be) would have found the form first, and verified it fit his needs (the theory and application).



> What we get from this is that VT boxing came from this pole method. That is was developed exclusively through translating weaponry into empty hand is possible and has all the evidence it needs.
> 
> If you want to say it came from the pole plus another boxing method or methods, you need to provide additional evidence for that. Discussing possibility or likelihood is not enough.


Why do you think I'm arguing that? I've said multiple times that I think the evidence supports both conclusions. Discussing possibility is precisely how evidence is tested. If it supports multiple possibilities, then you need more evidence to determine which is the correct conclusion.



> But the answer has already been given. End of discussion. It is disrespectful to ignore that and continue asserting falsehoods like Juany always does.


I've never seen a clear statement that there were no alterations. It may well be that there were not, though someone would have to explain how one of those three minor physical adjustments for arm length didn't happen. It seems a given one of those must have occurred, though at least two I can see happening without any significant impact on the overall system - indeed, without any impact that would be seen in the next generation. Beyond that, I've only seen a small group argue that there was never grappling and another small group argue that there probably was.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Maybe for WSLVT?  I'm not even convinced of that!



Funny.



> Strange that we haven't heard it more often!  After all, PB has been teaching publicly and traveling doing seminars for how many years now?



How much training in the system have you had? None. That's why you haven't heard it.

Have you been to one of his seminars? Why not go and ask?! His students most certainly know the relationship between VT empty hand and weapons.



> ---No, as I stated those facts seem to only apply to WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general.



I said VT. That means YMVT. Other systems are very different in every part.



> But if we wanted to generalize it, then the theory that VT boxing at some point added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole is just as consistent with those 2 facts.



Highly unlikely. If you want to propose such a theory, you need additional evidence to support it.



> (The "alternate theory" being that an existing empty hand system added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole method.  NOT whether Wing Chun empty hands correlate with other TCMA.)



There is absolutely nothing to support a preexisting empty hand system.



> _---_Now, do you want to call it good, and admit that you have an interesting theory that is still far from being proven.  Or do you want to continue sounding stupid?



Did I say the theory was proven, or did I say there is no record to officially verify it?

No reason to get rude.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> If the evidence supports alternatives, then we either need more evidence to draw a conclusion, or we need a new conclusion.



There is no more evidence to draw the alternative conclusion, or enough to even suggest it, and all the evidence needed for the original conclusion to be a valid theory. Recorded history would officially confirm it. Without that, and without any evidence to go in any other direction, we are left with one valid theory.



> My point is that he (whoever this would be) would have found the form first, and verified it fit his needs (the theory and application).



There is no evidence of anything those needs could have been added to, no preexisting boxing style compatible with that theory and application. All neighboring styles from the time and area are in direct conflict with VT.



> I've said multiple times that I think the evidence supports both conclusions.



It doesn't, and that conclusion requires additional evidence to be a valid theory. Otherwise there is a huge gap that makes this conclusion not even plausible.



> I've never seen a clear statement that there were no alterations.



There were no alterations.


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> That's what people come up with looking at photos and drawings.


Maybe.  We're going my my memory on an article I read somewhere around 30 years ago.  Do you remember the details of an article you only read once, 30 years ago?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> Maybe.  We're going my my memory on an article I read somewhere around 30 years ago.  Do you remember the details of an article you only read once, 30 years ago?



No, but Yip Man Ving Tsun and Old School Boxing styles don't work the same way at all. There are a few superficial similarities, like with other TCMAs, that don't really amount to anything.


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Yeah Kirk.  I remember that to.  It was an article by Karl Godwin.


Bingo!

That's the one.

Quick google search yielded:
Black Belt

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Similarity to the form was not all I presented. That's the least important.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then at least we've put that to bed then.
> 
> It was the claim that YM created his own form in the OP of this thread, and the claim that he simplified something longer from YKS, that prompted this entire discussion.
> 
> We should be able to agree that these claims are untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> That would make a full circle.


I understand that you presented more than the form, I get it, but to be honest the exact same parameters you used to make your deduction can be applied to the 13 Pole form, I also see it in Choy Mak's Poisonous Snake Blocks the Road. It's not enough to say that because something has similarity it must be relation. There is no evidence that hand came from pole or pole from hand. I respect that you based your methodology on this, but it is not applicable to all Wing Chun methods.

I never made any statements alluding that Yip Man made up his pole form. As evidenced by LDBG in Hung Kuen, it's apparent that the form Yip Man passed on is legitimate. On this we can agree.

It would make a full circle, it would also make things very interesting.


----------



## KPM

*I said VT. That means YMVT. Other systems are very different in every part.*

---Then your theory is invalid.  Unless you are suggesting that YMVT developed and originated totally separate from all the other versions of Wing Chun?



*Highly unlikely. If you want to propose such a theory, you need additional evidence to support it.*

---You really don't get it do you???   The evidence you have provided supports EITHER theory!  I've been telling you that.  Gerry has been telling you that.  Surely you can't really be that dense???


*Did I say the theory was proven, or did I say there is no record to officially verify it?*

---You have used the word "proves" multiple times in this discussion!  Have you forgotten that???  Really man, its time to give it up.  You have a presented an interesting theory.  Thanks.


----------



## KPM

*There is no more evidence to draw the alternative conclusion, or enough to even suggest it, and all the evidence needed for the original conclusion to be a valid theory. Recorded history would officially confirm it. Without that, and without any evidence to go in any other direction, we are left with one valid theory.*

---Wrong, wrong, wrong.  As Gerry and I have both gone to great efforts to try and show you....your evidence supports either theory.  In the absence of "recorded history" we have to resort oral history.   Oral history is not definitive but can lend support to a theory.  And the oral history from multiple Wing Chun lineages says that the pole was an add on to an existing empty hand system.  So until you can produce an actual "recorded history" that contradicts that, this is the more valid of the two theories.  It is as simple as that!!!   So you can go on repeating things over and over.  But that won't make them any more true!    Again, I think we have beat this drum enough!  Time to move on!


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> No, but Yip Man Ving Tsun and Old School Boxing styles don't work the same way at all. There are a few superficial similarities, like with other TCMAs, that don't really amount to anything.


Maybe they do and maybe they don't.

To be honest, frankly, I don't care.

If I'm with friends or people are being generally friendly, I'll throw it out there and we'll all have a bit of fun discussing the pros and cons of his argument.

If someone is being a douche about it, I'll throw it out and then play Devils Advocate.

In any case, you should read the article.  You might find it interesting, or at least entertaining.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> There is no more evidence to draw the alternative conclusion, or enough to even suggest it, and all the evidence needed for the original conclusion to be a valid theory. Recorded history would officially confirm it. Without that, and without any evidence to go in any other direction, we are left with one valid theory.


You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.

[quoted]There is no evidence of anything those needs could have been added to, no preexisting boxing style compatible with that theory and application. All neighboring styles from the time and area are in direct conflict with VT.[/quote]
Covered at least three times.



> It doesn't, and that conclusion requires additional evidence to be a valid theory. Otherwise there is a huge gap that makes this conclusion not even plausible.


You've yet to show where you see a flaw in my argument. I demonstrated how each piece of evidence is not contradictory with either direction. You just keep saying "wrong", which is not an argument.



> There were no alterations.


Whatever. You're not rational on this one, so I'll leave it be.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I understand that you presented more than the form, I get it, but to be honest the exact same parameters you used to make your deduction can be applied to the 13 Pole form, I also see it in Choy Mak's Poisonous Snake Blocks the Road.



Those pole methods differ in many ways. LDBG in HSHK is LDBG in YMVT, identical in theory and function, practically identical in form.



> I respect that you based your methodology on this, but it is not applicable to all Wing Chun methods.



I never spoke for all Wing Chun methods. Many have changed drastically over the years to something entirely different.



> I never made any statements alluding that Yip Man made up his pole form. As evidenced by LDBG in Hung Kuen, it's apparent that the form Yip Man passed on is legitimate. On this we can agree.



I know you didn't. Just saying, it's in the OP of this thread and some other posts, and is what prompted this discussion.



> It would make a full circle, it would also make things very interesting.



Agreed.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *I said VT. That means YMVT. Other systems are very different in every part.*
> 
> ---Then your theory is invalid.  Unless you are suggesting that YMVT developed and originated totally separate from all the other versions of Wing Chun?



No, but some of those version went on without the weapons for a long time. Easy to no longer follow weapon theory then.



> The evidence you have provided supports EITHER theory!  I've been telling you that.  Gerry has been telling you that.  Surely you can't really be that dense???



Wrong, and no need to keep being insulting.



> *Did I say the theory was proven, or did I say there is no record to officially verify it?*
> 
> ---You have used the word "proves" multiple times in this discussion!  Have you forgotten that???



I said the observable facts prove other facts which you ended up conceding. 

I never said the theory based on those facts has been definitively proven.



KPM said:


> As Gerry and I have both gone to great efforts to try and show you....your evidence supports either theory.



But you're wrong and guessing.



> In the absence of "recorded history" we have to resort oral history.   Oral history is not definitive but can lend support to a theory.  And the oral history from multiple Wing Chun lineages says that the pole was an add on to an existing empty hand system.  So until you can produce an actual "recorded history" that contradicts that, this is the more valid of the two theories.



Fairytales are not more valid than technical analysis of observable facts!

There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons!


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> In any case, you should read the article.  You might find it interesting, or at least entertaining.



His points are either inconsequential, can be explained by the theory presented in this thread, or are just flat out wrong. Boxing uses _lin-siu-daai-da_? Not at all. The author doesn't even know what that is.

OSB and VT ready stance are not the same at all, much less what happens from there. They are in fact just as contradictory as other TCMAs are to VT.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.



The entirety of the system, every step of the way, renders the alternative theory highly unlikely. It will need additional evidence to be a viable theory. Right now, it is guessing and an Argument From Ignorance.



> Whatever. You're not rational on this one, so I'll leave it be.



It doesn't matter what you think is "rational" in the case of PB's personal experience. The truth is known and has been told to you. If you don't take it from me, ask him yourself. Your rationale has no bearing on the truth. To continue that line after being informed is insulting.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *The theory, that VT boxing is based on this pole is therefore rooted in fact.*
> 
> ---No, as I stated those facts seem to only apply to WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general. And THAT should be a huge red flag as far as origin theories go! But if we wanted to generalize it, then the theory that VT boxing at some point added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole is just as consistent with those 2 facts.



This is actually the crux of the argument, the extension of WSLVT to all of VT.  VT wasn't a term WSL came up with.  It was used first, and still by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association.  Who is on the board of directors?  Well since his father's death, in one way or another, that has been Ip Ching's baby.  Off and on until 2004 he was the chairman and when he wasn't chairman, to this day, he has been on the board of directors.  I don't know if he still teaches out of the HQ but both he and IP Chun have done so into the 21st century.  Students of both brothers have spoken of their theories here and they have been called "broken" or "incoherent."  So it is the height of arrogance to use WSLVT as a synonym for YMVT.

And before the response happens I remember all the "blah blah blah, they only studied with their father for so long" stuff.  Communists revolutions tend to split up families BUT YM still left HIS Association in the hands of his sons.  So WSLVT can be VT BUT there is clearly other VT out there.  Unless someone wants to call YM's association illegitimate.  So saying "this is WSLVT" fine.  Saying "this is YMVT," not true. 



gpseymour said:


> You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.
> 
> Covered at least three times.
> 
> 
> You've yet to show where you see a flaw in my argument. I demonstrated how each piece of evidence is not contradictory with either direction. You just keep saying "wrong", which is not an argument.
> 
> 
> Whatever. You're not rational on this one, so I'll leave it be.



And this sums up the argument when you get past the dogma driven drek.  Without historical manuals or accurate written histories there is no definitive way to tell 100%.  You can't even tell how a edged weapon was used archaeologically, you can say "here's a tool" and then make some guesses based on the weapon's design but that's about it.  Add in the complication that biomechanics are in large part, fundamental, regardless of the strategy you use to launch them.  This means you can see an effective punch or kick and say "hey what if I use it with this strategy.  Similar to how the German's took a tank in 1939 and instead of using it simply for infantry support gave us Blitzkrieg.  Same tool VERY different strategies.  As such there is really no way, beyond word of mouth legend to say, "Yes!!!! This is the truth!!!!"  and while we can see such a thing as a "truth" in our dogma that truth is not fact. 

Some of us tried to spitball and have a free exchange of ideas, some give and take.  Some "hey that's a cool idea but what about this?"  That to me is the fun of forums like these.  When dogma gets through in and spit balling gets derailed by a "truther".  That's where the fun ends.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Those pole methods differ in many ways. LDBG in HSHK is LDBG in YMVT, identical in theory and function, practically identical in form.
> 
> 
> 
> I never spoke for all Wing Chun methods. Many have changed drastically over the years to something entirely different.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you didn't. Just saying, it's in the OP of this thread and some other posts, and is what prompted this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


Concerning pole methods, yes the HSHK pole is identical to YMVT as well as Kulo 3 1/2 point, probably others too. But it's important to remember that it may not be all of the HSHK pole set or that Lam Sai Wing may have actually choreographed the segment inserted into 8 Diagram pole. That would raise more questions about legitimacy of others who then have the same pattern.

I'm simply stating, knowing both 5th Brother pole & 13 Spear pole , as well as, 6 1/2 Point that they all contain the same method. 5th Brother pole is the mother. Yes other techniques are included, aside from a 180 spin in 5th Brother & twirling in 13, nothing else violates Wing Chun theory. It's not much different than comparing Tang Yik pole & Yip Man pole. Difference is in organization & repetition mostly, there are other techniques but they are cohesive. It's like comparing SNT to a version of SNT performed out of order. The order makes no difference conceptually and not justified to say it's not the same because the choreography is different.

It also has to be taken into consideration that Choy Fung Lung was a disciple of Wong Fei Hung that also learned from Chan Wah Shun. He could be the real source of Lam Guei Chung's pole method.

All of this still doesn't validate Wing Chun empty hand being based on the pole, it's interesting but not verifiable. We can clearly see the evolution of the pole from 5th Brother to 6 1/2 Point. Valid consideration has also to be given to how the empty hand method & theory could have been the reason that 5th Brother pole evolved into 6 1/2 Point and would account for mutual methodology of hand & pole.

Your premise can be applied to White Crane, in specific, 12 Branch Power Fist, being the base for SNT, as one section of that form is identical to SNT & contains the same theory. It could easily be adjusted to play exactly like Wing Chun, it's a chicken or egg thing. Very hard to prove one way or the other without raising more questions. It's a rabbit hole in my opinion, especially when oral legends are discounted because they lack verification. Buddha & Jesus can't be authenticated, they didn't leave any writings, those that came after them wrote about them, much like the Wing Chun ancestors, except their tales are far less fantastic. How could anyone dismiss plausible stories of some common opera performers, yet believe the fantastical feats of philosophers worshipped as deities? Neither case can be proven, and when it can't be, I'm more apt to believe possible vs impossible.

Just some things to consider as you move forward with this theory.


----------



## Juany118

nvm wrong thread


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> This is actually the crux of the argument, the extension of WSLVT to all of VT.  VT wasn't a term WSL came up with.  It was used first, and still by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association.  Who is on the board of directors?  Well since his father's death, in one way or another, that has been Ip Ching's baby.  Off and on until 2004 he was the chairman and when he wasn't chairman, to this day, he has been on the board of directors.  I don't know if he still teaches out of the HQ but both he and IP Chun have done so into the 21st century.  Students of both brothers have spoken of their theories here and they have been called "broken" or "incoherent."  So it is the height of arrogance to use WSLVT as a synonym for YMVT.
> 
> And before the response happens I remember all the "blah blah blah, they only studied with their father for so long" stuff.  Communists revolutions tend to split up families BUT YM still left HIS Association in the hands of his sons.  So WSLVT can be VT BUT there is clearly other VT out there.  Unless someone wants to call YM's association illegitimate.  So saying "this is WSLVT" fine.  Saying "this is YMVT," not true.



Pretty clear you and KPM are resisting the conclusion because you would absolutely hate it that WSLVT has historical evidence of being correct, while most other versions of YMVT do not.

Most YM lineage pole work is a complete mess and unlike HSHK's LDBG, and the empty hand methods don't match. We know YM only ever taught the weapons to a few people, so the reason for this mess is obvious.

It doesn't look good for the others' legitimacy and that frustrates you to no end.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Yes other techniques are included, aside from a 180 spin in 5th Brother & twirling in 13, nothing else violates Wing Chun theory.



Actually, I wasn't even considering choreography. The method of performing the actions they have "in common" is in fact very different, while HSHK and YMVT are identical.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Actually, I wasn't even considering choreography. The method of performing the actions they have "in common" is in fact very different, while HSHK and YMVT are identical.


Depending on branch this could very well be true, speaking for myself, the common movements in my 5th Bother, 13 & 6 1/2 Point are performed identically and learned from 2 different people. 

You have an intriguing theory, I would simply advise putting definitive X's through plausible questions before making any sweeping statements. Good luck with it, I look forward to how you address people's concerns.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Bingo!
> 
> That's the one.
> 
> Quick google search yielded:
> Black Belt
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


It was actually an interesting read, thanks for the link!!!  The only thing I think is amiss, and it is understandable, is the lack of knowledge of some arts that also have the upright stance.  Why is Wing Chun Popular outside of China?  Bruce Lee.  The same can be said for the other CMA's that "made it out" of China, that movies popularized them.  At the time Bruce Lee himself made it work for Western Audiences even though, for the time, his stylization was flamboyant it didn't come close to the "low stance" arts the author speaks to.  This doesn't even take into account how a lot of the Hong Kong Film makers of the time were Cantonese.  Without the movies as a kind of free advertisement, in pre-internet days, it's hard to "get the word out" so to speak.  As such schools don't move across a continent or ocean.

Some may argue I am putting to much stock in the film industry's impact on the spread, and perception, of CMA's in the west but I think lack of high stance CMA's in films may have hidden arts with upright stances and more "direct" offense, thus clouding the issue.  Because other such arts do exist (though they are indeed less common.)


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Good luck with it, I look forward to how you address people's concerns.



Thanks. 

The connection between VT boxing and the pole method has been established.

The pole method has been shown to predate VT and to have not been adjusted to fit VT, yet does seamlessly.

People's only concern is that VT boxing _may have_ come from a preexisting base style that later aligned with the pole.

That theory is not established and inconsequential to VT boxing being based on the pole even if possible or true.

There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons, and no style that functions similarly to VT. So, it's meaningless to speak of a base style without further evidence.

All we know for fact is that VT boxing is based on the preexisting pole method, whether there was an original base style that got adapted or not.

That's it. Thanks to everyone for reading and participating in the discussion.

I'm traveling for the next month from Wednesday and probably won't be on.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Thanks.
> 
> The connection between VT boxing and the pole method has been established.
> 
> The pole method has been shown to predate VT and to have not been adjusted to fit VT, yet does seamlessly.
> 
> People's only concern is that VT boxing _may have_ come from a preexisting base style that later aligned with the pole.
> 
> That theory is not established and inconsequential to VT boxing being based on the pole even if possible or true.
> 
> There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons, and no style that functions similarly to VT. So, it's meaningless to speak of a base style without further evidence.
> 
> All we know for fact is that VT boxing is based on the preexisting pole method, whether there was an original base style that got adapted or not.
> 
> That's it. Thanks to everyone for reading and participating in the discussion.
> 
> I'm traveling for the next month from Wednesday and probably won't be on.


One question, when you speak of the 6 1/2 point pole method being verified as pre-dating VT, are you speaking of YMVT or all Wing Chun collectively?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> One question, when you speak of the 6 1/2 point pole method being verified as pre-dating VT, are you speaking of YMVT or all Wing Chun collectively?



I've only been talking about YMVT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The entirety of the system, every step of the way, renders the alternative theory highly unlikely. It will need additional evidence to be a viable theory. Right now, it is guessing and an Argument From Ignorance.


Except that folks with experience in WC don't agree. Perhaps it is crystal clear within WSLVT. I'll concede that is a realistic possibility. However, if folks elsewhere in WC/VT don't see the same thing, that may be a property of that arm of the art. It may have been more tightly integrated than other arms, which makes it less likely it's an effect of origin.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I've only been talking about YMVT.


OK, that makes much more sense from my perspective. I can better see where you are coming from now. I think you definitely have a legitimate argument for your claim, good luck persuading other YM branches though. Thanks for the reply, safe travels.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Except that folks with experience in WC don't agree. Perhaps it is crystal clear within WSLVT. I'll concede that is a realistic possibility. However, if folks elsewhere in WC/VT don't see the same thing, that may be a property of that arm of the art. It may have been more tightly integrated than other arms, which makes it less likely it's an effect of origin.



Which WC do you mean? There are many differences between YM derived lines, mostly caused by YM teaching the system to very few people. The existence of the pole form as it exists in WSL VT in another older system only highlights one of many potential problems in other YM derived wing chun lines. Weaponary is certainly one of the main areas that YM failed to pass on to many people. 

I have been following this thread with interest and I fully support the argument of LFJ that YM's system is based on the pole usage- that much is obvious to anyone with experience of the system.


----------



## DALE80

LFJ said:


> Thanks.
> 
> The connection between VT boxing and the pole method has been established.
> 
> The pole method has been shown to predate VT and to have not been adjusted to fit VT, yet does seamlessly.
> 
> People's only concern is that VT boxing _may have_ come from a preexisting base style that later aligned with the pole.
> 
> That theory is not established and inconsequential to VT boxing being based on the pole even if possible or true.
> 
> There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons, and no style that functions similarly to VT. So, it's meaningless to speak of a base style without further evidence.
> 
> All we know for fact is that VT boxing is based on the preexisting pole method, whether there was an original base style that got adapted or not.
> 
> That's it. Thanks to everyone for reading and participating in the discussion.
> 
> I'm traveling for the next month from Wednesday and probably won't be on.



When presented with the facts we have, then inserting the existence of another base style for the boxing method is irrelevant since the current boxing method maps completely to the weapons usage. Also since the existence of a base style for the boxing method introduces extra complication, it requires extra evidence. The most simple explanation given the facts is the one presented by LFJ.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.



There is everything required for the idea of empty hand method coming from the weapons. The weapons pre-date empty hand and still exist in another system.

Extra evidence is required for the idea that the weapons were added to a pre-existing empty hand method (no such method exists and no record of it ever having existed is available).

The second conclusion is more complicated, requires extra evidence which doesn't exist, and therefore the explanation of LFJ is the better one, given the evidence we have.

For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.

Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.

Which explanation is the more reasonable?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> There is everything required for the idea of empty hand method coming from the weapons. The weapons pre-date empty hand and still exist in another system.
> 
> Extra evidence is required for the idea that the weapons were added to a pre-existing empty hand method (no such method exists and no record of it ever having existed is available).
> 
> The second conclusion is more complicated, requires extra evidence which doesn't exist, and therefore the explanation of LFJ is the better one, given the evidence we have.
> 
> For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.
> 
> Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.
> 
> Which explanation is the more reasonable?


From the evidence presented, that's not a solid conclusion. Now, since I'm not a WSLVT practitioner, it's entirely possible that the missing piece of information - the part that cannot be presented in a debate like this - is the experience in the system. My whole point in this debate has been the misapplication of rules of evidence in debate. Just because the evidence provided supports a position, that doesn't mean it makes that position stronger, if another position is equally supported. I disagree that the concept of empty hands gaining weapons adds any complexity. It's a natural flow that has happened in many arts. It would be unusual to find a perfect fit of weapons to add, but not entirely without precedent. Unlikelihood doesn't remove something from the debate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.
> 
> Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.


Not even close to an analogous argument.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> .
> 
> Some of us tried to spitball and have a free exchange of ideas, some give and take.  Some "hey that's a cool idea but what about this?"  That to me is the fun of forums like these.  When dogma gets through in and spit balling gets derailed by a "truther".  That's where the fun ends.



This is it in a nutshell!  If you or Steve or Gerry or Troy, etc. had proposed that Wing Chun had originated from the pole as an interesting theory and laid out why you thought so.....this would have been a very different discussion!   But when a dogmatic "true believer" is involved it always becomes a huge argument.  Because a "true believer" is entirely unwilling to listen to what the other side of the discussion has to say or to acknowledge any points that make.  Its always...they are right and everyone else must be wrong!  How many times have we seen that here now?....on various topics!!!


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> I'm simply stating, knowing both 5th Brother pole & 13 Spear pole , as well as, 6 1/2 Point that they all contain the same method. 5th Brother pole is the mother. Yes other techniques are included, aside from a 180 spin in 5th Brother & twirling in 13, nothing else violates Wing Chun theory. It's not much different than comparing Tang Yik pole & Yip Man pole. Difference is in organization & repetition mostly, there are other techniques but they are cohesive. It's like comparing SNT to a version of SNT performed out of order. The order makes no difference conceptually and not justified to say it's not the same because the choreography is different.
> 
> .



Tang Yik Weng Chun oral history says that Chi Sim taught the pole on the Red Boats as well as at Fei Lo.  It also says that at some point the pole form was expanded by methods from a spear form.   Who Chi Sim actually was is debatable.  But the oral history certainly supports the theory that someone (later identified as Chi Sim...whether he was abbot of a temple or not) who knew the 5th brother pole was teaching on the Red Boats.  He taught this to Red Boat members who later went on to  establish both the Wing Chun system and the  Weng Chun system (whatever names you want to give to them).  He later taught a more extensive pole form at Fei Lo than what he taught on the Red Boats.   Either he added methods from 13 spear himself, or someone in Tang Village added them.  This person (Chi Sim) also taught what was actually a fairly simple and rudimentary empty hand method by today's standards.  Tang Yik Weng Chun history acknowledges that this empty hand method was expanded upon over time.  So here the oral history supports the idea of a single person teaching a pole method alongside a rather simple empty hand method that was also said to derive from a similar source.  There is no reason to think that as that empty hand method was developed further that it would not have developed with concepts and tactics from the pole heavily influencing it.   Why anyone would just dismiss this version of the theory of Wing Chun origins....which is supported by the oral history as well as the FACTS that YOU have observed is simply beyond me!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Pretty clear you and KPM are resisting the conclusion because you would absolutely hate it that WSLVT has historical evidence of being correct, while most other versions of YMVT do not.
> 
> Most YM lineage pole work is a complete mess and unlike HSHK's LDBG, and the empty hand methods don't match. We know YM only ever taught the weapons to a few people, so the reason for this mess is obvious.
> 
> It doesn't look good for the others' legitimacy and that frustrates you to no end.



Wow!  That's rich!  You are implying that WE are the ones in denial?  

If your theory on Wing Chun's origins cannot  be easily generalized to Wing Chun as a whole (since all Wing Chun would share a common origin) then there is obviously something wrong with the theory.  The alternate theory CAN be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole.  So by simple deduction it is the more plausible theory.  

You don't have any evidence other than oral history that Ip Man himself or even Wong Shun Leung actually taught this theory to people.  And you yourself dismiss oral history as irrelevant.   So that's the second problem with your theory.

The two facts you have established (and I'm being generous in calling the idea that pole and empty hands track so very closely in WSLVT as a "fact")  can support either your theory or the alternative theory.  It doesn't matter how often you deny that.  Everyone else here can see it.  So that's the third problem with your theory.

What actually frustrates me (and likely others) is your dogmatic believe that you are right and everyone else must be wrong!  Your refusal to answer or often even acknowledge points that others have made.  Your refusal to answer direct questions at times.  The way you often give vague and evasive responses when you do answer.  That's the fourth problem with your theory....and the one that often accompanies any discussion you become involved in.

But Ok.  You are right and all the rest of us are wrong!   You win!


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Depending on branch this could very well be true, speaking for myself, the common movements in my 5th Bother, 13 & 6 1/2 Point are performed identically and learned from 2 different people.
> 
> You have an intriguing theory, I would simply advise putting definitive X's through plausible questions before making any sweeping statements. Good luck with it, I look forward to how you address people's concerns.



He has no intention of addressing anyone else's concerns and you know it!    He has repeatedly ignored our points through-out this entire discussion.  He has already decided he is right, regardless of what anyone else might point out to him.  That's the problem with "true believers."


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I've only been talking about YMVT.



Another reason why your theory has a problem.  If it can only be applied to YMVT, that's a problem!  Unless you believe that YMVT developed and originated completely separate from all other Wing Chun!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Which WC do you mean? There are many differences between YM derived lines, mostly caused by YM teaching the system to very few people. The existence of the pole form as it exists in WSL VT in another older system only highlights one of many potential problems in other YM derived wing chun lines. Weaponary is certainly one of the main areas that YM failed to pass on to many people.
> 
> I have been following this thread with interest and I fully support the argument of LFJ that YM's system is based on the pole usage- that much is obvious to anyone with experience of the system.



Please introduce yourself and tell us your background.  Thanks!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> When presented with the facts we have, then inserting the existence of another base style for the boxing method is irrelevant since the current boxing method maps completely to the weapons usage. Also since the existence of a base style for the boxing method introduces extra complication, it requires extra evidence. The most simple explanation given the facts is the one presented by LFJ.



I disagree.  Like LFJ you are dismissing over 100 years of oral history from multiple branches of Wing Chun.   LIke LFJ you are dismissing the fact that the theory only really applies to WLSVT and cannot be generalized to ALL Wing Chun.  When talking about an origin theory, that in itself is a huge problem.   It is in no way the "most simple explanation."


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If you or Steve or Gerry or Troy, etc. had proposed that Wing Chun had originated from the pole as an interesting theory and laid out why you thought so.....this would have been a very different discussion!



Because of your obvious bias.



KPM said:


> Because a "true believer" is entirely unwilling to listen to what the other side of the discussion has to say or to acknowledge any points that make.  Its always...they are right and everyone else must be wrong!



I have not made a truth claim beyond the facts that you conceded! So 



KPM said:


> Like LFJ you are dismissing over 100 years of oral history from multiple branches of Wing Chun.   LIke LFJ you are dismissing the fact that the theory only really applies to WLSVT and cannot be generalized to ALL Wing Chun.



Already explained.

Many systems moved on without the weapons. So, no wonder they would evolve into something very different when not directed by weapon theory.

That or they don't share exact origins, started at different times from different sources.

Not a big mystery.

In either case, mainland lineages are drastically different from YMVT and irrelevant to the origins of YMVT.


----------



## wckf92

This has been and is a fascinating discussion. I can see BOTH sides of the equation actually.

However, I'd like to point out that IF it is true that a Master of their respective art/system/style ONLY passes on the ENTIRE inheritance to a CHOSEN FEW then this might be why this discussion is so...ummm...vibrant to some.

Since day 1 in my WC experience and travels I've always heard that 'gatekeepers' or 'lineage holders' are required to pass down the entire art to at least two people. If true, then there would be huge numbers of 'regular' practitioners who would not be in the loop and therefore would not know or understand the inner workings (whether verbal history, written history, tactics, strategy, weapons, etc).
I think everyone can agree that in majority of WC/VT schools or families that the formal weapons training is reserved for last.

NOTE: I would be an interesting thread topic to figure out how certain aspects of knife/pole map to other things like MYJ, 3rd form, etc.

Knowing how the WSL VT guys map their VT from weapons...it does help explain a thing or two on all their previous stances regarding the how/why their VT doesn't have chin na, grappling, etc.

I'm not advocating one way or the other though...but just saying it is a great discussion. You guys are way more knowledgeable than I am with all these various families' pole forms and such so I've learned a lot just by following the discussion. I.E. never even heard of HSHK, never had heard of 5th Brother, 3.5 pole, etc etc. Quite interesting!!!

Now...carry on!


----------



## KPM

*Because of your obvious bias.*

---Yes.  I admit that.  I have an obvious bias against anyone that presents something as an indisputable fact when there are obviously problems with what they are saying!  I have an obvious bias against anyone in a discussion that just dismisses out of hand or ignores someone else's points.


*
I have not made a truth claim beyond the facts that you conceded! So *

---Wow!  I'm not going to take the time to do it, but someone should go back through this thread and count the number of times you used the word "proves" in this discussion!  


*
Already explained.*

---Not very well and not satisfactorily.  

*Many systems moved on without the weapons. So, no wonder they would evolve into something very different when not directed by weapon theory.*

---Apparently EVERY system other than WSLVT!!!!????   I will bring up that word I used before.....plausibility.   Look it up!

*In either case, mainland lineages are drastically different from YMVT and irrelevant to the origins of YMVT.*

---Uh, you do realize that YMVT started out on mainland China, don't you?


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I disagree that the concept of empty hands gaining weapons adds any complexity.



Of course it does, because you're suggesting the existence of a whole other system prior to the introduction of the weapons, a system there's 0 evidence for the existence of whatsoever.

Since the entirety of the VT boxing system maps to the weapons, there aren't even any discernible remnants of a possible preexisting base system separate from the weapon method.

But if you're suggesting one, you have a lot more work to do.

The application of Occam's Razor, plus technical analysis of the system, shows the simplest explanation to be the weapons having served as the basis for the entire conceptualization and development of the boxing method.

Pole + Knives = VT boxing.

Pole + Knives + (unknown & unestablished variable) = VT boxing.

The latter is obviously the more complicated. The former is at least based on methods proven to exist.

Note, I'm only putting this forward as the most viable theory based on the observable facts as they stand. I'm not making a truth claim, as I said, because VT lacks historical records to officially confirm it.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I have an obvious bias against anyone that presents something as an indisputable fact



Strawman.

See my last sentence in the post above. I have repeated this numerous times now, so you can stop with the false "true believer" insult.



> someone should go back through this thread and count the number of times you used the word "proves" in this discussion!



Yes. Proves the facts that you conceded.



> ---Not very well and not satisfactorily.



Says you. You were one of the people saying your lineage didn't receive the weapons, or at least the knives, from LJ. Other lineages that trace through him did.

Obvious how they'd differ with or without guidance from the weapon theory, or a completely different one.



> ---Apparently EVERY system other than WSLVT!!!!????   I will bring up that word I used before.....plausibility.   Look it up!



It is entirely possible that this method only came through the YM lineage. His system is drastically different from others, and we know he only taught a few people his whole system, so... not all that implausible at all.

The weapons were obviously taught very rarely throughout history, to some and not others in every generation, including from LJ.



> ---Uh, you do realize that YMVT started out on mainland China, don't you?



Irrelevant. YMVT and mainland lineages are so drastically different that they are irrelevant to the origin of YMVT. They obviously took very different courses through history, over 100 years apart.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> NOTE: I would be an interesting thread topic to figure out how certain aspects of knife/pole map to other things like MYJ, 3rd form, etc.



It is an interesting topic, but possibly too sensitive to other common YM lineages as the history is not on their side here.



> Knowing how the WSL VT guys map their VT from weapons...it does help explain a thing or two on all their previous stances regarding the how/why their VT doesn't have chin na, grappling, etc.



Yup. No gripping and grappling with a pole or knives!


----------



## KPM

Ok LFJ.  You go on believing whatever you want.  You win.  You are right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Just because the evidence provided supports a position, that doesn't mean it makes that position stronger, if another position is equally supported.



The other position is not equally supported- it requires extra evidence which is not available. The conclusion presented by LFJ does not require extra evidence. 



gpseymour said:


> I disagree that the concept of empty hands gaining weapons adds any complexity



It is a more complex explanation for the facts available, requiring an additional empty hand system of which there is no longer any trace in the system or elsewhere.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Tang Yik Weng Chun oral history says that Chi Sim taught the pole on the Red Boats as well as at Fei Lo. It also says that at some point the pole form was expanded by methods from a spear form. Who Chi Sim actually was is debatable. But the oral history certainly supports the theory that someone (later identified as Chi Sim...whether he was abbot of a temple or not) who knew the 5th brother pole was teaching on the Red Boats. He taught this to Red Boat members who later went on to establish both the Wing Chun system and the Weng Chun system (whatever names you want to give to them). He later taught a more extensive pole form at Fei Lo than what he taught on the Red Boats. Either he added methods from 13 spear himself, or someone in Tang Village added them. This person (Chi Sim) also taught what was actually a fairly simple and rudimentary empty hand method by today's standards. Tang Yik Weng Chun history acknowledges that this empty hand method was expanded upon over time.



This is just legend. Chi Sim, Red boats, Fei Lo all legend. Reasoning from legend is not worth the time, especially since a lot of it was probably added at a later date as a form of advertising (i.e. in HK). Reality probably much more mundane.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> I disagree. Like LFJ you are dismissing over 100 years of oral history from multiple branches of Wing Chun.



I don't think much point in giving consideration to legends. 



> LIke LFJ you are dismissing the fact that the theory only really applies to WLSVT and cannot be generalized to ALL Wing Chun. When talking about an origin theory, that in itself is a huge problem.



It applies to YM VT. Other wing chun is very different and looks like it has been diverging for a long time. 



> It is in no way the "most simple explanation."



It is a simpler explanation than the other one that has been offered


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> The other position is not equally supported- it requires extra evidence which is not available. The conclusion presented by LFJ does not require extra evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a more complex explanation for the facts available, requiring an additional empty hand system of which there is no longer any trace in the system or elsewhere.


What you have missed, apparently (and LFJ seems determined to ignore) is that I'm not making a claim. I'm simply arguing the strength of evidence. I've pointed out that the evidence presented is no more supportive of one claim than another. The only counter-argument I've heard is that the obvious alternative is more complex and unlikely, in spite of the fact that it has been seen in other arts, so cannot be dismissed as improbable.

I don't really care which is the origin. I like the idea of an effective empty-hand method based on weapons. Most I have seen were weak because of attempts to follow weapons principles, but some have managed it, and it's an interesting theory. I just haven't seen any evidence that uniquely supports it. What LFJ has claimed to have proven, he has only provided some support for. Again, the strongest support may be within the teaching of WSL's lineage of VT. I'm not privy to that, so I'm just examining the strength of the arguments made here. They're reasonable, until they are claimed as proof. They are evidence, not proof.


----------



## Juany118

DALE80 said:


> When presented with the facts we have, then inserting the existence of another base style for the boxing method is irrelevant since the current boxing method maps completely to the weapons usage. Also since the existence of a base style for the boxing method introduces extra complication, it requires extra evidence. The most simple explanation given the facts is the one presented by LFJ.



The problem you run into is a few fold.  Let's start with those issues not related to techniques.  First, not every YM WC/VT Lineage Teaches said theory, even if they also teach the weapons.  If this was true it would be taught as such.  Second, while even I agree YM's Legend of the creation of WC/VT is just that, a legend, the legend is largely consistent across not only YMWC but mainland as well.  For legends to be so similar and to start with the empty hand creation, then to have the weapons be the start?  Illogical. 

Also to perpetuate a legend, as YM did, that is contradictory to the actual curriculum is illogical because you invalidate the very Legend you are using to give prestige to your art.

When we get to the actual techniques in the art it is a "chicken and egg" scenario.  For a "complete" martial arts system to exist, read one with both empty hand and weapons, the weapons use and the empty hand need to "mesh".  If they don't feel related, it creates issues in teaching.  Because of this, barring independently verifiable evidence, arguments for the art having starting with weapons or empty hand essentially stand on even ground.  The only thing that may give substantially more weight to the "weapons" side is "because that is what my specific sub Lineage teaches" but that isn't evidence in this case, it's dogma, because it is inconsistent with other sub lineages and is not independently verifiable.



DALE80 said:


> There is everything required for the idea of empty hand method coming from the weapons. The weapons pre-date empty hand and still exist in another system.
> 
> Extra evidence is required for the idea that the weapons were added to a pre-existing empty hand method (no such method exists and no record of it ever having existed is available).
> 
> The second conclusion is more complicated, requires extra evidence which doesn't exist, and therefore the explanation of LFJ is the better one, given the evidence we have.
> 
> For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.
> 
> Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.
> 
> Which explanation is the more reasonable?



First your analogy isn't good due to the fact just being in a smoky bar will make you smell like smoke.  That said I see where you are going (the "rain" analogy for circumstantial evidence came to mind) but it still isn't a good one for the following reason. 

You can't say "well the pole technique looks the same" and then ignore that there are other empty hand arts that not only have similar techniques and methodologies.  I know I know "well my lineages strategy" but that misses the point that most biomechanical techniques can be adopted to a multitude of strategies.  To simply use convenient constructs to dismiss the similarities with other arts is illogical. 

Additionally we have the issue of the BJD.  I am still waiting to see an example of an art that predates WC and also uses them in a similar manner.  For the "weapons came first" to work that needs to be addressed as well.

No one here is categorically saying it is one way or there other btw, except LFJ and apparently you.  What we are saying is that if you are going to make such a categorical statement you need to have enough circumtantial evidence that it outweighs all other possible conclusions.  The thing is though, the evidence that tips the scales towards weapons first, vs the scales just pivoting back and forth, is "because my Sifu told me so" essentially.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> The only counter-argument I've heard is that the obvious alternative is more complex and unlikely,



That is a lie.

You were just told again in Post #281 that there is absolutely 0 evidence for a preexisting base style.

That's a fatal problem for the theory. The theory I have presented is based on things that exist.



> What LFJ has claimed to have proven, he has only provided some support for.



Wrong. 

What I have claimed to have proven are observable facts that have already been conceded.

I have never claimed the conclusion based on those proven facts has been proven. 

I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First, not every YM WC/VT Lineage Teaches said theory, even if they also teach the weapons.  If this was true it would be taught as such.



Wrong. 

It is a fact that most didn't learn the whole system from him.



> the legend is largely consistent across not only YMWC but mainland as well.  For legends to be so similar and to start with the empty hand creation, then to have the weapons be the start?



Because the folktale was copied. The same story is used in other styles besides Wing Chun that are obviously different MAs.



> When we get to the actual techniques in the art it is a "chicken and egg" scenario.



Weapons predate VT. This has already been proven.



> arguments for the art having starting with weapons or empty hand essentially stand on even ground.



Wrong.

Former based on existing elements. Latter a guess about an undemonstrated mystery style.



> You can't say "well the pole technique looks the same"



That's not the argument. They are the identical method in theory and application.



> and then ignore that there are other empty hand arts that not only have similar techniques and methodologies.



There aren't any.



> No one here is categorically saying it is one way or there other btw, except LFJ and apparently you.



Strawman.



> The thing is though, the evidence that tips the scales towards weapons first, vs the scales just pivoting back and forth, is "because my Sifu told me so" essentially.



That's a lie.

An Appeal to Authority has never been made.

Nothing but technical analysis and observable and proven historical facts have been presented.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> The only counter-argument I've heard is that the obvious alternative is more complex and unlikely,



Plus, what you're saying is "possible" is essentially on the same grounds as "aliens did it".

You can't even say that's possible until you prove aliens exist.

You haven't demonstrated a possible base art it could have come from. So, you can't even say that's a possibility. We can't look into it, because there is nothing to look into.



> They're reasonable, until they are claimed as proof. They are evidence, not proof.



The proven facts have only been presented as proof of other observable facts.

These proven facts have been presented as evidence for but not proof of the conclusion.

There is not even any evidence for a preexisting base style. Until some can be presented, that theory is unviable. It cannot even be looked into.


----------



## geezer

DALE80 said:


> The other position is not equally supported- it requires extra evidence which is not available. The conclusion presented by LFJ does not require extra evidence.
> ...It is a more complex explanation for the facts available, requiring an additional empty hand system of which there is no longer any trace in the system or elsewhere.



No, Dale, what KPM and GP Seymour propose is well supported by the admittedly limited evidence available.

*First point:* Both empty handed systems and pole systems with outward similarities to the WC/VT/WT hands and pole existed long before WC/VT/WT be historically documented (in the era of Leung Jan or the mid 19th century).

*Second point:* The oral tradition left by Grandmaster Yip Man and other greats of his generation all agree that the pole system was imported or added to the boxing system.

*Third point:* _Ex nihilo nihil fit. _Nothing springs into being from nothing. There is always a precursor. It is highly unlikely that a single or small group of skilled pole fighters sat down and decided to invent an empty-handed boxing system from scratch.

It is far more probable that one or more skilled martial artists with experience in _both_ weapons and southern short-bridge boxing realized that the core principles of their weapons, and especially the long pole correlated with the principles of some of the most effective empty handed strategy.

After all, we have all noted that other boxing systems often exhibit bits and pieces of WC/VT-like movement.  The precursors of WC/VT/WT no doubt had some of the seeds of later WC, and it's highly probable that the ancestors of modern WC/VT/WT made the same observations about the relationship of these very effective empty-hand strategies to the pole system. They sought to build upon this base thus initiating the evolutionary process that shaped the WC/VT/WT we practice today.

Only such an evolutionary model can fully explain the diversity of WC/VT/WT that currently exists. In short, the evolution of the martial arts including WC/VT/WT certainly follows the same process as the evolution of human culture, languages and so forth. It is never created out of a void ...even constructed languages like Esperanto draw heavily on known sources. There is always adaptation, borrowing, and in small isolated groups, random drift. And as a product of human culture, MAs follow the same rules. "Occam's razor" will lead you to the same conclusion.

I can further back this up from _personal experience_ as a practitioner of VT/WT and Latosa and DTE Escrima. Many years of practicing both arts has lead me to focus on common principles and strategies to the point that my empty hands and  my weapons technique are now almost entirely expressions of the same fighting principles and strategy. My personal VT and my personal Escrima are totally strategically consistent.

Perhaps the real problem here is that LFJ and his opposition (KPM, GPS. Juany, et.al.) mean something very different when they refer to _the VT system. _I believe that KPM, GPS. Juany, and certainly, yours truly, are referring to WC/VT/WT in the broad sense, including all of the Yip Man branches, as well as mainland branches tracing their roots back to Leung Jan.

_LFJ_ on the other hand seems to be _specifically_ referring to a particular group of WSL-VT folks, and _excluding_ other non WSL WC/VT groups and even some WSL practitioners (David Peterson).  In fact, LFJ has pretty much written off all the other WC/VT groups he has any knowledge of as _"broken" VT_, and essentially _not the same system _as what he practices.

OK then. If what he practices is _not _the same system as the systems the rest of us practice (total BS in my opinion) then, logically, we have _nothing_ to discuss.

BTW Dale, are you a WSL-VT practioner with a perspective like LFJ on the art?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> *First point:* Both empty handed systems and pole systems with outward similarities to the WC/VT/WT hands and pole existed long before WC/VT/WT be historically documented (in the era of Leung Jan or the mid 19th century).



Wrong.

Not outward similarities.

The pole systems are the identical method in theory and application.

No other empty handed system is like VT.



> *Second point:* The oral tradition left by Grandmaster Yip Man and other greats of his generation all agree that the pole system was imported or added to the boxing system.



Fairtales.



> *Third point:* _Ex nihilo nihil fit. _Nothing springs into being from nothing. There is always a precursor. It is highly unlikely that a single or small group of skilled pole fighters sat down and decided to invent an empty-handed boxing system from scratch.



VT boxing didn't come from nothing. Pole and knives are something.

The originators surely had barehand fighting knowledge, but if you want to propose a preexisting base art they used, you must demonstrate one that we can look into.



> Only such an evolutionary model can fully explain the diversity of WC/VT/WT that currently exists.



VT came from pole + knives. Other lineages evolved without the weapons or from different sources.

Not inconceivable in the least.



> "Occam's razor" will lead you to the same conclusion.



Apply Occam's Razor here;

Pole + Knives = VT boxing.

Pole + Knives + (unknown & unestablished variable) = VT boxing.

An unknown & wholly unestablished variable is like saying "aliens did it".



> Perhaps the real problem here is that LFJ and the others (KPM, GPS. Juany, et.al.) mean something very different when they refer to _the VT system. _I believe that KPM, GPS. Juany, and certainly, yours truly are referring to WC/VT/WT in the broad sense, including all of the Yip Man branches, as well as mainland branches tracing their roots back to Leung Jan.



I have made it clear I'm not talking about mainland styles. There is no reason to, as they are obviously different MAs at this point.



> _LFJ_ on the other hand seems to be _specifically_ referring to a particular group of WSL-VT folks, and _excluding_ other non WSL WC/VT groups and even some WSL practitioners (David Peterson).



No. I'm talking about YMVT. Other lineages under YM are _supposed to be_ the same thing, unlike various mainland styles.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> *Wrong. Not outward similarities.*
> The pole systems are the identical method in theory and application.
> _*No other empty handed system is like VT.*_



Yes, and the world is flat, the sun rotates around it, and God created man in his image. *We have no similarities with apes!
*
Seriously LFJ, you are entitled to your opinion, but right now I'm posting for the benefit of those others on this forum who share _my_ universe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> That is a lie.
> 
> You were just told again in Post #281 that there is absolutely 0 evidence for a preexisting base style.
> 
> That's a fatal problem for the theory. The theory I have presented is based on things that exist.


Nothing fatal about it. I never argued there should be a pre-existing base style. It could have been pre-existing, or a hybridization, or a couple of other options. And I'm not sure where you'd expect to find evidence of it if it evolved into the WC we know now. Even if it were borrowed wholly from another style, there's a chance the style either ceased to exist, or has evolved on a different path. This makes it difficult to establish further evidence, but is not fatal. Nobody has asserted that the empty hand was necessarily borrowed without significant alteration (as seems to be the case with the pole form), so I'm not sure what you're expecting to see that would be readily recognizable.



> Wrong.
> 
> What I have claimed to have proven are observable facts that have already been conceded.
> 
> I have never claimed the conclusion based on those proven facts has been proven.
> 
> I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?


Wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> An unknown & wholly unestablished variable is like saying "aliens did it".


Only if you don't understand the premise.


----------



## KPM

*You were just told again in Post #281 that there is absolutely 0 evidence for a preexisting base style.

That's a fatal problem for the theory. The theory I have presented is based on things that exist.*

----Oh now come on!  That's just being just plain stupid.  That's like saying the theory of evolution is invalid just because the common ancestor of apes and men is no longer around.  


*What I have claimed to have proven are observable facts that have already been conceded.*

----And those observable facts are that WSLVT's pole method is very similar to an older version of the pole also called LDBK and that (according to you) the WSLVT empty hands tracks perfectly with the pole.  Those two observable facts do not establish and prove an entire theory for the origin of Wing Chun.  That is the bottom line here.  

*

I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?*

---The above has been repeated over and over to you.  What is wrong that you can't understand that???


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> There is not even any evidence for a preexisting base style. Until some can be presented, that theory is unviable. It cannot even be looked into.


 
And you don't have any evidence that other versions of Wing Chun track so well with the pole method or endorse this theory.  Therefore it cannot be viable as an origin theory for Wing Chun in general. 

And likewise there is not even any evidence that Ip Man believed or taught this theory.  Or even that WSL taught it!  For all we know they might have agreed with the rest of us that such close correlations exist between the pole and empty hand because the empty hand method continued to evolve (even in Ip Man's and Wong Shun Leung's time) with the weapons in mind. 

In fact, for all we know WSL may have spent a considerable amount of effort and  genius to reorganize and reinterpret what Ip Man taught him to  such an extent that HE aligned it so well with the weapons and refined it so well that everyone else's Wing Chun looks "broken" in comparison.  And you don't have  any evidence to the contrary!

So if you want to talk about showing a chain of evidence to make a theory viable....you can't even start that with Ip Man and Wong Shun Leung!!!


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> In fact, for all we know WSL may have spent a considerable amount of effort and  genius to reorganize and reinterpret what Ip Man taught him to  such an extent that HE aligned it so well with the weapons and refined it so well that everyone else's Wing Chun looks "broken" in comparison.



I have not studied WSL VT, so I cannot speak to this with conviction, but it certainly seems very likely. More so than saying that everybody else got it wrong. Really, LFJ is the one channeling Trump IMO!


----------



## geezer

BTW no politics intended. And as far as WSL VT goes, if someone highly qualified offered an open seminar in my area I'd certainly go. But, I'm not a likely prospect for a convert. I'm not a true-believer type. More of an eternal skeptic. I don't believe the system exists that has all the answers!


----------



## KPM

Ok, so here is an exercise in theory development based upon observable facts:

1.  WSL's pole form is very similar to an older pole form also know as LDBK that is said to predate the existence of Wing Chun.  (We'll assume age of said older LDBK is indeed older than Wing Chun, but that little tidbit hasn't actually been well established either!  The oldest recorded version of this pole form seems to be from about 1945.  I believe Wing Chun is older than that!  But we proceed anyway!)

2.  WSLVT empty hands correlates with and tracks closely with the pole form.  (We'll also just have to assume this is true based upon LFJ's testimony since none of the rest of us know the "complete" WSLVT.)

3.  Other versions of Wing Chun, both Ip Man VT and Mainland Wing Chun, do not track the empty hands with the pole.  Thus fact #2 seems to only apply to WSLVT.

4.  Any kind of oral history, legend, or testimony can be disregarded as fairytales or unreliable.  (That is a rule applied to this discussion by LFJ)

5.  Wong Shun Leung learned his Wing Chun from Ip Man.  Ip Man learned his Wing Chun from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So.  Chan Wah Shun learned his Wing Chun from Leung Jan.


So based upon the above, the theory of the weapons being the entire source of the empty hand method would apply only to WSLVT.   Based upon only the observable facts it cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole.

But there is a problem!  Clearly neither Ip Man or WSL started from nothing but the pole and knives.  They had an empty hand system as noted in #5 above.  So if the theory cannot be generalized further back than WSL, if the theory cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole, then it cannot be valid. Because both WSL and YM had a base empty hand method to start with!

 You cannot argue that the other methods have diverged away from the original weapons-based approach, because you would have to prove that they started out with the empty hand tracking closely with the pole.  And that can't be proven.  Remember....we are going solely by observable facts here!!!!  Fact #3 above applies.  

So the observable facts do not actually support the theory that Wing Chun empty hands (even WSLVT empty hands) derived entirely from the weapons.   Because for this theory to be true based upon observable facts, either WSL would have had to start without a empty hand base system, or ALL versions of Wing Chun would need to be observed to have that same version of LDBK and to have empty hand methods that tracked very closely with the pole!

Now I'm sure LFJ will have plenty of things to repeat over and over again.  But I challenge anyone to deny the logic that I have put forth above and tell me where it is wrong!  And simply stating "wrong" is not enough!



Now to continue to show how deriving interesting theories from limited observations can lead to fun stuff, I offer a new theory below that also takes into account the observable facts noted above!

This theory is that WSL learned this older version of LDBK from Ip Man or even someone else (it doesn't really matter).  He also learned the knives very thoroughly.  Based upon his in-depth knowledge of both the pole and the knives he set out to refine and adapt the empty hand VT he had learned from Ip Man.  This resulted in a version of VT very focused on the punch and on using each arm as if it was a "pole" to close in as quickly and directly as possible.  This theory explains why:

1.  WSLVT is different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that are currently in existence.
2.  WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun
3.  None of Ip Man's other close long-term students do Wing Chun like WSL and have this same understanding of empty hand and pole methods. 

All of this matches "observable facts"!!!


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Nothing fatal about it. I never argued there should be a pre-existing base style. It could have been pre-existing, or a hybridization, or a couple of other options. And I'm not sure where you'd expect to find evidence of it if it evolved into the WC we know now. Even if it were borrowed wholly from another style, there's a chance the style either ceased to exist, or has evolved on a different path. This makes it difficult to establish further evidence, but is not fatal. Nobody has asserted that the empty hand was necessarily borrowed without significant alteration (as seems to be the case with the pole form), so I'm not sure what you're expecting to see that would be readily recognizable.
> 
> 
> Wrong.



I don't think anyone argued there is a pre-existing base style.  It seems LFJ did regarding the pole, but not anyone else I can see. I think @geezer has the right of it when he used the Esperanto.  I think another analogy is dogs, as odd as that sounds, but hear me out. 

Modern "working" dog breeds are not the product of natural evolution.  They are the product of purposely breeding, over long periods of time (*combining*) different canines (*styles of Kung Fu*) due to specific traits they possessed (*techniques*) for a specific purpose (*underlying strategic concept*).  Lets look at herding dogs.  You have powerful herding dogs like the Norweigian Elk Hound






and then herding dogs like..._ the Corgi_?!?!?!




Yes the Corgi.  

The Norwegian Elk Hound herds (*fights*), using size and strength.  The Corgi is actually related to the Elk Hound (it is descended from northern Spitz type dogs, which also includes the Siberian Husky) BUT it is half the size.  It herds (*fights*) using a completely different strategy.  Instead of size and strength it uses smaller height to nip at the heels of the animals it herds and the shorter size also allows it to not only avoid being kicked but to run under the animals it herds so it can more quickly get to strays on the other side of the herd.

Now with those different strategies one would assume they are from entirely separate lines but they aren't.  Through the breeding process you end up to with two animals, performing the same function, using completely different strategies.  At some point someone had to look at a short legged dog that might be good for hunting varmints and said "hey it might sound crazy to use that dog for herding but if we combine that trait with the thick boned and well muscled nature of that big herding dog over there, it will work with this strategy."  Two different dogs, with certain shared genetic elements, performing the same function but with very different strategies.  Neither is totally unique or _Ex nihilo nihil fit as @geezer _said.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> And you don't have any evidence that other versions of Wing Chun track so well with the pole method or endorse this theory.  Therefore it cannot be viable as an origin theory for Wing Chun in general.
> 
> And likewise there is not even any evidence that Ip Man believed or taught this theory.  Or even that WSL taught it!  For all we know they might have agreed with the rest of us that such close correlations exist between the pole and empty hand because the empty hand method continued to evolve (even in Ip Man's and Wong Shun Leung's time) with the weapons in mind.
> 
> In fact, for all we know WSL may have spent a considerable amount of effort and  genius to reorganize and reinterpret what Ip Man taught him to  such an extent that HE aligned it so well with the weapons and refined it so well that everyone else's Wing Chun looks "broken" in comparison.  And you don't have  any evidence to the contrary!
> 
> So if you want to talk about showing a chain of evidence to make a theory viable....you can't even start that with Ip Man and Wong Shun Leung!!!



Well your idea he may have changed it (hard to tell because I do not know it) is not completely unreasonable.  There are some differences between WSLVT wooden dummy and the other YM branches.  At least according to the video I linked in another thread this was done purposefully by WSL based on his experiences in the many challenge matches he participated in.  If he refined one section based on his practical experiences it is not unreasonable to at least suspect he refined other sections for similar reasons.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Ok, so here is an exercise in theory development based upon observable facts:
> 
> 1.  WSL's pole form is very similar to an older pole form also know as LDBK that is said to predate the existence of Wing Chun.  (We'll assume age of said older LDBK is indeed older than Wing Chun, but that little tidbit hasn't actually been well established either!  The oldest recorded version of this pole form seems to be from about 1945.  I believe Wing Chun is older than that!  But we proceed anyway!)
> 
> 2.  WSLVT empty hands correlates with and tracks closely with the pole form.  (We'll also just have to assume this is true based upon LFJ's testimony since none of the rest of us know the "complete" WSLVT.)
> 
> 3.  Other versions of Wing Chun, both Ip Man VT and Mainland Wing Chun, do not track the empty hands with the pole.  Thus fact #2 seems to only apply to WSLVT.
> 
> 4.  Any kind of oral history, legend, or testimony can be disregarded as fairytales or unreliable.  (That is a rule applied to this discussion by LFJ)
> 
> 5.  Wong Shun Leung learned his Wing Chun from Ip Man.  Ip Man learned his Wing Chun from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So.  Chan Wah Shun learned his Wing Chun from Leung Jan.
> 
> 
> So based upon the above, the theory of the weapons being the entire source of the empty hand method would apply only to WSLVT.   Based upon only the observable facts it cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole.
> 
> But there is a problem!  Clearly neither Ip Man or WSL started from nothing but the pole and knives.  They had an empty hand system as noted in #5 above.  So if the theory cannot be generalized further back than WSL, if the theory cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole, then it cannot be valid. Because both WSL and YM had a base empty hand method to start with!
> 
> You cannot argue that the other methods have diverged away from the original weapons-based approach, because you would have to prove that they started out with the empty hand tracking closely with the pole.  And that can't be proven.  Remember....we are going solely by observable facts here!!!!  Fact #3 above applies.
> 
> So the observable facts do not actually support the theory that Wing Chun empty hands (even WSLVT empty hands) derived entirely from the weapons.   Because for this theory to be true based upon observable facts, either WSL would have had to start without a empty hand base system, or ALL versions of Wing Chun would need to be observed to have that same version of LDBK and to have empty hand methods that tracked very closely with the pole!
> 
> Now I'm sure LFJ will have plenty of things to repeat over and over again.  But I challenge anyone to deny the logic that I have put forth above and tell me where it is wrong!  And simply stating "wrong" is not enough!
> 
> 
> 
> Now to continue to show how deriving interesting theories from limited observations can lead to fun stuff, I offer a new theory below that also takes into account the observable facts noted above!
> 
> This theory is that WSL learned this older version of LDBK from Ip Man or even someone else (it doesn't really matter).  He also learned the knives very thoroughly.  Based upon his in-depth knowledge of both the pole and the knives he set out to refine and adapt the empty hand VT he had learned from Ip Man.  This resulted in a version of VT very focused on the punch and on using each arm as if it was a "pole" to close in as quickly and directly as possible.  This theory explains why:
> 
> 1.  WSLVT is different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that are currently in existence.
> 2.  WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun
> 3.  None of Ip Man's other close long-term students do Wing Chun like WSL and have this same understanding of empty hand and pole methods.
> 
> All of this matches "observable facts"!!!


Regarding point #1, and this is important, the LDBK predates YMVT, not Wing Chun collectively. LFJ clearly stated he was speaking to YMVT only. This is important for a couple reasons.

1. It verifies Yip Man did not create his pole set. The HSHK 6 1/2 Point pole, as evidenced in the 1949 video, clearly shows the exact same form as in YMVT.

2. The principles, concepts & theory match YMVT empty hand method seamlessly.

How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.

This doesn't apply to mainland Wing Chun because they are clearly different in many aspects from YMVT. This by no means lends credence to the pole being the foundation of Wing Chun collectively, but to YMVT specifically. I see it as the pole being the constant that was the inspiration to consolidate and organize the methodology, theory & principles of YMVT into what it is today. 

LFJ is correct when he states that YMVT is unique in the world of Wing Chun. I perceive this to be due to the pole work, it makes sense. Now this is how I see it, LFJ may not agree & view it differently, in that case, others have a valid argument to the validity of the theory/claim. I don't want to speak for LFJ, so I'll let him validate my assumption or outright dismiss.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Regarding point #1, and this is important, the LDBK predates YMVT, not Wing Chun collectively. LFJ clearly stated he was speaking to YMVT only. This is important for a couple reasons.
> 
> 1. It verifies Yip Man did not create his pole set. The HSHK 6 1/2 Point pole, as evidenced in the 1949 video, clearly shows the exact same form as in YMVT.
> 
> 2. The principles, concepts & theory match YMVT empty hand method seamlessly.
> 
> How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.
> 
> This doesn't apply to mainland Wing Chun because they are clearly different in many aspects from YMVT. This by no means lends credence to the pole being the foundation of Wing Chun collectively, but to YMVT specifically. I see it as the pole being the constant that was the inspiration to consolidate and organize the methodology, theory & principles of YMVT into what it is today.
> 
> LFJ is correct when he states that YMVT is unique in the world of Wing Chun. I perceive this to be due to the pole work, it makes sense. Now this is how I see it, LFJ may not agree & view it differently, in that case, others have a valid argument to the validity of the theory/claim. I don't want to speak for LFJ, so I'll let him validate my assumption or outright dismiss.



But here is the issue.  The other YMVT lineages say that the dragon pole serves the empty hand.  It is not there to serve as a weapon, rather it severs the purpose of reinforcement of structure and the promotion of structural power due to its weight and length which provides resistance to all of the points on the body that are used to generate power. 

So it is equally plausible that the pole techniques included were chosen because it complimented the existing empty hand, which was seen as the focus of the art.  In short, correlation (that both mesh so seemlessly) does not = causation (pole came first).  Especially since regardless of the difference between Main Land and YMVT, the Main Land Style is the foundation for what YM taught.

Then you still have the hobgoblin of "weapons first" being the initial premise (the focus on the pole came after) where is the origin of the BJD method?

Regardless the question is still, at best when it comes to trying to argue "pole first" chicken and the egg because while WSLVT may say that, to my knowledge the remaining Ips and other first generation students don't say that but rather some form of what I noted above.  Those who study under one of the other sub-lineages can correct me if I am wrong however.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> But here is the issue.  The other YMVT lineages say that the dragon pole serves the empty hand.  It is not there to serve as a weapon, rather it severs the purpose of reinforcement of structure and the promotion of structural power due to its weight and length which provides resistance to all of the points on the body that are used to generate power.
> 
> So it is equally plausible that the pole techniques included were chosen because it complimented the existing empty hand, which was seen as the focus of the art.  In short, correlation (that both mesh so seemlessly) does not = causation (pole came first).  Especially since regardless of the difference between Main Land and YMVT, the Main Land Style is the foundation for what YM taught.
> 
> Then you still have the hobgoblin of "weapons first" being the initial premise (the focus on the pole came after) where is the origin of the BJD method?
> 
> Regardless the question is still, at best when it comes to trying to argue "pole first" chicken and the egg because while WSLVT may say that, to my knowledge the remaining Ips and other first generation students don't say that but rather some form of what I noted above.  Those who study under one of the other sub-lineages can correct me if I am wrong however.


We also have these facts:

1. The Dragon Pole is relatively new conceptually, the original LDBK was not the albatross it is today. Training was shifted to mimic Bagua Zhang training of heavy weaponry for purposes differing from the original intentions of the weapon.

2. Yip Man did not teach everyone the same, this has been proven. Many filled gaps to augment, misinterpretation of what was taught by him is plausible.

3. The theory does not extend to Wing Chun collectively, nor is it suggesting that the pole existed before Wing Chun empty hand as a collective. It merely suggests that the pole existed prior to the formulation of YMVT. 

That a Wing Chun empty hand method wasn't responsible for Yip Man's interpretation of Wing Chun but the pole actually was. The premise is that there are too many different interpretations of the empty hand method for this to be plausible. The pole method is consistent across various branches of Wing Chun and even different styles, like Hung Gar.

Does this make sense?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.
> 
> .



But you are (correctly) stating that Ip Man had a base empty hand method which he modified.  LFJ has said the empty hands derived entirely from the weapons and has discounted the idea of any base empty hand method existing.

The other problem is that Ip Man studying under Leung Bik/Fung Wah is not an "observable fact" and has not been established as true.  Oral histories are simply "fairytales" and should be discounted....remember? 

The third problem is that it would appear that Ip Man then taught this ONLY to WSL.  Which just seems implausible and smacks of William Cheung's past Leung Bik story.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> But you are (correctly) stating that Ip Man had a base empty hand method which he modified.  LFJ has said the empty hands derived entirely from the weapons.


If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved. This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work, which has been shown to have been passed on unmodified, unlike the hand method. Pole work has been a constant where as the hand work has not, hence, if this is the scenario, YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.

That being said, here is another question mark. If above said is true, then there is another issue. When the pole was taught to Wong Wa Bo, it's said he modified it to confirm with Wing Chun empty hand mechanics, principles, theory and methodology. Hence pole being modified to conform to hand. So back to chicken or egg.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> We also have these facts:
> 
> 1. The Dragon Pole is relatively new conceptually, the original LDBK was not the albatross it is today. Training was shifted to mimic Bagua Zhang training of heavy weaponry for purposes differing from the original intentions of the weapon.
> 
> 2. Yip Man did not teach everyone the same, this has been proven. Many filled gaps to augment, misinterpretation of what was taught by him is plausible.
> 
> 3. The theory does not extend to Wing Chun collectively, nor is it suggesting that the pole existed before Wing Chun empty hand as a collective. It merely suggests that the pole existed prior to the formulation of YMVT.
> 
> That a Wing Chun empty hand method wasn't responsible for Yip Man's interpretation of Wing Chun but the pole actually was. The premise is that there are too many different interpretations of the empty hand method for this to be plausible. The pole method is consistent across various branches of Wing Chun and even different styles, like Hung Gar.
> 
> Does this make sense?


So, in this line of logic, mainland WC essentially becomes the "proto-WC" that LFJ has been referring to? I hadn't considered that, though now that I think of it, there were posts early in the thread that would lead that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved. This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work, which has been shown to have been passed on unmodified, unlike the hand method. Pole work has been a constant where as the hand work has not, hence, if this is the scenario, YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.
> 
> That being said, here is another question mark. If above said is true, then there is another issue. When the pole was taught to Wong Wa Bo, it's said he modified it to confirm with Wing Chun mechanics, principles, theory and methodology. Hence pole being modified to conform to hand. So back to chicken or egg.


Okay, being new to the world of WC discussions, I'm getting lost in the names here. If Yip Man learned a new empty-hand method (as well as pole) from Leung Bik, would that still be WC (as recognized by WC folks at the time)? Or are we talking about an entirely different genesis that took on the WC name?


----------



## Nobody Important

I can't speak for others concerning the validity of oral legends. I take them with a grain of salt & if they offer plausible information I won't discount it as a fairy tale. I believe my assessment offers plausible reasoning as to how YMVT hand work is based upon the pole while still maintaining the integrity of older Wing Chun methods. It's the only scenario that makes sense to me and validates both arguments for and against the theory. How LFJ feels about this IDK, he may agree he may not, but with everything presented from both sides this is the conclusion I have come to & makes the most logical sense to me.


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> Okay, being new to the world of WC discussions, I'm getting lost in the names here. If Yip Man learned a new empty-hand method (as well as pole) from Leung Bik, would that still be WC (as recognized by WC folks at the time)? Or are we talking about an entirely different genesis that took on the WC name?


It would simply be one variation of the many that exist. Wing Chun is not standardized and many valid versions of it exist, each rooted in a prototypical ancestral method, yet each also has evolved to emphasize aspects unique from each other.

Some may say that YMVT is the only real Wing Chun while all others branches are in reality something different and being only linked via a long removed common ancestry.

I do not feel this way.

It's because of this reasoning we have all this discontent within Wing Chun.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> We also have these facts:
> 
> 1. The Dragon Pole is relatively new conceptually, the original LDBK was not the albatross it is today. Training was shifted to mimic Bagua Zhang training of heavy weaponry for purposes differing from the original intentions of the weapon.
> 
> 2. Yip Man did not teach everyone the same, this has been proven. Many filled gaps to augment, misinterpretation of what was taught by him is plausible.
> 
> 3. The theory does not extend to Wing Chun collectively, nor is it suggesting that the pole existed before Wing Chun empty hand as a collective. It merely suggests that the pole existed prior to the formulation of YMVT.
> 
> That a Wing Chun empty hand method wasn't responsible for Yip Man's interpretation of Wing Chun but the pole actually was. The premise is that there are too many different interpretations of the empty hand method for this to be plausible. The pole method is consistent across various branches of Wing Chun and even different styles, like Hung Gar.
> 
> Does this make sense?


Yes but I don't think that it says "weapons first." Admittedly I base it partly on this video I found, which you may have missed since you first came back...
An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong

So, apparently, WSL stated the following.  YM never intended on teaching.  He did what we all do, learned the art and then made it his own.  However on finding himself doing what he never planned, teaching, he had to remember and likely, when he could not remember, fill in gaps and then refining it all, a refinement he never stopped doing until he stopped teaching.

So if he first learned main land WC and YMVT is essentially a product of him having to reinvent his past, it is as likely, at least imo, that the reason why everything meshes so well is not that the pole came first, rather it was a natural consequence of the reinvention.  Our brains naturally like consistency and if we are doing what YM did it is at least equally possible that the meshing is a consequence of this reinvention.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Yes but I don't think that it says "weapons first." Admittedly I base it partly on this video I found, which you may have missed since you first came back...
> An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong
> 
> So, apparently, WSL stated the following.  YM never intended on teaching.  He did what we all do, learned the art and then made it his own.  However on finding himself doing what he never planned, teaching, he had to remember and likely, when he could not remember, fill in gaps and then refining it all, a refinement he never stopped doing until he stopped teaching.
> 
> So if he first learned main land WC and YMVT is essentially a product of him having to reinvent his past, it is as likely, at least imo, that the reason why everything meshes so well is not that the pole came first, rather it was a natural consequence of the reinvention.  Our brains naturally like consistency and if we are doing what YM did it is at least equally possible that the meshing is a consequence of this reinvention.


Not necessarily, I see your point but....

If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.

It doesn't have to do with weapons first. This I explained in my previous posts. The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands. This means that over the course of time the pole has been the only known verifiable method that retained the original principles, theory, mechanics & methodology of the empty hand style passed on by the opera performers.

Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles. The same cannot be said of the hand method, so it cannot be used to validate the original principles, mechanics, theory and methodology of Wing Chun collectively. The pole can.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> It would simply be one variation of the many that exist. Wing Chun is not standardized and many valid versions of it exist, each rooted in a prototypical ancestral method, yet each also has evolved to emphasize aspects unique from each other.
> 
> Some may say that YMVT is the only real Wing Chun while all others branches are in reality something different and being only linked via a long removed common ancestry.
> 
> I do not feel this way.
> 
> It's because of this reasoning we have all this discontent within Wing Chun.


Ah! That makes sense. So, correct me if I'm off on this - I'm not very familiar with CMA culture. It sounds like "Wing Chun" (and the linguistic variations) would actually be a related family of arts in the JMA world. They have some common roots, but aren't really all the same thing. Is that a fair understanding?


----------



## Nobody Important

Just for the record my views are based upon my own conclusions and are in no way a reflection on what LFJ may or may not believe. I formulated my opinion from my perspective as extrapolated from the discussion. What LFJ believes I will let him explain. Whether or not there is agreement I cannot say. My explanation is what I found to be the most logical scenario.


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> Ah! That makes sense. So, correct me if I'm off on this - I'm not very familiar with CMA culture. It sounds like "Wing Chun" (and the linguistic variations) would actually be a related family of arts in the JMA world. They have some common roots, but aren't really all the same thing. Is that a fair understanding?


Yes much like the relationship between Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Tang Soo Do & Tae Kwon Do. All have a common ancestor (Okinawa Te of Shuri region), yet were evolved via different influences such as jujitsu, taekyon etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> Yes much like the relationship between Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Tang Soo Do & Tae Kwon Do. All have a common ancestor (Okinawa Te of Shuri region), yet were evolved via different influences such as jujitsu, taekyon etc.


Thanks! That clears up a bit how I view these discussions.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Not necessarily, I see your point but....
> 
> If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.
> 
> It doesn't have to do with weapons first. This I explained in my previous posts. The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands. This means that over the course of time the pole has been the only known verifiable method that retained the original principles, theory, mechanics & methodology of the empty hand style passed on by the opera performers.
> 
> Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles. The same cannot be said of the hand method, so it cannot be used to validate the original principles, mechanics, theory and methodology of Wing Chun collectively. The pole can.



Okay I see that as a possibility, but then again at best, the art doesn't start with the pole or weapons, the pole is the test that allows you to say "this is still WC" because there is another reason why the pole may remain and the hand change.

History teacher incoming!!!!! 

Look at the time frames.  WC, where and when we can prove it historically existed was during a period when using a pole, even swords, was not really "a thing."  If you fought, without gunpowder, regularly you fought empty hand.  So does it not make sense people keep tweeking the empty hand portions, since that is what would be put in practice (even in Hong Kong Challenge fights) and the pole, which doesn't see real use remains static, but the changes in the empty hand still rotate around it to maintain consistency.  When evolution happens it is in regards to outside forces.  So if you don't fight, your art doesn't change.

Make sense?


----------



## Nobody Important

How I've come to my conclusion is based on the following factors:

1. Lam Guei Chung of HSHK style passed on the LDBK and is a verifiable source independent of main stream Wing Chun lineages. Since his method is exactly the same as found in YMVT, YKSWC & Kulo we can ascertain that the pole method is pure and unchanged, therefore a good representation of what theory, principles, mechanics & methodology were present in "original" Wing Chun.

2. Since the pole method can be verified as being passed on by separate systems and lineages predating and unconnected to Lam Guei Chung, we can surmise he did not develop it. Since he pre-date Yip Man it's safe to assume Yip Man did not develop it.

3. We know that the empty hand method varies greatly across various lineages so it cannot be used to verify what constitutes "original" Wing Chun. The pole remaining unchanged can lend credence to those "original" concepts.

4. The LDBK was based upon the 5th Brother pole method. Since they are not exactly the same, it is fair to assume that the LDBK method was altered.

5. Legend states that the empty hand method existed prior to introduction of the pole. We know it was passed on prior to the emergence of Lam Guei Chung, even he passed on a related empty hand method. Even though Lam Guei Chung is verified as knowing the pole method, this by no means disproves that the empty hand movement came first. Because, according to tradition, Wong Wa Bo upon learning 5th Brother pole from Leung Lan Kwai altered the pole to conform to the empty hand method. This cannot be discounted simply because it cannot be definitively proven, it also cannot be disproved.

6. That leaves us with the pole being the one constant of Wing Chun principles, mechanics, methodology & theory known to be passed on unaltered.

7. Since YMVT has a seamless interconnection with the pole, it's safe to assume that it was, at least re-engineered at some point, prior to Yip Man learning Wing Chun. It doesn't discount that Yip Man could be the one responsible for this, but if we are to believe the stories of him learning from Leung Bik (Fung Wah), it's plausible that he was actually taught this. This is based on his word that he studied under someone other than Chan Wah Shun that had a profound impact on his understanding of Wing Chun. This has also been verified by those that knew him and stated that his Wing Chun changed after learning from Leung Bik (Fung Wah).

8. Thus we can conclude the probability of YMVT empty hand being based upon the pole. Who is responsible for this is conjecture and doesn't discount the empty hand method existing prior to the emergence of the pole. If anything it strengthens the argument that the empty hand method did indeed exist prior to the pole based on verification of the pole not being formally documented until the 1940s. We know conclusively that the Wing Chun empty hand art art is older than the 1940s.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Okay I see that as a possibility, but then again at best, the art doesn't start with the pole or weapons


I never said it did, and yes, when testing the empty hand method evolution will occur, thus deviating from the "original" as innovations are instituted. Over time those innovations can replace the "original" methods resulting in "broken" methods (good god, I'm sounding like Guy & LFJ). This is were reverting back to the theory, mechanics, methodology and principles of the pole form can keep your Wing Chun honest. It appears to me this was instilled in YMVT as a stop check by either Yip Man himself or one of his teachers. This doesn't mean that the YMVT method is superior, just consistent. Can others say that their method of Wing Chun has maintained consistency equally through empty hands & weapons as they evolved? I see many that aren't, this doesn't mean I believe them to be ineffective or broken, just not consistent in methodology, mechanics, principle and theory throughout all their material.


----------



## KPM

*If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved. *

---Yes.  But nothing there says that Wing Chun developed entirely based upon the pole and knives.  Leung Jan, Fung Wah, they had an empty hand method as well.  Leung Jan learned from Wong Wah Bo.  Fung Wah learned from Leung Jan.  So then who would have created the empty hands entirely from the pole???  You are still stating the theory of the pole being an add on to the system and then the empty hands developing under that influence.  We don't know what Ip Man learned from Fung Wah.  There is no "observable fact" there to be used in our analysis.
*

This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work,*

---But configured by who?  There is no way to know.  So just speculation.  All we know as a fact is that WSLVT empty hand tracks closely with the pole.   No other version of Wing Chun does the same.  That is the "observable fact."   So, using Occams' Razor, the simplest explanation is that WSL is the one that "configured" the empty hands to match the pole as I stated previously.


* YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.*

----Based on the "observable facts", all we can really say is that WSLVT was based upon the pole.  Anything else is just speculation. 


*If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.*

---Except that the only student he produced to support this idea is Wong Shun Leung.  None of his other close long-term students seem to have this "cohesive and superior method based on the pole."  So if Ip Man was the one developing it over his teaching career, why would only one of his students have it?  Again, the simplest explanation based upon the "observable facts" that we have is that WSL was the one that developed this "cohesive and superior" version of VT that was based on the pole.  Given that NO other Wing Chun teacher taught this.  That is the only sensible conclusion based on the facts as we have them.

*
The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands*. 

---But now you are saying the pole was based on the empty hand!  What happened to the idea of that LDBK form being older than the empty hands??  That was logged as one of our "observable facts"!



*Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles.*

---But how is the pole going to identify "proto-Wing Chun"?  The only Wing Chun system that is consistent across the board with the pole is WSLVT.  That was another of our "identifiable facts."   No other system of Wing Chun correlates closely with the pole.  

---I'm not  trying to be argumentative.  I'm just resorting to exactly the same kind of reasoning that LFJ has been using.  We have to go only by the "observable facts" to reach our conclusions, otherwise we are just speculating.  Oral histories are just "fairytales."   And as I laid it out above, from the "observable facts" that we have, the most rational and simple conclusion is that it was Wong Shun Leung that refined and configured what he learned from Ip Man to match so closely with the pole method.   If there was ANY other system of Wing Chun that had the same LDBK form and also matched so closely in empty hands and weapons then we could broaden the conclusion somewhat.  But the fact is that no one knows of such a system other than WSLVT.   We can't attribute it to Ip Man himself, because we don't have a record of exactly what Ip Man taught or believed other than looking at his direct students.  And none of his direct students teach what WSL taught.   Therefore, based solidly on the "observable facts", the only real conclusion we can reach is that it originated with WSL himself!!!


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> *If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved. *
> 
> ---Yes.  But nothing there says that Wing Chun developed entirely based upon the pole and knives.  Leung Jan, Fung Wah, they had an empty hand method as well.  Leung Jan learned from Wong Wah Bo.  Fung Wah learned from Leung Jan.  So then who would have created the empty hands entirely from the pole???  You are still stating the theory of the pole being an add on to the system and then the empty hands developing under that influence.  We don't know what Ip Man learned from Fung Wah.  There is no "observable fact" there to be used in our analysis.
> *
> 
> This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work,*
> 
> ---But configured by who?  There is no way to know.  So just speculation.  All we know as a fact is that WSLVT empty hand tracks closely with the pole.   No other version of Wing Chun does the same.  That is the "observable fact."   So, using Occams' Razor, the simplest explanation is that WSL is the one that "configured" the empty hands to match the pole as I stated previously.
> 
> 
> * YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.*
> 
> ----Based on the "observable facts", all we can really say is that WSLVT was based upon the pole.  Anything else is just speculation.
> 
> 
> *If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.*
> 
> ---Except that the only student he produced to support this idea is Wong Shun Leung.  None of his other close long-term students seem to have this "cohesive and superior method based on the pole."  So if Ip Man was the one developing it over his teaching career, why would only one of his students have it?  Again, the simplest explanation based upon the "observable facts" that we have is that WSL was the one that developed this "cohesive and superior" version of VT that was based on the pole.  Given that NO other Wing Chun teacher taught this.  That is the only sensible conclusion based on the facts as we have them.
> 
> *
> The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands*.
> 
> ---But now you are saying the pole was based on the empty hand!  What happened to the idea of that LDBK form being older than the empty hands??  That was logged as one of our "observable facts"!
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles.*
> 
> ---But how is the pole going to identify "proto-Wing Chun"?  The only Wing Chun system that is consistent across the board with the pole is WSLVT.  That was another of our "identifiable facts."   No other system of Wing Chun correlates closely with the pole.
> 
> ---I'm not  trying to be argumentative.  I'm just resorting to exactly the same kind of reasoning that LFJ has been using.  We have to go only by the "observable facts" to reach our conclusions, otherwise we are just speculating.  Oral histories are just "fairytales."   And as I laid it out above, from the "observable facts" that we have, the most rational and simple conclusion is that it was Wong Shun Leung that refined and configured what he learned from Ip Man to match so closely with the pole method.   If there was ANY other system of Wing Chun that had the same LDBK form and also matched so closely in empty hands and weapons then we could broaden the conclusion somewhat.  But the fact is that no one knows of such a system other than WSLVT.   We can't attribute it to Ip Man himself, because we don't have a record of exactly what Ip Man taught or believed other than looking at his direct students.  And none of his direct students teach what WSL taught.   Therefore, based solidly on the "observable facts", the only real conclusion we can reach is that it originated with WSL himself!!!


I'm not basing my assessment on LFJs reasoning. Concerning the theory of YMVT being based on the pole, I have stated multiple times that the hands came first. That LDBK was based on 5th Brother pole, a method that predates Wing Chun. I have stated numerous times that the creation of LDBK was the result of distillation of the 5th Brother pole as based on Wing Chun hand movements. We also have to take into account that LFJ believes YMVT is a separate art loosely related to other Wing Chun styles by ancestry only, so the verdict isn't applicable to the Wing Chun community collectively. As I stated previously, some believe that the only true Wing Chun method is YMVT. See my response to gpseymour concerning Shotokan, Wado etc. for clarification. We have concluded that Yip Man did not create the pole form, so the methodology existed prior to him. It's true that its speculation as to who merged the two methods, it could be Yip Man, his teacher or Wong Shun Leung. But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic. Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen. Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole. To me it makes sense and personally I don't see the aversion to it, simply because other YM students don't agree with it. It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM. This doesn't mean that what they learned is illegitimate, it could simply mean what he taught most students came from Chan Wah Shun & he only taught a few what he learned from Leung Bik. It's not my lineage so I don't know, I'm just calling it as I see it from my perspective. To boil it all down it goes like this:

Hands  influence pole, pole influences hands.

I believe at some point someone thought this to be significant in keeping the "original" methods, principles, theory and mechanics of Wing Chun pure by incorporating a method into the art as a means to self regulate. In this case the pole was used because it has not been altered over time like the hands.

In a round about way it's a symbiotic relationship, hand - weapon, weapon - hand. Neither is mutually exclusive of the other. The weapon is nothing more than an extension of the hand. If we want to argue semantics, the real root of Wing Chun is the thought that led to its creation. An intangible idea given life to make it tangible. So the hands & weapons of Wing Chun were actually born of thought. So the brain of a Chinese man or woman long dead is actually what it's all based on


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> I never said it did, and yes, when testing the empty hand method evolution will occur, thus deviating from the "original" as innovations are instituted. Over time those innovations can replace the "original" methods resulting in "broken" methods (good god, I'm sounding like Guy & LFJ). This is were reverting back to the theory, mechanics, methodology and principles of the pole form can keep your Wing Chun honest. It appears to me this was instilled in YMVT as a stop check by either Yip Man himself or one of his teachers. This doesn't mean that the YMVT method is superior, just consistent. Can others say that their method of Wing Chun has maintained consistency equally through empty hands & weapons as they evolved? I see many that aren't, this doesn't mean I believe them to be ineffective or broken, just not consistent in methodology, mechanics, principle and theory throughout all their material.


I like the chain of logic in this analysis. Isn't it also possible that the "original" wasn't completely integrated with the pole form, and that integration is part of the evolution? Thus, the most integrated need not be the truest to the original - it may simply be the best evolution.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I never said it did, and yes, when testing the empty hand method evolution will occur, thus deviating from the "original" as innovations are instituted. Over time those innovations can replace the "original" methods resulting in "broken" methods (good god, I'm sounding like Guy & LFJ). This is were reverting back to the theory, mechanics, methodology and principles of the pole form can keep your Wing Chun honest. It appears to me this was instilled in YMVT as a stop check by either Yip Man himself or one of his teachers. This doesn't mean that the YMVT method is superior, just consistent. Can others say that their method of Wing Chun has maintained consistency equally through empty hands & weapons as they evolved? I see many that aren't, this doesn't mean I believe them to be ineffective or broken, just not consistent in methodology, mechanics, principle and theory throughout all their material.



My apologies for misinterpreting your stance then.  I will totally accept that via YM's reinvention the pole can be said to have become a "Pole Star" (no pun intended.) I am just trying to explain that a pivot point (which is ultimately what a pole star is) doesn't equal a point of origin.


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> I like the chain of logic in this analysis. Isn't it also possible that the "original" wasn't completely integrated with the pole form, and that integration is part of the evolution? Thus, the most integrated need not be the truest to the original - it may simply be the best evolution.


Absolutely! As I mentioned several pages back the LDBK pole does not contain all the theory, principles, mechanics or methods of Wing Chun. There are only those 7 salient points. Yet, because it has remained unchanged, we know that those 7 points came from the source of all Wing Chun and can be validated as original. Unfortunately, those points outside of the pole found in the hand method cannot be validated.

To me this isn't a big deal. I find the correlation a brilliant means to better understand and correct any contradictions from weapons to hand. So why not use it to better ones understanding and practice.

I would suggest if anyone has issue with the hypothesis that they take it up with LFJ. I'm am not speaking for him or defending his position. He could very well disagree with my conclusions. As previously stated I came to my opinion through deduction, logic, and assumption, to include, oral accounts and verified historical information. LFJ's interpretation could differ wildly and be contradictory, but from what I deduce I can't find good reason to dismiss my conclusion.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> My apologies for misinterpreting your stance then.  I will totally accept that via YM's reinvention the pole can be said to have become a "Pole Star" (no pun intended.) I am just trying to explain that a pivot point (which is ultimately what a pole star is) doesn't equal a point of origin.


No problem, I evaluated both sides of the argument in forming my opinion. There are holes as I pointed out several pages ago. If any one of those "what if" factors is validated it seriously changes the dynamic of the hypothesis.


----------



## KPM

* But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic.* 

---Oh, I agree!  A much more "satisfying" theory than LFJ's!  But filled with lots of speculation.  I don't see a problem with that, and I like your theory.  But if we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the evidence doesn't support it.  If we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the most rational conclusion is that WSL is the most likely source of WSLVT!  Wouldn't you agree?

*Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen. *

---Oh, it doesn't and I am certain LFJ will take issue with your theory and conclusions!  ;-)  

*Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole.*

---I've already pointed out the logic in WSLVT being based upon the pole.  Logic...again, based on the actual available evidence...cannot connect YM to the process because WSL is the only YM student in which the product is seen. 
*
 It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM. *

----No.  It is widely STATED that only 2 or 3 learned the entire system from YM, and actually certain people have concluded that on ONE person learned the entire system from YM.  But this is oral history and can be dismissed.  It has been stated, but not proven since we really don't know what Ip Man actually knew or what his Wing Chun really was like.  We can only go by what his direct students are teaching.  And since most of them are very similar, and WSLVT seems to be an outlier when looking at all students of Ip Man.....what is the next logical conclusion?  It can only be that WSL himself is the source of the differences we see between WSLVT and all other forms of Wing Chun, including other forms of Ip Man Wing Chun! 


*This doesn't mean that what they learned is illegitimate, it could simply mean what he taught most students came from Chan Wah Shun & he only taught a few what he learned from Leung Bik. *

---But we have no idea what he learned from Leung Bik/Fung Wah.   Again, good theory and I like it.  But if we leave out speculation and oral history and go only by what we can observe, I think there really is only one reasonable and valid conclusion.  Since there is no evidence to disprove that conclusion, and also no evidence to prove an alternate conclusion..........I will have to stubbornly and dogmatically stick to that conclusion just as LFJ has stuck to his!    I think it is really the only logical choice when you leave out any speculation or oral history.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> * But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic.*
> 
> ---Oh, I agree!  A much more "satisfying" theory than LFJ's!  But filled with lots of speculation.  I don't see a problem with that, and I like your theory.  But if we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the evidence doesn't support it.  If we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the most rational conclusion is that WSL is the most likely source of WSLVT!  Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> *Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen. *
> 
> ---Oh, it doesn't and I am certain LFJ will take issue with your theory and conclusions!  ;-)
> 
> *Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole.*
> 
> ---I've already pointed out the logic in WSLVT being based upon the pole.  Logic...again, based on the actual available evidence...cannot connect YM to the process because WSL is the only YM student in which the product is seen.
> *
> It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM. *
> 
> ----No.  It is widely STATED that only 2 or 3 learned the entire system from YM, and actually certain people have concluded that on ONE person learned the entire system from YM.  But this is oral history and can be dismissed.  It has been stated, but not proven since we really don't know what Ip Man actually knew or what his Wing Chun really was like.  We can only go by what his direct students are teaching.  And since most of them are very similar, and WSLVT seems to be an outlier when looking at all students of Ip Man.....what is the next logical conclusion?  It can only be that WSL himself is the source of the differences we see between WSLVT and all other forms of Wing Chun, including other forms of Ip Man Wing Chun!
> 
> 
> *This doesn't mean that what they learned is illegitimate, it could simply mean what he taught most students came from Chan Wah Shun & he only taught a few what he learned from Leung Bik. *
> 
> ---But we have no idea what he learned from Leung Bik/Fung Wah.   Again, good theory and I like it.  But if we leave out speculation and oral history and go only by what we can observe, I think there really is only one reasonable and valid conclusion.  Since there is no evidence to disprove that conclusion, and also no evidence to prove an alternate conclusion..........I will have to stubbornly and dogmatically stick to that conclusion just as LFJ has stuck to his!    I think it is really the only logical choice when you leave out any speculation or oral history.


Absolutely nothing from either side can definitively be verified, it's all speculation & conjecture. It's a matter of possibility & plausibility that led me to my assumptions. As I mentioned in my response to Juany there are holes, and if any of these holes is validated then the entire thing is turned upside down. For instance, if it could be proven than Lam Guei Chung or Lam Sai Wing were responsible for the choreography of their LDBK in Hung Gar, then many Wing Chun people have some serious explaining to do. There is also the matter of Choy Fung Loong who was a disciple of Wong Fei Hung (Hung Gar) & Chan Wah Shun (Wing Chun). He could be the source of the LDBK in Hung Gar or Wing Chun, if true, no matter how you spin it one side loses face and has to explain themselves. Innovations by Wong Shun Leung can't be ruled out, neither can those made by Yip Man, it all is contingent on whether or not you can believe what they say about their training. For this you cannot dismiss oral history that doesn't support your narrative. Possibility & plausibility is really all we have and anyone suggesting that this hypothesis of pole leading to development of hands can be substantiated credibly is misguided. I think I've laid out the best case scenario of plausibility that anyone can get to with the available information. Agree or disagree it is what it is, speculation & conjecture.

This has been a fun discussion, meaningless but fun.


----------



## Nobody Important

Here's an interesting tidbit to contemplate that lends credence to the empty hand method of a system transforming a weapon routine.

The Fu Mei Dan Do sword set. It's a famous set that has many alternate names and can be found in many different systems such as Northern Mantis, Hung Gar, Tibetan White Crane, Jow Gar etc. In each case the weapon has taken on the characteristics of the system it was absorbed into. This can be seen by searching on YouTube to see the differences.

I propose that if this overwriting  occurred during the formulation and codification of a system that it's quite possible for it to have become set in stone after alteration. So that if later emphasis was to be placed on empty hands and weapons neglected, the empty hands would evolve quicker than the weapon. Over time this would leave the weapon method holding the original essence of the system that transformed it while the hands became more specialized and the weapon left in a neglected state of update and inconsistent with the empty hand method. For someone wanting to recapture the essence of the empty hand system before it was altered, they would then only have to look to the weapon to see the divergence and eliminate any inconsistencies. In a sense, reverse engineering that would lend credence to the weapon forming the hands.

This wouldn't be all inclusive, but would be a valid starting point if there was a marked difference in consistency between the two and it was verified the the weapon was not altered when the hands were. Probability for this to occur is low but it is plausible.

There are stories of some empty hand Kata of Okinawa actually being based on weapons use, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu as well. The Lin Wan Kou Da San Sik of my lineage is practiced empty handed, with pole & knives without alteration in movement, so it is possible. This doesn't address what came first, weapon or hand, but through it we can see that each has the capability to influence the other. And this still doesn't clear up or validate YMVT being designed on pole work but it is an intriguing hypothesis into how it could have occurred if, in fact, true.

My head hurts now, lol, so I'll let someone else pontificate this conundrum.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Here's an interesting tidbit to contemplate that lends credence to the empty hand method of a system transforming a weapon routine.
> 
> The Fu Mei Dan Do sword set. It's a famous set that has many alternate names and can be found in many different systems such as Northern Mantis, Hung Gar, Tibetan White Crane, Jow Gar etc. In each case the weapon has taken on the characteristics of the system it was absorbed into. This can be seen by searching on YouTube to see the differences.
> 
> I propose that if this overwriting  occurred during the formulation and codification of a system that it's quite possible for it to have become set in stone after alteration. So that if later emphasis was to be placed on empty hands and weapons neglected, the empty hands would evolve quicker than the weapon. Over time this would leave the weapon method holding the original essence of the system that transformed it while the hands became more specialized and the weapon left in a neglected state of update and inconsistent with the empty hand method. For someone wanting to recapture the essence of the empty hand system before it was altered, they would then only have to look to the weapon to see the divergence and eliminate any inconsistencies. In a sense, reverse engineering that would lend credence to the weapon forming the hands.
> 
> This wouldn't be all inclusive, but would be a valid starting point if there was a marked difference in consistency between the two and it was verified the the weapon was not altered when the hands were. Probability for this to occur is low but it is plausible.
> 
> There are stories of some empty hand Kata of Okinawa actually being based on weapons use, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu as well. The Lin Wan Kou Da San Sik of my lineage is practiced empty handed, with pole & knives without alteration in movement, so it is possible. This doesn't address what came first, weapon or hand, but through it we can see that each has the capability to influence the other. And this still doesn't clear up or validate YMVT being designed on pole work but it is an intriguing hypothesis into how it could have occurred if, in fact, true.
> 
> My head hurts now, lol, so I'll let someone else pontificate this conundrum.



This kind of thought is what prompted my thread here...Am I missing historical research?

I will be honest, at heart I love history at least as much (if not more) than I love being a LEO. So the fact I see multiple people using reputable methods to dive into the origins of FMA but not CMA has me frustrated and makes my head hurt.  Perhaps only half as much as your's however since I study under both umbrellas and one of them has the serious scholarship happening.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> This kind of thought is what prompted my thread here...Am I missing historical research?
> 
> I will be honest, at heart I love history at least as much (if not more) than I love being a LEO. So the fact I see multiple people using reputable methods to dive into the origins of FMA but not CMA has me frustrated and makes my head hurt.  Perhaps only half as much as your's however since I study under both umbrellas and one of them has the serious scholarship happening.


Sometimes the best we can do is accept the most plausible scenario that supports our belief until something better and even more plausible comes along. Unfortunately, with most TCMA history this is the best we've got.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Sometimes the best we can do is accept the most plausible scenario that supports our belief until something better and even more plausible comes along. Unfortunately, with most TCMA history this is the best we've got.




The problem is, to my "android" brain (not my description, my wife's, yes she is a saint) when it comes to TCMA there is no single "more plausible" scenario.  There are at least two that are equally so.  So much can be boiled down to "chicken or the egg" like logic.  That both thrills and drives me nuts.  It thrills me because I love intelligent and informed debates.  It drives me nuts because my "android" nature is always in search of something resembling definitive conclusions.  Such is life I suppose.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> The problem is, to my "android" brain (not my description, my wife's, yes she is a saint) when it comes to TCMA there is no single "more plausible" scenario.  There are at least two that are equally so.  So much can be boiled down to "chicken or the egg" like logic.  That both thrills and drives me nuts.  It thrills me because I love intelligent and informed debates.  It drives me nuts because my "android" nature is always in search of something resembling definitive conclusions.  Such is life I suppose.


There are no absolutes in TCMA, young padawan. Absolutes are the way of the Sith.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> There are no absolutes in TCMA, young padawan. Absolutes are the way of the Sith.



Luckily I know that, so you don't have to cut my legs off and watch me slide into lava.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Luckily I know that, so you don't have to cut my legs off and watch me slide into lava.


I like to do stuff like that though. Why would you deny me that pleasure? Seems pretty selfish to deny a man something that makes him happy


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I like to do stuff like that though. Why would you deny me that pleasure? Seems pretty selfish to deny a man something that makes him happy



and you wanted to say "absolutes" were Sith like... oh brother


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> and you wanted to say "absolutes" were Sith like... oh brother


I never said I was perfect, lol!


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I never argued there should be a pre-existing base style. It could have been pre-existing, or a hybridization, or a couple of other options.



You have not demonstrated that it "could have" been anything. 

There are no discernible remnants of anything unrelated to the weapons in YMVT. 

Nothing to point to and suggest "could have" come from another source than the weapons, and no alternative source to point to as the "could have been" that we can investigate.



> Even if it were borrowed wholly from another style, there's a chance the style either ceased to exist, or has evolved on a different path. This makes it difficult to establish further evidence, but is not fatal.



This makes it entirely indistinguishable from there having been no preexisting base style other than the weapons. 

This is indeed fatal to the theory because there is nothing to even look into!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Oh now come on!  That's just being just plain stupid.



You've been pretty insulting lately. Something going on at work or home? Wanna talk about it?



> That's like saying the theory of evolution is invalid just because the common ancestor of apes and men is no longer around.



Nope. We share as much as 99% DNA with some.

We can't even point to _one_ system that functions similarly to YMVT.



> Those two observable facts do not establish and prove an entire theory for the origin of Wing Chun.  That is the bottom line here.



I never said the theory is proven. Please stop with this strawman!



> *I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?*
> 
> ---The above has been repeated over and over to you.  What is wrong that you can't understand that???



Yes. You have repeated the same strawman to me over and over. Please stop!



KPM said:


> And you don't have any evidence that other versions of Wing Chun track so well with the pole method or endorse this theory.  Therefore it cannot be viable as an origin theory for Wing Chun in general.



Again, please stop with the strawmen!


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Regarding point #1, and this is important, the LDBK predates YMVT, not Wing Chun collectively. LFJ clearly stated he was speaking to YMVT only. This is important for a couple reasons.
> 
> 1. It verifies Yip Man did not create his pole set. The HSHK 6 1/2 Point pole, as evidenced in the 1949 video, clearly shows the exact same form as in YMVT.
> 
> 2. The principles, concepts & theory match YMVT empty hand method seamlessly.
> 
> How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.
> 
> This doesn't apply to mainland Wing Chun because they are clearly different in many aspects from YMVT. This by no means lends credence to the pole being the foundation of Wing Chun collectively, but to YMVT specifically. I see it as the pole being the constant that was the inspiration to consolidate and organize the methodology, theory & principles of YMVT into what it is today.
> 
> LFJ is correct when he states that YMVT is unique in the world of Wing Chun. I perceive this to be due to the pole work, it makes sense. Now this is how I see it, LFJ may not agree & view it differently, in that case, others have a valid argument to the validity of the theory/claim. I don't want to speak for LFJ, so I'll let him validate my assumption or outright dismiss.



Thank you for being the only one honest enough to dismantle the goddamned strawman!



Nobody Important said:


> This means that over the course of time the pole has been the only known verifiable method that retained the original principles, theory, mechanics & methodology of the empty hand style passed on by the opera performers.



Correct. And YMVT is the only system to have a boxing method perfectly aligned with this.

Others systems have evolved in a different direction with their boxing methods, and are wholly irrelevant to YMVT.



> Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles. The same cannot be said of the hand method, so it cannot be used to validate the original principles, mechanics, theory and methodology of Wing Chun collectively. The pole can.



Correct. So, it is irrelevant to point out what other non-YM Wing Chun lineages are doing. Their boxing methods have taken a different path from what has come through YM.



Nobody Important said:


> I never said it did, and yes, when testing the empty hand method evolution will occur, thus deviating from the "original" as innovations are instituted. Over time those innovations can replace the "original" methods resulting in "broken" methods (good god, I'm sounding like Guy & LFJ). This is were reverting back to the theory, mechanics, methodology and principles of the pole form can keep your Wing Chun honest. It appears to me this was instilled in YMVT as a stop check by either Yip Man himself or one of his teachers. This doesn't mean that the YMVT method is superior, just consistent. Can others say that their method of Wing Chun has maintained consistency equally through empty hands & weapons as they evolved? I see many that aren't, this doesn't mean I believe them to be ineffective or broken, just not consistent in methodology, mechanics, principle and theory throughout all their material.



Exactly. If the weapon theory is used to guide the boxing method, it will easily remain intact because it is based on very simple tactical guidelines not at all difficult to adhere to. Violations or inconsistencies are immediately obvious.

On the other hand, if the weapon theory is not used to guide the boxing method, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction. This is what appears to have happened in other non-YM Wing Chun.

I have never said non-YM Wing Chun is broken. They have simply taken a different path and are at this point entirely different styles from YMVT, and therefore irrelevant to the origin theory of YMVT.

And I'll just take this opportunity to say here again, for the billionth time;
*
The theory applies only to YMVT, and I have not and will not make a truth claim for an origin story, because there is no recorded history to officially confirm it.*

(I should add this as my signature so it's on every post, since this friggen strawman is bound to be asserted again.)


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Thank you for being the only one honest enough to dismantle the goddamned strawman!
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. And YMVT is the only system to have a boxing method perfectly aligned with this.
> 
> Others systems have evolved in a different direction with their boxing methods, and are wholly irrelevant to YMVT.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. So, it is irrelevant to point out what other non-YM Wing Chun lineages are doing. Their boxing methods have taken a different path from what has come through YM.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If the weapon theory is used to guide the boxing method, it will easily remain intact because it is based on very simple tactical guidelines not at all difficult to adhere to. Violations or inconsistencies are immediately obvious.
> 
> On the other hand, if the weapon theory is not used to guide the boxing method, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction. This is what appears to have happened in other non-YM Wing Chun.
> 
> I have never said non-YM Wing Chun is broken. They have simply taken a different path and are at this point entirely different styles from YMVT, and therefore irrelevant to the origin theory of YMVT.
> 
> And I'll just take this opportunity to say here again, for the billionth time;
> *
> I have not and will not make a truth claim for an origin story, because there is no recorded history to officially confirm it.*
> 
> (I should add this as my signature so it's on every post, since this friggen strawman is bound to be asserted again.)


I hear ya, and completely understand, so we are in agreement. I've stated several times that this hypothesis doesn't encompass all of Wing Chun collectively. I have laid out possibilities as to how this could have occurred, all unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but plausible, so that everyone could see a path to how it could have came to be. I'm not saying that it was that way, nor am I trying to rewrite anything. Just a way of looking at it from a different perspective because I find it an intriguing concept. I find that it explains a lot where YMVT is concerned. Thank you for confirming.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I hear ya, and completely understand, so we are in agreement. I've stated several times that this hypothesis doesn't encompass all of Wing Chun collectively. I have laid out possibilities as to how this could have occurred, all unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but plausible, so that everyone could see a path to how it could have came to be. I'm not saying that it was that way, nor am I trying to rewrite anything. Just a way of looking at it from a different perspective because I find it an intriguing concept. I find that it explains a lot where YMVT is concerned.



I think the issue some we have here is that many of also see many things as "plausible", meaning "seeming reasonable" but one, maybe two, sees it as "truth."


----------



## LFJ

LFJ said:


> *The theory applies only to YMVT, and I have not and will not make a truth claim for an origin story, because there is no recorded history to officially confirm it.*
> 
> (I should add this as my signature so it's on every post, since this friggen strawman is bound to be asserted again.)





Juany118 said:


> I think the issue some will have here is that many of also see many things as "plausible", meaning "seeming reasonable" but *one, maybe two, sees it as "truth."*



And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold! 

What the actual hell is with these trolls?!


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I think the issue some will have here is that many of also see many things as "plausible", meaning "seeming reasonable" but one, maybe two, sees it as "truth."


Unfortunately true, but it has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with a need to justify a belief to support a narrative. All so that the walls don't crumble in around them. We are all guilty of erecting these barriers to one extent or another as a way of keeping things safe and comfortable.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold!
> 
> What the actual hell is with these trolls?!



The problem is you see WSLVT and YMVT as synonymous.  Forget me, but going back to page 1 people from other YM sub-lineages have called shenanigans as well.

If you replaced "YMVT" with "WSLVT" I would never have made the statement you so disagree with.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> The problem is you see WSLVT and YMVT as synonymous.



There is all the reason and history to believe so, and none not to.



> Forget me, but going back to page 1 people from other YM sub-lineages have called shenanigans as well.



They can call shenanigans all they want, but history and reason are not on their side.



> If you replaced "YMVT" with "WSLVT" I would never have made the statement you so disagree with.



It would still be a strawman because WSLVT goes through YM as the same system, but I have not claimed the origin theory to be historically proven.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> There is all the reason and history to believe so, and none not to.
> 
> 
> 
> They can call shenanigans all they want, but history and reason are not on their side.
> 
> 
> 
> It would still be a strawman because WSLVT goes through YM as the same system, but I have not claimed the origin theory to be historically proven.



As do both Ips left living and others.  Not counting me at least 2 students of sub- lineages, not WSL, have called shenanigans.  Also more than a couple YM first gen students still live... 

There in lies the problem.  You follow the path on one disciple, and not even directly.  I have no doubt that this is what you were taught and I respect it.  However thus far (not counting me) 2 other YM Lineages have called BS.  They just feel that once they have said their bit, no sense arguing with a brick wall.

So logic doesn't dictate what you were taught = YMVT.  The furthest you can go logically is your WSLVT as even GL only speaks of the pole as something that reinforces the empty hand.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> As do both Ips left living and others.



They didn't learn the whole system.



> Not counting me at least 2 students of sub- lineages, not WSL, have called shenanigans.



You practice a system Cheung made up.



> Also more than a couple YM first gen students still live...



Not that learned the full system.



> You follow the path on one disciple, and not even directly.



How do you know?



> So logic doesn't dictate what you were taught = YMVT.



Your faulty logic.



> The furthest you can go logically is your WSLVT as even GL only speaks of the pole as something that reinforces the empty hand.



It does reinforce the empty hand. That is not a conflicting message.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> I'm simply arguing the strength of evidence. I've pointed out that the evidence presented is no more supportive of one claim than another.



All assumptions introduce potential error and so a more complicated theory giving the same outcome is more likely to be wrong than a simpler theory. This is why simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones.


----------



## DALE80

geezer said:


> No, Dale, what KPM and GP Seymour propose is well supported by the admittedly limited evidence available.
> 
> *First point:* Both empty handed systems and pole systems with outward similarities to the WC/VT/WT hands and pole existed long before WC/VT/WT be historically documented (in the era of Leung Jan or the mid 19th century).
> 
> *Second point:* The oral tradition left by Grandmaster Yip Man and other greats of his generation all agree that the pole system was imported or added to the boxing system.
> 
> *Third point:* _Ex nihilo nihil fit. _Nothing springs into being from nothing. There is always a precursor. It is highly unlikely that a single or small group of skilled pole fighters sat down and decided to invent an empty-handed boxing system from scratch.
> 
> It is far more probable that one or more skilled martial artists with experience in _both_ weapons and southern short-bridge boxing realized that the core principles of their weapons, and especially the long pole correlated with the principles of some of the most effective empty handed strategy.
> 
> After all, we have all noted that other boxing systems often exhibit bits and pieces of WC/VT-like movement.  The precursors of WC/VT/WT no doubt had some of the seeds of later WC, and it's highly probable that the ancestors of modern WC/VT/WT made the same observations about the relationship of these very effective empty-hand strategies to the pole system. They sought to build upon this base thus initiating the evolutionary process that shaped the WC/VT/WT we practice today.
> 
> Only such an evolutionary model can fully explain the diversity of WC/VT/WT that currently exists. In short, the evolution of the martial arts including WC/VT/WT certainly follows the same process as the evolution of human culture, languages and so forth. It is never created out of a void ...even constructed languages like Esperanto draw heavily on known sources. There is always adaptation, borrowing, and in small isolated groups, random drift. And as a product of human culture, MAs follow the same rules. "Occam's razor" will lead you to the same conclusion.
> 
> I can further back this up from _personal experience_ as a practitioner of VT/WT and Latosa and DTE Escrima. Many years of practicing both arts has lead me to focus on common principles and strategies to the point that my empty hands and  my weapons technique are now almost entirely expressions of the same fighting principles and strategy. My personal VT and my personal Escrima are totally strategically consistent.
> 
> Perhaps the real problem here is that LFJ and his opposition (KPM, GPS. Juany, et.al.) mean something very different when they refer to _the VT system. _I believe that KPM, GPS. Juany, and certainly, yours truly, are referring to WC/VT/WT in the broad sense, including all of the Yip Man branches, as well as mainland branches tracing their roots back to Leung Jan.
> 
> _LFJ_ on the other hand seems to be _specifically_ referring to a particular group of WSL-VT folks, and _excluding_ other non WSL WC/VT groups and even some WSL practitioners (David Peterson).  In fact, LFJ has pretty much written off all the other WC/VT groups he has any knowledge of as _"broken" VT_, and essentially _not the same system _as what he practices.
> 
> OK then. If what he practices is _not _the same system as the systems the rest of us practice (total BS in my opinion) then, logically, we have _nothing_ to discuss.
> 
> BTW Dale, are you a WSL-VT practioner with a perspective like LFJ on the art?



Hi Geezer, all I can really see is that LFJ presents a simple theory which fits the facts and makes sense of the way YM VT works. As he himself says above, he isn't making a truth claim. On the basis of current facts available, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).

On the other side of the argument there appear to be a lot of people who will cling on to any alternative provided it means they don't have to agree with LFJ.

The later part of your post makes it clear that the reason lies in past forum events and that LFJ isn't very popular with you and others, for whatever reason. I can't really comment on that, but in this particular discussion LFJ's looks like the sane and correct view, while others look a bit unbalanced.

I do practise WSL VT in Australia.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> And you don't have any evidence that other versions of Wing Chun track so well with the pole method or endorse this theory. Therefore it cannot be viable as an origin theory for Wing Chun in general.



I don't think LFJ is proposing an origin theory for wing chun in general?



> And likewise there is not even any evidence that Ip Man believed or taught this theory. Or even that WSL taught it! For all we know they might have agreed with the rest of us that such close correlations exist between the pole and empty hand because the empty hand method continued to evolve (even in Ip Man's and Wong Shun Leung's time) with the weapons in mind.



We do know that WSL taught it. It is standard belief in WSL VT. 

We do know that not many people received YM's VT- a realistic estimate is 2 or 3 people. WSL would be one of these, HKM another. Many of the others have either a partial version or something they made up themselves. 

We do know that if a pre-existing empty hand method was modified to the pole and knives, then nothing exists of it today and so it is an idea that adds no new information, but a lot more complexity, i.e. we choose the simpler theory by Occams razor until we get to the truth.


----------



## LFJ

DALE80 said:


> On the other side of the argument there appear to be a lot of people who will cling on to any alternative provided it means they don't have to agree with LFJ.



The reason for the bias is clear.

Other YM lineages have 0 historical evidence to support _their interpretations_ of his boxing method as historically accurate or consistent with the only part across lines proven to be original to whatever proto-system VT/WC was at earliest verifiable inception, namely the pole.

Since WSLVT does, it doesn't look good for them at best, and invalidates them at worst. Hence the desperate resistance to the facts.

Standard disclaimer once again: evidence to support ≠ proof to confirm. I am not making a truth claim or discussing the history and evolution of non-YM lineages after the pole.


----------



## DALE80

Juany118 said:


> Look at the time frames. WC, where and when we can prove it historically existed was during a period when using a pole, even swords, was not really "a thing." If you fought, without gunpowder, regularly you fought empty hand. So does it not make sense people keep tweeking the empty hand portions, since that is what would be put in practice (even in Hong Kong Challenge fights) and the pole, which doesn't see real use remains static, but the changes in the empty hand still rotate around it to maintain consistency. When evolution happens it is in regards to outside forces. So if you don't fight, your art doesn't change.
> 
> Make sense?



Not really. I think you will find that pole and knives were commonly used during wartime in 19th C China.


----------



## DALE80

Nobody Important said:


> Unfortunately, those points outside of the pole found in the hand method cannot be validated.



Look in the knives.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> No. It is widely STATED that only 2 or 3 learned the entire system from YM, and actually certain people have concluded that on ONE person learned the entire system from YM. But this is oral history and can be dismissed. It has been stated, but not proven since we really don't know what Ip Man actually knew or what his Wing Chun really was like. We can only go by what his direct students are teaching. And since most of them are very similar, and WSLVT seems to be an outlier when looking at all students of Ip Man.....what is the next logical conclusion? It can only be that WSL himself is the source of the differences we see between WSLVT and all other forms of Wing Chun, including other forms of Ip Man Wing Chun!



Personal testimony involving actual persons is not the same as legend (things like red boat stories) and fairytale (things like origin stories).


----------



## KPM

*

There are no discernible remnants of anything unrelated to the weapons in YMVT. 

Nothing to point to and suggest "could have" come from another source than the weapons, and no alternative source to point to as the "could have been" that we can investigate.*

---Well, there is this very basic matter of body mechanics differing quite considerably between pole and empty hands.  How many times has that little fact been pointed out now???


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Look in the knives.



Dale, you never have introduced yourself and told us of your background.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Personal testimony involving actual persons is not the same as legend (things like red boat stories) and fairytale (things like origin stories).



Oh, it  certainly is when you get right down to it!  It isn't an "observable fact" any more than Ip Man's written history that was published in a HK magazine is!!!  If that can be discounted, then most certainly any "personal testimony" that does not have facts to  back it up can be discounted as just heresy!


----------



## KPM

*You've been pretty insulting lately. Something going on at work or home? Wanna talk about it?*

---Sorry.  Not trying to be insulting.  It is a fact that saying just because a "proto-Wing Chun" is not around to analyze after 100 or more years of evolution disproves that one existed is just plain stupid.  What's the old saying...."absence of proof is not proof of absence!"   Again, simple and basic logic.  To deny something like that is...well....just plain stupid!  


*
I never said the theory is proven. Please stop with this strawman!*

----Do you really want to go back and hunt down and quote the number of times you said "proves" on this thread?



*Yes. You have repeated the same strawman to me over and over. Please stop!*

---Very convenient to declare anything you don't like to be a "strawman" and simply ignore it!  


*
Again, please stop with the strawmen!*

---That one most certainly is NOT a "strawman"!   That one is  statement of  fact that you simply cannot dismiss and ignore!  You are simply running away from something that doesn't fit nicely with your theory!


----------



## KPM

*Thank you for being the only one honest enough to dismantle the goddamned strawman!*

---Profanity now!  Are you having a bad day?  Would you like to talk about it?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> I hear ya, and completely understand, so we are in agreement. I've stated several times that this hypothesis doesn't encompass all of Wing Chun collectively. I have laid out possibilities as to how this could have occurred, all unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but plausible, so that everyone could see a path to how it could have came to be. I'm not saying that it was that way, nor am I trying to rewrite anything. Just a way of looking at it from a different perspective because I find it an intriguing concept. I find that it explains a lot where YMVT is concerned. Thank you for confirming.



However, what you admitted earlier and LFJ has chosen to ignore is the part where you can't really pin down any time when the empty hand method would have been derived ENTIRELY from the pole.  Your analysis (very well done) still shows the empty hands developing under the influence of the pole, not originating from the pole as LJF believes.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold!
> 
> What the actual hell is with these trolls?!



 You say one thing, but in actual conversation you come across as if you believe something completely different.  This has been pointed out multiple times but evidently you just don't see it.  Why is that?


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> 7. Since YMVT has a seamless interconnection with the pole, it's safe to assume that it was, at least re-engineered at some point, prior to Yip Man learning Wing Chun. It doesn't discount that Yip Man could be the one responsible for this, but *if we are to believe the stories of him learning from Leung Bik (Fung Wah), it's plausible that he was actually taught this. This is based on his word that he studied under someone other than Chan Wah Shun that had a profound impact on his understanding of Wing Chun.* This has also been verified by those that knew him and stated that his Wing Chun changed after learning from Leung Bik (Fung Wah)



Nice post N.I.!
And, if YM knew/learned two different versions of WC...maybe he wanted to reserve the refinements for his select few(?). I.E. maybe he didn't really care about the majority...and only taught the refinements to 2 or 3 of his most dedicated...so that they could also experience this profound impact with their understanding of the art. ? 
If some or all of the 'profound impactful' knowledge is contained in the weapons...and the weapons were only taught the the 2 or 3.....


----------



## wckf92

DALE80 said:


> Look in the knives.



Dale80...can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Thx.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> There is all the reason and history to believe so, and none not to.



Now, going by the "observable facts" alone and discounting any kind of "oral history" (as you have been doing in this thread)......the facts are that Ip Man had multiple close long-time students.  Most of them were doing very similar things, except WSL.  You yourself have described to us multiple times on multiple threads how WSLVT differs so much from every other version of Ip Man Wing Chun.  Since we don't have extensive footage of Ip Man himself to watch to really figure out what his personal Wing Chun was like, all we can do is compare what his direct long-time students teach.  If WSLVT is the outlier, then the logical conclusion is that WSLVT represents changes and innovations that WSL himself made and is not representative of what Ip Man taught.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Well, there is this very basic matter of body mechanics differing quite considerably between pole and empty hands.  How many times has that little fact been pointed out now???



VT is a concept-based system. Do you really think we'd run around sideways as if we were holding a pole in our hands if we aren't? Talk about stupid!



KPM said:


> It is a fact that saying just because a "proto-Wing Chun" is not around to analyze after 100 or more years of evolution disproves that one existed is just plain stupid.



Did I say disproves? Your strawman is stupid! I bet he wishes he had a brain!



> ----Do you really want to go back and hunt down and quote the number of times you said "proves" on this thread?



Proves facts that you conceded. Do you want to hunt down and quote the number of times I have said I'm not making a truth claim with my conclusion, while you're at it?



> ---Very convenient to declare anything you don't like to be a "strawman" and simply ignore it!



It's inconvenient actually, because we aren't having an honest discussion when you keep bringing up a blatant strawman!



> ---That one most certainly is NOT a "strawman"!   That one is  statement of  fact that you simply cannot dismiss and ignore!  You are simply running away from something that doesn't fit nicely with your theory!



That one most definitely is a strawman, because my theory and conclusion has NOTHING to do with non-YM Wing Chun. I have not made any claim about the origin or evolution of Wing Chun in general. They are entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.



KPM said:


> You say one thing, but in actual conversation you come across as if you believe something completely different.  This has been pointed out multiple times but evidently you just don't see it.  Why is that?



"Come across"? You can't honestly say I come across some way if I categorically deny it at every turn, in about every post now for pages!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> They didn't learn the whole system.
> 
> 
> .



Now THAT is just as much a "strawman argument" as any that you have pointed out!!!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> All assumptions introduce potential error and so a more complicated theory giving the same outcome is more likely to be wrong than a simpler theory. This is why simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones.



I agree completely!  And the theory that I provided is the simplest one so far!


----------



## KPM

*, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).*

----No, my theory was the simplest and fit the "observable facts" the best.   Did you see Post #302?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Now, going by the "observable facts" alone and discounting any kind of "oral history" (as you have been doing in this thread)......the facts are that Ip Man had multiple close long-time students.  Most of them were doing very similar things, except WSL.  You yourself have described to us multiple times on multiple threads how WSLVT differs so much from every other version of Ip Man Wing Chun.  Since we don't have extensive footage of Ip Man himself to watch to really figure out what his personal Wing Chun was like, all we can do is compare what his direct long-time students teach.  If WSLVT is the outlier, then the logical conclusion is that WSLVT represents changes and innovations that WSL himself made and is not representative of what Ip Man taught.



I have outlined pretty clearly why you are most probably entirely wrong about YMVT lineages in this post. You never did respond to those points.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Now THAT is just as much a "strawman argument" as any that you have pointed out!!!



I see your problem is you don't even know the definition of a strawman fallacy!



KPM said:


> *, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).*
> 
> ----No, my theory was the simplest and fit the "observable facts" the best.   Did you see Post #302?



Your post #302 talks about my theory needing to be able to be generalized to all Wing Chun.

That is entirely false because other lineages have diverged since the pole over 100 years ago, rendering your whole argument invalid. 

Non-YM lineages are entirely irrelevant to the history and development of YMVT.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Personal testimony involving actual persons is not the same as legend (things like red boat stories) and fairytale (things like origin stories).



If Ip Man's own narrative and written history published in a HK magazine can be discounted as "fairytale", then personal testimony should also be invalid.  Memories are faulty.  People often exaggerate things or say things that are untrue in order to save face or follow their own agendas.  People are often repeating something second hand that was told to them that they don't really know first hand to be true.  Sooo....you can't have it both ways if we are going to be perfectly rational here!!!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I have outlined pretty clearly why you are most probably entirely wrong about YMVT lineages in this post. You never did respond to those points.



That is all irrelevant.  We are judging by a different set of standards now!  Remember?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If Ip Man's own narrative and written history published in a HK magazine can be discounted as "fairytale", then personal testimony should also be invalid.  Memories are faulty.  People often exaggerate things or say things that are untrue in order to save face or follow their own agendas.  People are often repeating something second hand that was told to them that they don't really know first hand to be true.  Sooo....you can't have it both ways if we are going to be perfectly rational here!!!



We don't have an origin story, whether legend or fairytale.

What we have is a likely conclusion based on technical analysis of the system checked and supported by those proven facts you might remember having conceded.



KPM said:


> That is all irrelevant.  We are judging by a different set of standards now!  Remember?



Observable facts. Very relevant.


----------



## KPM

*VT is a concept-based system. Do you really think we'd run around sideways as if we were holding a pole in our hands if we aren't? Talk about stupid!*

---If the empty hands were based entirely on the pole, shouldn't we be taking a "side on" stance with one arm extended out in front very much like the old school boxers?   Where in the pole does anyone stand relatively upright and pivot on their heels?  Where in the pole is anything resembling the relatively complex system of Chi Sau that is found in the empty hands?  Where in the pole does a person use 2 arms at the same time doing two very different motions?  There are definitely similarities between Wing Chun empty hands and Fukien White Crane....even if just superficial.  If Wing Chun developed on a purely conceptual basis then there shouldn't be even superficial resemblences to other TCMAs, and there should be more resemblence to old school boxing!  Old school boxing developed based upon western swordsmanship....standing "side on", holding a weapon straight out in front on the centerline....just like the pole!  So, not so stupid!  I am not making comments that completely contradict simple reasoning....like saying that because there is no "proto-Wing Chun still around after over 100 years of evolution that is could not have existed!  




*That one most definitely is a strawman, because my theory and conclusion has NOTHING to do with non-YM Wing Chun. I have not made any claim about the origin or evolution of Wing Chun in general. They are entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.*

----So, do you believe that Ip Man Wing Chun developed completely separately from non-YM Wing Chun?  You believe that Ip Man completely threw away what he had learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and started from scratch and created his Wing Chun entirely from the pole?  Ip Man was able to completely and totally put out of mind his years of previously training in a "non-YM Wing Chun" and start totally from scratch?  Really???



*"Come across"? You can't honestly say I come across some way if I categorically deny it at every turn, in about every post now for pages!*

---For the last couple pages maybe.  That wasn't the case earlier in this discussion!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I see your problem is you don't even know the definition of a strawman fallacy!
> 
> 
> 
> Your post #302 talks about my theory needing to be able to be generalized to all Wing Chun.
> 
> That is entirely false because other lineages have diverged since the pole over 100 years ago, rendering your whole argument invalid.
> 
> Non-YM lineages are entirely irrelevant to the history and development of YMVT.



So you are choosing to completely ignore my theory that WSL himself is the source of the correlations between pole and empty hand?  Why is that?  THAT is the theory that fits the "observable facts" the best!  THAT is the theory that is the simplest according to "occam's razor"!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> We don't have an origin story, whether legend or fairytale.
> 
> What we have is a likely conclusion based on technical analysis of the system checked and supported by those proven facts you might remember having conceded.



Agreed!  And if we adhere to those standards that you have set forth, the best theory that fits the "observable facts" is that WSL himself is responsible for what you are seeing in WSLVT, just as I summarized on post #302!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---If the empty hands were based entirely on the pole,



It's not. There are knives.



> shouldn't we be taking a "side on" stance with one arm extended out in front very much like the old school boxers?



Concept-based!

The tactical guidelines are translated into boxing. We don't need to stand sideways and pretend to be holding a pole! That's retarded.



> Where in the pole is anything resembling the relatively complex system of Chi Sau that is found in the empty hands?



I've explained how the concepts transfer to DCS. SCS just adds _bong-sau _with the other arm at the same time which is also part of the weapons.



> Where in the pole does a person use 2 arms at the same time doing two very different motions?



Knives do. And we're talking about a concept-based method here. It is incredibly stupid to act like we're holding a pole when we're not!

We have 2 free "poles" when empty handed. Why the hell would we not use them?



> There are definitely similarities between Wing Chun empty hands and Fukien White Crane....even if just superficial.



Maybe other lineages. Not YMVT.



> ----So, do you believe that Ip Man Wing Chun developed completely separately from non-YM Wing Chun?



As much is obvious from some point forward, given that they have evolved to be vastly different.

You have stated LJ didn't teach weapons, at least knives, to some people. In YMVT and other lineages that route through him, he did.

That could certainly be one starting point of divergence.



> You believe that Ip Man completely threw away what he had learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and started from scratch and created his Wing Chun entirely from the pole?



No.



> Ip Man was able to completely and totally put out of mind his years of previously training in a "non-YM Wing Chun" and start totally from scratch?  Really???



No.



> ---For the last couple pages maybe.  That wasn't the case earlier in this discussion!



I didn't have to start repeating myself until the strawman kept getting put back up! It was denied every single time.



KPM said:


> So you are choosing to completely ignore my theory that WSL himself is the source of the correlations between pole and empty hand?  Why is that?  THAT is the theory that fits the "observable facts" the best!  THAT is the theory that is the simplest according to "occam's razor"!



That is the stupidest theory that reason and history speak loudly against.


----------



## KPM

*As much is obvious from some point forward, given that they have evolved to be vastly different.

You have stated LJ didn't teach weapons, at least knives, to some people. In YMVT and other lineages that route through him, he did.

That could certainly be one starting point of divergence.*

----Now you are being confusing again!  You believe that your theory applies only to YMVT and not to non-YM Wing Chun.  Yet you don't believe that it was Ip Man himself that derived the empty hand methods entirely from the weapons.  And yet it couldnt' have been Chan Wah Shun or Ng Chung So either?   So who was it?  If it goes further back than Ip Man, then how could the theory NOT apply to non-YM Wing Chun?



*That is the stupidest theory that reason and history speak loudly against.*

---I invite you to point out any flaws in my logic.  And remember, I was simply applying your standards!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Now you are being confusing again!  You believe that your theory applies only to YMVT and not to non-YM Wing Chun.  Yet you don't believe that it was Ip Man himself that derived the empty hand methods entirely from the weapons.  And yet it couldnt' have been Chan Wah Shun or Ng Chung So either?   So who was it?  If it goes further back than Ip Man, then how could the theory NOT apply to non-YM Wing Chun?



LJ taught some the weapons and not others.

Just like YM is known to have done.

It is likely the same happened at every generation through history. Very few received it.

Obviously without the weapon theory taught, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction.

Even when the weapons are taught, the connection to the empty hands that has come down through YM could have not been taught, also allowing the boxing method to freely evolve.

Nothing difficult to follow here. Other lineages could have diverged at any time. What we know for sure is that they certainly did!



> ---I invite you to point out any flaws in my logic.



Here



> And remember, I was simply applying your standards!



My standards involve honesty. That is a difficult area for you.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Oh, it  certainly is when you get right down to it!  It isn't an "observable fact" any more than Ip Man's written history that was published in a HK magazine is!!!  If that can be discounted, then most certainly any "personal testimony" that does not have facts to  back it up can be discounted as just heresy!



I don't agree. If you can't tell the difference between the repetition of legends and things actual people actually said about actual events then that's not something I am going to follow you in doing.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Dale, you never have introduced yourself and told us of your background.



Please see my reply to Geezer above.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> *
> There are no discernible remnants of anything unrelated to the weapons in YMVT.
> 
> Nothing to point to and suggest "could have" come from another source than the weapons, and no alternative source to point to as the "could have been" that we can investigate.*
> 
> ---Well, there is this very basic matter of body mechanics differing quite considerably between pole and empty hands.  How many times has that little fact been pointed out now???



The important part of the body mechanic is exactly the same in pole and empty hands.


----------



## DALE80

wckf92 said:


> Dale80...can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Thx.



Certain tactical guidelines applying to the empty hands come from the knives


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Now, going by the "observable facts" alone and discounting any kind of "oral history" (as you have been doing in this thread)......the facts are that Ip Man had multiple close long-time students. Most of them were doing very similar things, except WSL.



This is not what LFJ has been doing on the thread. He has been discounting both legend and fairlytale, but not things that actual people actually said. You seem to be taking a deliberately dishonest approach to the discussion for some reason?


----------



## LFJ

DALE80 said:


> You seem to be taking a deliberately dishonest approach to the discussion for some reason?



Frustrating when people are repeatedly telling blatant lies during a discussion.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> *, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).*
> 
> ----No, my theory was the simplest and fit the "observable facts" the best.   Did you see Post #302?



Your theory seems just to be trolling because you have some personal issue with LFJ. As an impartial observer I would prefer to read the thread if biased people like yourself would not post. Nobody Important is a good example of someone who disagrees with some things that LFJ has said, but who doesn't troll. That kind of person makes for good readable discuassion whereas your contributions tend to be mostly noise on this thread. Please don't ruin the discussion any more than you have already.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> If Ip Man's own narrative and written history published in a HK magazine can be discounted



YM repeating legends can be discounted as legend the same way that other legend can be discounted as legend. Same goes for anyone including WSL.



> personal testimony should also be invalid.



No, not the same at all. Please realise that if you keep on saying silly things I will block your comment from my account. You are just cluttering up the discussion with nonsense at this point. I don't have time to respond to this kind of thing.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> -If the empty hands were based entirely on the pole, shouldn't we be taking a "side on" stance with one arm extended out in front



Only if we were idiots



KPM said:


> Where in the pole does anyone stand relatively upright and pivot on their heels? Where in the pole is anything resembling the relatively complex system of Chi Sau that is found in the empty hands? Where in the pole does a person use 2 arms at the same time doing two very different motions?



VT empty hands is a synthesis of pole and knife ideas



KPM said:


> There are definitely similarities between Wing Chun empty hands and Fukien White Crane....even if just superficial.



No there are not. Are you being even slightly serious?



KPM said:


> If Wing Chun developed on a purely conceptual basis then there shouldn't be even superficial resemblences to other TCMAs, and there should be more resemblence to old school boxing! Old school boxing developed based upon western swordsmanship....standing "side on", holding a weapon straight out in front on the centerline....just like the pole! So, not so stupid! I am not making comments that completely contradict simple reasoning....like saying that because there is no "proto-Wing Chun still around after over 100 years of evolution that is could not have existed!



Haha. Wow, poor LFJ having to deal with this. 



KPM said:


> So, do you believe that Ip Man Wing Chun developed completely separately from non-YM Wing Chun? You believe that Ip Man completely threw away what he had learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and started from scratch and created his Wing Chun entirely from the pole? Ip Man was able to completely and totally put out of mind his years of previously training in a "non-YM Wing Chun" and start totally from scratch? Really???



Well, I have managed to put aside previous wing chun I learned. I am sure that YM could have managed!


----------



## KPM

*LJ taught some the weapons and not others.  Just like YM is known to have done.

It is likely the same happened at every generation through history. Very few received it.

Obviously without the weapon theory taught, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction.*

---Yes.  But your theory then relies on there being that "proto-Wing Chun" version that was based entirely upon the weapons with no prior empty hand method involved.  There is not evidence for its existence any more than there is evidence for a "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method that  was then influenced by and evolved when the weapons were included as add ons.  You can't have it both ways!  Either both theories are equally valid in this respect or neither theory is valid in this respect!  Which is it? 

---And if this "proto-Wing Chun" that was derived entirely from the weapons DID exist, we would expect to find other systems than WSLVT that track so closely with pole and empty hand.  But we don't.  Not even amongst Ip Man's other students!   So there is no evidence to support the existence of your version of a "proto-Wing Chun" than there is to support the existence of the other version!


Here

---Not acceptable.  If you are serious about this discussion, then show me where my logic is wrong from my post outlining my new theory above.

*My standards involve honesty. That is a difficult area for you.*

---I am being VERY honest now and simply discarding everything other than the "observable facts" as YOU suggested!   And that line of reasoning leads directly to WSL!  You are the one being dishonest by not acknowleding that.  Just as you have been dishonest by not acknowledging the point that multiple people have made so far in this thread that the theory that Wing Chun empty hands evolved under the influence of the weapons as an add on is just as valid as the theory that they empty hands derived entirely from the pole!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> I don't agree. If you can't tell the difference between the repetition of legends and things actual people actually said about actual events then that's not something I am going to follow you in doing.



Sorry.   You can't have it both ways!  If the written history of Wing Chun that Ip Man himself provided for a magazine article to be published for all posterity can be completely dismissed, then certainly any "personal testimony" given decades after said events should be discounted.  We are going only by "observable facts", remember??


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Please see my reply to Geezer above.



You said only that you are from Australia.  That isn't much.  Are you being evasive on purpose?


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> The important part of the body mechanic is exactly the same in pole and empty hands.



I disagree.  I think most people looking at the pole and empty hands would disagree.  The body mechanics are completely different.  That should be obvious to anyone with a brain!  The stances are different.  The method of power generation is different.  The range is different.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Frustrating when people are repeatedly telling blatant lies during a discussion.



Frustrating when people ignore other people's valid points or just dismiss them as a "strawman."  Frustrating when someone sticks so dogmatically to their believe and will not acknowledge the possiblity that an alternative belief could also be true.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> * But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic.*
> 
> ---Oh, I agree!  A much more "satisfying" theory than LFJ's!  But filled with lots of speculation.  I don't see a problem with that, and I like your theory.  But if we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the evidence doesn't support it.  If we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the most rational conclusion is that WSL is the most likely source of WSLVT!  Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> *Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen. *
> 
> ---Oh, it doesn't and I am certain LFJ will take issue with your theory and conclusions!  ;-)
> 
> *Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole.*
> 
> ---I've already pointed out the logic in WSLVT being based upon the pole.  Logic...again, based on the actual available evidence...cannot connect YM to the process because WSL is the only YM student in which the product is seen.
> *
> It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM. *
> 
> ----No.  It is widely STATED that only 2 or 3 learned the entire system from YM, and actually certain people have concluded that on ONE person learned the entire system from YM.  But this is oral history and can be dismissed.  It has been stated, but not proven since we really don't know what Ip Man actually knew or what his Wing Chun really was like.  We can only go by what his direct students are teaching.  And since most of them are very similar, and WSLVT seems to be an outlier when looking at all students of Ip Man.....what is the next logical conclusion?  It can only be that WSL himself is the source of the differences we see between WSLVT and all other forms of Wing Chun, including other forms of Ip Man Wing Chun!
> 
> 
> *This doesn't mean that what they learned is illegitimate, it could simply mean what he taught most students came from Chan Wah Shun & he only taught a few what he learned from Leung Bik. *
> 
> ---But we have no idea what he learned from Leung Bik/Fung Wah.   Again, good theory and I like it.  But if we leave out speculation and oral history and go only by what we can observe, I think there really is only one reasonable and valid conclusion.  Since there is no evidence to disprove that conclusion, and also no evidence to prove an alternate conclusion..........I will have to stubbornly and dogmatically stick to that conclusion just as LFJ has stuck to his!    I think it is really the only logical choice when you leave out any speculation or oral history.


Just one quick point on this. Just as I pointed out to LFJ about his conclusions, your conclusion here is not foregone. It seems most likely that WSL is the source of the differences. However, a couple of other possibilities exist that are not excluded by what's in evidence. One is that, indeed, WSL is the only student who learned YM's complete system (I don't know the timeline of WSL's involvement, but I'm imagining it being late enough that YM may have evolved to what would be his "most complete" system by that time). Another is that YM actually taught very different approaches at different periods of his life - each being a complete system, but different in significant ways and later differentiated even more by the interpretation of each student (this would be similar to what we can see in the branches of Ueshiba's Aikido). There are probably other possible explanations I've not thought of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> This has been a fun discussion, meaningless but fun.


I agree to both parts of this.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Your theory seems just to be trolling because you have some personal issue with LFJ. As an impartial observer I would prefer to read the thread if biased people like yourself would not post. Nobody Important is a good example of someone who disagrees with some things that LFJ has said, but who doesn't troll. That kind of person makes for good readable discuassion whereas your contributions tend to be mostly noise on this thread. Please don't ruin the discussion any more than you have already.



Now look.  This discussion started out perfectly reasonable.  LFJ presented his theory.  Multiple other people pointed out another theory that was equally as valid.  LFJ refused to acknowledge that, discounted most of what everyone else had to say as being speculation and based upon fairytales or as "strawman".  He stuck very dogmatically to his theory and refused to acknowledge that there was another line of thinking that could be just as valid.  So I have simply decided to use his own strategy in continuing this discussion.  I am also discounting anything other than the "observable facts", just as LFJ has done.  When you do that, then the reasoning process based upon what is left leads directly back to WSL.  That isn't trolling.  That is simply using LFJ's own approach to this discussion.  I will stick dogmatically and stubbornly to my theory just as LFJ has stuck to his until he is willing to acknowledge that there is a very real possibilty that an early version of Wing Chun developed and evolved AFTER weapons were included as an add on.  That's not  trolling.  That is simply playing by LFJ's own rules!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> YM repeating legends can be discounted as legend the same way that other legend can be discounted as legend. Same goes for anyone including WSL.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not the same at all. Please realise that if you keep on saying silly things I will block your comment from my account. You are just cluttering up the discussion with nonsense at this point. I don't have time to respond to this kind of thing.



My point has been and will remain....if you are going to dismiss over 100 years of oral history from multiple lineages....if you are going to dismiss Ip Man's own written account of Wing Chun history.....then including heresy from people that weren't actually there when the events were happening is equally valid!  If you are going to dismiss oral history that is 100 years old, why not dismiss oral history that is 20 or 30 years old???  Block me if you want.  I don't care.  I don't know anything about you because you have neglected to introduce yourself after being asked several times now.  Why is that?


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> Just one quick point on this. Just as I pointed out to LFJ about his conclusions, your conclusion here is not foregone. It seems most likely that WSL is the source of the differences. However, a couple of other possibilities exist that are not excluded by what's in evidence. One is that, indeed, WSL is the only student who learned YM's complete system (I don't know the timeline of WSL's involvement, but I'm imagining it being late enough that YM may have evolved to what would be his "most complete" system by that time). Another is that YM actually taught very different approaches at different periods of his life - each being a complete system, but different in significant ways and later differentiated even more by the interpretation of each student (this would be similar to what we can see in the branches of Ueshiba's Aikido). There are probably other possible explanations I've not thought of.



Oh no, I freely admit that there are other possibilities!  But if we want to dogmatically stick to just the "observable facts", then the only conclusion we can reach with any real confidence is that WSL must have come up with it himself!  Now, if you are willing to start taking into account oral histories and "speculation" then all kinds of alternate theories are possible!  But that is not part of LFJ's approach to theory development!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Yes.  But your theory then relies on there being that "proto-Wing Chun" version that was based entirely upon the weapons with no prior empty hand method involved.  There is not evidence for its existence any more than there is evidence for a "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method that  was then influenced by and evolved when the weapons were included as add ons.  You can't have it both ways!  Either both theories are equally valid in this respect or neither theory is valid in this respect!  Which is it?



Already covered. These two theories are not on equal ground because the latter introduces an unknown and unestablished variable equivalent to saying "aliens did it".



> ---And if this "proto-Wing Chun" that was derived entirely from the weapons DID exist, we would expect to find other systems than WSLVT that track so closely with pole and empty hand.



That's not necessary.



> Here
> 
> ---Not acceptable.  If you are serious about this discussion, then show me where my logic is wrong from my post outlining my new theory above.



It's in that post. You have dodged the points repeatedly.



> you have been dishonest by not acknowledging the point that multiple people have made so far in this thread that the theory that Wing Chun empty hands evolved under the influence of the weapons as an add on is just as valid as the theory that they empty hands derived entirely from the pole!



I acknowledge that theory has been posited, but it is indistinguishable from "aliens did it".



KPM said:


> Sorry.   You can't have it both ways!  If the written history of Wing Chun that Ip Man himself provided for a magazine article to be published for all posterity can be completely dismissed, then certainly any "personal testimony" given decades after said events should be discounted.  We are going only by "observable facts", remember??



Who said decades after? Personal testimony from actual people of actual events is not legend.



KPM said:


> I disagree.  I think most people looking at the pole and empty hands would disagree.



Because you don't know what you're looking at.



> The body mechanics are completely different.  That should be obvious to anyone with a brain!  The stances are different.  The method of power generation is different.  The range is different.



The power generation is the same. Stances and range differ because in one case you're holding a pole, and in the other you're not, and because VT boxing is a concept-based method. Again, fighting exactly as if we're holding a pole while empty handed is retarded.



KPM said:


> Frustrating when people ignore other people's valid points or just dismiss them as a "strawman."  Frustrating when someone sticks so dogmatically to their believe and will not acknowledge the possiblity that an alternative belief could also be true.



It has not been demonstrated that the alternative belief "could be" true.



KPM said:


> Multiple other people pointed out another theory that was equally as valid.



Wrong.



KPM said:


> My point has been and will remain....if you are going to dismiss over 100 years of oral history from multiple lineages....if you are going to dismiss Ip Man's own written account of Wing Chun history.....



Legends and fairytales are not oral history, they are myths.



> then including heresy from people that weren't actually there when the events were happening is equally valid!



What heresy? And what events?



> If you are going to dismiss oral history that is 100 years old, why not dismiss oral history that is 20 or 30 years old???



Legends and fairytales are not history!

Personal testimony from actual people about actual people and events are oral history.

Big difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold!
> 
> What the actual hell is with these trolls?!


I think his comment is in reaction to your complete rejection of alternatives. Those alternatives cannot be disproven, any more than (as you acknowledge) the possibility under discussion can be proven. By the way, as I pointed out in response to one of NI's posts, the "proto-style" you seek may actually be early branches of WC. That the principles aren't the same doesn't remove this possibility, as those principles would probably be what changed as YM evolved his style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> There is all the reason and history to believe so, and none not to.
> 
> 
> 
> They can call shenanigans all they want, but history and reason are not on their side.
> 
> 
> 
> It would still be a strawman because WSLVT goes through YM as the same system, but I have not claimed the origin theory to be historically proven.


So, you're going to say that all the other principle students of YM cannot possibly have carried forth his style? That's a very strong claim, which requires very strong evidence to support it. I've never seen anyone present such strong evidence. Mostly, I've seen some refer to what they've been told, and references to the "completeness" of WSL's VT, which seems a subjective measure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> All assumptions introduce potential error and so a more complicated theory giving the same outcome is more likely to be wrong than a simpler theory. This is why simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones.


A theory's simplicity is not expressed by counting parts (pole+x=y). Both of the theories I've looked at are equally simple. One has an existing pole style and an empty-hand method created from whole cloth. The other has an existing pole style and an existing empty-hand method that is adapted to the pole. Neither is more complex than the other, and each requires its own assumptions, given the gaps in available evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> heresy


I think you meant "hearsay".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I acknowledge that theory has been posited, but it is indistinguishable from "aliens did it".


Only if you think an empty-hand method without weapons is as unlikely as alien abduction.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I think his comment is in reaction to your complete rejection of alternatives. Those alternatives cannot be disproven, any more than (as you acknowledge) the possibility under discussion can be proven.



Essentially, mine is the Big Bang Theory (based on observable facts, but not "proven") and yours is Creationism (based solely on belief of something undemonstrated to exist, but not "disproven").

You're telling me it's possibly aliens because I can't disprove aliens. 



> By the way, as I pointed out in response to one of NI's posts, the "proto-style" you seek may actually be early branches of WC. That the principles aren't the same doesn't remove this possibility, as those principles would probably be what changed as YM evolved his style.



YMVT boxing matches the proven preexisting pole method. There is nothing to suggest it didn't always match.

Non-YM WC boxing doesn't match the pole method. There is nothing to suggest it was ever so closely related to the pole and the original boxing method that accompanied the pole, whatever that was. 



gpseymour said:


> So, you're going to say that all the other principle students of YM cannot possibly have carried forth his style? That's a very strong claim, which requires very strong evidence to support it. I've never seen anyone present such strong evidence. Mostly, I've seen some refer to what they've been told, and references to the "completeness" of WSL's VT, which seems a subjective measure.



The data is objective. See here for a simple outline.



gpseymour said:


> Both of the theories I've looked at are equally simple. One has an existing pole style and an empty-hand method created from whole cloth. The other has an existing pole style and an existing empty-hand method that is adapted to the pole. Neither is more complex than the other, and each requires its own assumptions, given the gaps in available evidence.



The latter is more complex because it's introducing an unknown and undemonstrated variable. The former is working completely with known and demonstrable elements.

You have to demonstrate that variable before entering it into the equation as even a possibility. Nothing shows that is even possible.



gpseymour said:


> Only if you think an empty-hand method without weapons is as unlikely as alien abduction.



A VT boxing system existing prior to the weapons has just as much evidence to support it as aliens, that is none. There are only legends and fairytales.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> However, what you admitted earlier and LFJ has chosen to ignore is the part where you can't really pin down any time when the empty hand method would have been derived ENTIRELY from the pole.  Your analysis (very well done) still shows the empty hands developing under the influence of the pole, not originating from the pole as LJF believes.


All the same, I don't think NI's analysis in anyway precludes that possibility, either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wckf92 said:


> Nice post N.I.!
> And, if YM knew/learned two different versions of WC...maybe he wanted to reserve the refinements for his select few(?). I.E. maybe he didn't really care about the majority...and only taught the refinements to 2 or 3 of his most dedicated...so that they could also experience this profound impact with their understanding of the art. ?
> If some or all of the 'profound impactful' knowledge is contained in the weapons...and the weapons were only taught the the 2 or 3.....


That's a possibility (and actually fits with one of the alternatives I suggested earlier), though I'd wonder why those 2 or 3 didn't include his own sons. It wouldn't be the first time someone had a student they favored over their sons, but it would be unusual not to include them in that level unless there was some significant dispute (which I'd expect would end their training altogether).


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> That's a possibility (and actually fits with one of the alternatives I suggested earlier), though I'd wonder why those 2 or 3 didn't include his own sons. It wouldn't be the first time someone had a student they favored over their sons, but it would be unusual not to include them in that level unless there was some significant dispute (which I'd expect would end their training altogether).



They didn't start training until later in life, learned largely from others, and were never fighters. YM preferred to teach real fighters. Most of his students didn't ever fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

> You believe that Ip Man completely threw away what he had learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and started from scratch and created his Wing Chun entirely from the pole?





LFJ said:


> No.



Wait, what? Now you're saying he _did not_ start from scratch? If your origin theory only applies to YM's branch, then either he started from scratch at some point, or his existing training was the "proto-style" you keep claiming is impossible (impossibility of it would be the only reason to call its absence a "fatal flaw" in a theory). Or are you saying that YM didn't originate this, and the pole-derived methods simply died out in all other branches of VT?


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Wait, what? Now you're saying he _did not_ start from scratch? If your origin theory only applies to YM's branch, then either he started from scratch at some point, or his existing training was the "proto-style" you keep claiming is impossible (impossibility of it would be the only reason to call its absence a "fatal flaw" in a theory). Or are you saying that YM didn't originate this, and the pole-derived methods simply died out in all other branches of VT?



The latter. YM was not the originator, and VT is not entirely from the pole anyway. It's pole + knives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Essentially, mine is the Big Bang Theory (based on observable facts, but not "proven") and yours is Creationism (based solely on belief of something undemonstrated to exist, but not "disproven").
> 
> You're telling me it's possibly aliens because I can't disprove aliens.



This is a fallacy of "false equivalence". You've paired this with the "appeal to the stone" and/or "argument from silence" fallacy repeatedly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The latter. YM was not the originator, and VT is not entirely from the pole anyway. It's pole + knives.


I should have said "weapons-based". "Pole-based" was just easier to type.

Okay, I'm confused then how the line of reasoning supports that all the other branches of WC/VT lost this connection, and it was only preserved through YM. What shows us that this wasn't a development contemporary to YM's training (either his development, or a refinement by one of his instructors)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> The important part of the body mechanic is exactly the same in pole and empty hands.


Important to what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> Only if we were idiots


Why would that be idiotic? A lot of martial arts use a version of one arm forward as their preferred fighting position. It has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the square-on stance preferred by WC.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Oh no, I freely admit that there are other possibilities!  But if we want to dogmatically stick to just the "observable facts", then the only conclusion we can reach with any real confidence is that WSL must have come up with it himself!  Now, if you are willing to start taking into account oral histories and "speculation" then all kinds of alternate theories are possible!  But that is not part of LFJ's approach to theory development!


That's my point. That's not the only conclusion. It's the one most readily supported by the observable facts, but those facts don't actually counter other theories - they simply appear to support that theory somewhat better. Adding information (like the fact that YM's sons started training late) lends some additional possibility to the idea that YM may not have passed his complete system to them. Likewise, some of the quotes I've seen from WSL seem to support the idea that he provided some refinement to VT. Those aren't strong supports for either side, so also don't preclude the other possibilities.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> This is a fallacy of "false equivalence". You've paired this with the "appeal to the stone" and/or "argument from silence" fallacy repeatedly.



I've explained exactly how they are equivalent.

I've explained exactly how your theory is absurd.

I've made no conclusion based on the absence of your variable, other than that it can't be investigated and so is unviable as it stands. I haven't said it's impossible, but I don't accept your assertion that it is. You understand the difference?



gpseymour said:


> I should have said "weapons-based". "Pole-based" was just easier to type.



It was KPM who said "entirely based on the pole".



> Okay, I'm confused then how the line of reasoning supports that all the other branches of WC/VT lost this connection, and it was only preserved through YM.



What's confusing?



> What shows us that this wasn't a development contemporary to YM's training (either his development, or a refinement by one of his instructors)?



As I said, it matches the preexisting pole method and there is no reason to believe it didn't always.



gpseymour said:


> Why would that be idiotic? A lot of martial arts use a version of one arm forward as their preferred fighting position. It has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the square-on stance preferred by WC.



KPM suggests that if we are basing our boxing method on the pole, we shouldn't fight with two arms working independently. How is that not the most idiotic idea ever?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> YMVT boxing matches the proven preexisting pole method. There is nothing to suggest it didn't always match.
> 
> Non-YM WC boxing doesn't match the pole method. There is nothing to suggest it was ever so closely related to the pole and the original boxing method that accompanied the pole, whatever that was.


The fact that it shows no evidence of ever being so closely related to the pole would seem to suggest the pole alignment is contemporary to YM, rather than the origin of WC as a whole. I'm sure I'm missing something here, so point me toward what I've missed.



LFJ said:


> The data is objective. See here for a simple outline.


That's good logic, but I consider some of it subjective. There are conclusions stated without sufficient support shown in the post (like the statement that it's too integrated to have been added - that's a conclusion, rather than evidence). I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion, just the the chain of logic is either incomplete (you left out some of your middle-men in the chain) or there are fallacies in it (using unproven conclusions as evidence).



LFJ said:


> A VT boxing system existing prior to the weapons has just as much evidence to support it as aliens, that is none. There are only legends and fairytales.



Except that there has never been substantial evidence of aliens. We have lots of evidence that, a) arts evolve, b) arts sometimes start from empty-hand methods without weapons, c) arts sometimes gain weapons, and d) arts sometimes evolve into something new without branching to leave the original behind. This is the fallacy I referred to earlier (false equivalence).

 While we can't say any of those things definitively happened with VT, we also can't make a definitive claim about it being weapons-originated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I've explained exactly how they are equivalent.


No, you stated that they are equivalent (that is a fiat statement unless evidence is used to support it).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> As I said, it matches the preexisting pole method and there is no reason to believe it didn't always.


You just said there was no evidence it ever was tightly aligned with the pole. Given that, what makes it more likely it was, than that it wasn't? That the pole form is older than that point (YM's training) doesn't affect the conclusion. It makes both likely (if the pole form weren't older, we obviously wouldn't have the option of them ever having been aligned).



> KPM suggests that if we are basing our boxing method on the pole, we shouldn't fight with two arms working independently. How is that not the most idiotic idea ever?


I don't recall seeing him say the hands couldn't work independently. That would be odd. I was responding, however, to a statement that standing sideways with one arm leading would be stupid.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> The fact that it shows no evidence of ever being so closely related to the pole would seem to suggest the pole alignment is contemporary to YM, rather than the origin of WC as a whole.



Never said it was the origin of WC as a whole! Geez! And it would not suggest that at all.

All it suggests is that other lineages are not based on the pole. They could have other origins, or just evolved differently. That's for them to discover.

There is no reason to believe YMVT boxing was not always based on the pole. It's the only one I'm aware of that matches this pole exactly. I have not seen another one with the exact pole method, suggesting lots of expansion and evolution on more than just the boxing, whereas YMVT has remained relatively simple. Easy to do when based on a short, simple weapon theory. Deviation is immediately obvious and avoidable.



> That's good logic, but I consider some of it subjective. There are conclusions stated without sufficient support shown in the post (like the statement that it's too integrated to have been added - that's a conclusion, rather than evidence).



The conclusion is supported by the evidence.



> I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion, just the the chain of logic is either incomplete (you left out some of your middle-men in the chain)



 Like whom?



> or there are fallacies in it (using unproven conclusions as evidence).



The conclusions are supported by the evidence.



> Except that there has never been substantial evidence of aliens. We have lots of evidence that, a) arts evolve, b) arts sometimes start from empty-hand methods without weapons, c) arts sometimes gain weapons, and d) arts sometimes evolve into something new without branching to leave the original behind. This is the fallacy I referred to earlier (false equivalence).



There is no evidence of one that has done any of that in this case.



> While we can't say any of those things definitively happened with VT, we also can't make a definitive claim about it being weapons-originated.



No one has.



gpseymour said:


> No, you stated that they are equivalent (that is a fiat statement unless evidence is used to support it).



No, I explained how they are equivalent, i.e. one based on observable facts of existing elements, the other based on indemonstrable variables.

If you want to say it's possible that a god created the universe (or a preexisting base style helped form VT), then you have to demonstrate that a god exists (the base style) before you can discuss what it might have done (helped form VT).

You have not done that, so I can't accept your assertion that it is even possible.

Maybe the base style evolved or died out and can no longer be found. Maybe the universe-creating god worked his magic and then disappeared or expired and can no longer be found.

It can't be investigated either way. So, that it is even possible is not a rationally held position.



gpseymour said:


> You just said there was no evidence it ever was tightly aligned with the pole. Given that, what makes it more likely it was, than that it wasn't?



What? I think you're getting tired...

I said there's no evidence non-YM WC systems were ever tightly aligned with the pole, and they certainly aren't now.

What I said about YMVT is that it is tightly aligned with the pole now, and there's no evidence that it hasn't always been.

Follow?



> I don't recall seeing him say the hands couldn't work independently.



Here:



KPM said:


> Where in the pole does a person use 2 arms at the same time doing two very different motions?



This suggests we shouldn't be doing that if we're based on the pole. Pretty silly, huh?

VT is a concept-based system, so we don't have to act like we're holding an invisible pole when we fight barehanded.

He doesn't seem to get that conceptual part, which is odd for a WC practitioner.

VT boxing is a "two pole" method. The arms function as the shaft of the poles. We need not pretend to hold anything.


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Nice post N.I.!
> And, if YM knew/learned two different versions of WC...maybe he wanted to reserve the refinements for his select few(?). I.E. maybe he didn't really care about the majority...and only taught the refinements to 2 or 3 of his most dedicated...so that they could also experience this profound impact with their understanding of the art. ?
> If some or all of the 'profound impactful' knowledge is contained in the weapons...and the weapons were only taught the the 2 or 3.....


It's quite plausible.


----------



## Nobody Important

DALE80 said:


> Look in the knives.


The knife form doesn't have the same consistency as the pole, and no outside system has yet appeared with the same set. I do agree though, on an individual basis, that the knives would contain some of those other elements. Unfortunately, I believe what found would only be applicable to that lineage.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> It's quite plausible.



The problem is, I don't think it would make sense to teach two contradictory methods, or multiple in the case of various "YM" lineages, especially if you're not making it clear to everyone which is which.

A larger problem is that not only do many of the other "YM" methods contradict the weapons-based boxing method, and each other, but many of them don't even work and are clearly the result of missing information/ experience.

Plus, a secret style for the special ones sounds too much like WT or TWC stories.

Fact is, most of his students weren't around long enough to learn fully, and most were never fighters. So, it's no wonder he only taught a few the full system, and didn't really invest much in others.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> The knife form doesn't have the same consistency as the pole,



And for good reason! The strategies between knives and barehand are opposite. 

Only some tactical guidelines are carried over to help make the core, pole-based method effective.


----------



## geezer

DALE80 said:


> The important part of the body mechanic is exactly the same in pole and empty hands.



I can agree with this. Rather than argue endlessly over the "chicken or the egg" issue of whether the pole came first or not, I'd rather focus on how the mechanics of the pole informs the way we use our hands. The way a long, thrusting weapon (spear, pole or even rapier) displaces the opponent's weapon and thrusts through to it's target is exactly what you see in good WC/VT. _Da sau juk si siu sau_ -- attacking hand is defending hand.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> However, what you admitted earlier and LFJ has chosen to ignore is the part where you can't really pin down any time when the empty hand method would have been derived ENTIRELY from the pole.  Your analysis (very well done) still shows the empty hands developing under the influence of the pole, not originating from the pole as LJF believes.


True, but I also pointed out how a scenario could have played out where the pole was used to re-engineer the hands, possibly prior to Yip Man. This would technically be hands coming from pole as far as YMVT is concerned. This isn't applicable to all Wing Chun and I can't speak for LFJ as to whether or not he feels this could be the case.


----------



## geezer

BTW Dale -- I see that you study WSL VT in Australia and in another post mentioned that you had trained some other WC and then put it aside. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit. What was your prior experience and what did you find most appealing about WSL VT?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Never said it was the origin of WC as a whole! Geez! And it would not suggest that at all.
> 
> All it suggests is that other lineages are not based on the pole. They could have other origins, or just evolved differently. That's for them to discover.
> 
> There is no reason to believe YMVT boxing was not always based on the pole. It's the only one I'm aware of that matches this pole exactly. I have not seen another one with the exact pole method, suggesting lots of expansion and evolution on more than just the boxing, whereas YMVT has remained relatively simple. Easy to do when based on a short, simple weapon theory. Deviation is immediately obvious and avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion is supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Like whom?
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusions are supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of one that has done any of that in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I explained how they are equivalent, i.e. one based on observable facts of existing elements, the other based on indemonstrable variables.
> 
> If you want to say it's possible that a god created the universe (or a preexisting base style helped form VT), then you have to demonstrate that a god exists (the base style) before you can discuss what it might have done (helped form VT).
> 
> You have not done that, so I can't accept your assertion that it is even possible.
> 
> Maybe the base style evolved or died out and can no longer be found. Maybe the universe-creating god worked his magic and then disappeared or expired and can no longer be found.
> 
> It can't be investigated either way. So, that it is even possible is not a rationally held position.
> 
> 
> 
> What? I think you're getting tired...
> 
> I said there's no evidence non-YM WC systems were ever tightly aligned with the pole, and they certainly aren't now.
> 
> What I said about YMVT is that it is tightly aligned with the pole now, and there's no evidence that it hasn't always been.
> 
> Follow?
> 
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> This suggests we shouldn't be doing that if we're based on the pole. Pretty silly, huh?
> 
> VT is a concept-based system, so we don't have to act like we're holding an invisible pole when we fight barehanded.
> 
> He doesn't seem to get that conceptual part, which is odd for a WC practitioner.
> 
> VT boxing is a "two pole" method. The arms function as the shaft of the poles. We need not pretend to hold anything.


Your grasp of the logical chain of evidence to conclusion is apparently weak. You're claiming evidence exists where claims have been used as evidence, without support. 

I'm done trying to explain the weaknesses. You seem convinced I'm trying to assert one theory. All I've done is show where there are weaknesses in arguments, and show where arguments have support (and where claims against them lack support).

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence - positive or negative - in either direction, your fiat statements notwithstanding.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> You're claiming evidence exists where claims have been used as evidence, without support.



Where? You have not said what specifically. 

The evidence I've presented are observable facts. 

My conclusions are based on them.



> You seem convinced I'm trying to assert one theory.



You have certainly tried your darnedest to defend the possibility of one.



> All I've done is show where there are weaknesses in arguments, and show where arguments have support (and where claims against them lack support).



Without realizing the weaknesses in your own arguments and where they lack support.



> There is absolutely no conclusive evidence - positive or negative - in either direction, your fiat statements notwithstanding.



None has been asserted.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> The problem is, I don't think it would make sense to teach two contradictory methods, or multiple in the case of various "YM" lineages, especially if you're not making it clear to everyone which is which.
> 
> A larger problem is that not only do many of the other "YM" methods contradict the weapons-based boxing method, and each other, but many of them don't even work and are clearly the result of missing information/ experience.
> 
> Plus, a secret style for the special ones sounds too much like WT or TWC stories.
> 
> Fact is, most of his students weren't around long enough to learn fully, and most were never fighters. So, it's no wonder he only taught a few the full system, and didn't really invest much in others.


Agree, and I mentioned that in part. What is not accounted for in your assessment is if Yip Man did indeed learn from two teachers of the same system and favored one over the other, it's plausible that he taught parts of the method he felt inferior to substandard students. I have seen this happen first hand with many Kung Fu teachers, TBH, I've done it myself. Some students aren't worthy of learning better material because they have proven themselves substandard, take into account a need to keep them around to pay the bills and...


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Agree, and I mentioned that in part. What is not accounted for in your assessment is if Yip Man did indeed learn from two teachers of the same system and favored one over the other, it's plausible that he taught parts of the method he felt inferior to substandard students. I have seen this happen first hand with many Kung Fu teachers, TBH, I've done it myself. Some students aren't worthy of learning better material because they have proven themselves substandard, take into account a need to keep them around to pay the bills and...



Whatever the truth may be upstream from YM, it strengthens the case for what WSL received from him being historically accurate and consistent when analyzed in comparison with the preexisting pole method. Others, eh, not so much...


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Whatever the truth may be upstream from YM, it strengthens the case for what WSL received from him being historically accurate and consistent when analyzed in comparison with the preexisting pole method. Others, eh, not so much...


I don't study from the Yip Man line so I cannot really comment on the validity of your statement. I can, however, agree that it is a plausibility. Taking into account what others have stated concerning who received full transmission from Yip Man, the conclusion isn't absurd. Since it's not my line I'll let others argue validity.


----------



## Nobody Important

Based on LFJ's claim, I presented some scenarios as to how YMVT could have came to be based upon pole work. They are conjecture and unsubstantiated, yet quite plausible. LFJ has agreed with many parts of it. There are holes and "what if" questions that demand attention, but until more information becomes available, what presented is what we have.

In the course of this discussion there have been claims of "truth", argument over semantics to the point of minutiae, various fallacies etc. I would suggest re-reading some posts for clarification to answer many of the questions that have been repeated over & over, the answers are there. Many points of contention, as well as clarification, have been addressed only to be ignored in side discussion.

For what it's worth, I feel this to be an unproven, yet plausible theory. When examined it does make sense in certain aspects of why YMVT is so different to other branches of Wing Chun. It by no means suggests superior, simply in and of itself, consistent.

I don't feel as if I really have any more to add to this discussion, so I'll bow out. Thank you all for your time and input. This has been a very fruitful and productive discussion, and if nothing else, thought provoking. Kudos to LFJ for bringing it to light.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> For what it's worth, I feel this to be an unproven, yet plausible theory. When examined it does make sense in certain aspects of why YMVT is so different to other branches of Wing Chun. It by no means suggests superior, simply in and of itself, consistent.



That's all it was ever presented as.

I too would like it if we all just agreed to drop the topic here. 

Everything that is going to be said has been said, more than a few times.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm leaving the country for a month in a couple days and probably won't be on for a long while anyway.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> I can agree with this. Rather than argue endlessly over the "chicken or the egg" issue of whether the pole came first or not, I'd rather focus on how the mechanics of the pole informs the way we use our hands. The way a long, thrusting weapon (spear, pole or even rapier) displaces the opponent's weapon and thrusts through to it's target is exactly what you see in good WC/VT. _Da sau juk si siu sau_ -- attacking hand is defending hand.



I would also say that it helps train structure, if you are using the full on hard wood 6.5 point pole and not the shorter staffs some schools may use due to practical space considerations.  The weight of the full on pole and the effect the length has on the perceived weight forces you to focus very much on retaining your bodies structure during the form.


----------



## KPM

*Already covered. These two theories are not on equal ground because the latter introduces an unknown and unestablished variable equivalent to saying "aliens did it".*

---Absolutely wrong.   There is no more evidence to say that there was a "proto-Wing Chun" that was created exclusively from the pole and knives than there is to say there was a "proto-Wing Chun" that added on the pole and knives and then evolved from there.  Both premises are on equal footing.  The later does not introduce an "unknown" any more than the former.  Multiple people have pointed this out to you multiple times now on this thread.  You are being very dishonest in denying this point. 



*It's in that post. You have dodged the points repeatedly.*

---No its not.  That post does not directly answer the points I made in post #302.  If I tried to respond as if it did, I'm quite sure I would end up misinterpreting something at some point.  So why are YOU dodging actually answering the logic of my points in post #302? 



*I acknowledge that theory has been posited, but it is indistinguishable from "aliens did it".*

----Wrong!  See, there you go!  Belittling someone else's theory for no reason!  Did aliens also come up with the "proto-Wing Chun" developed entirely from the pole and knives??  Just as much or as little evidence says they did!



*Who said decades after?*

----Oral history has been discounted as unreliable in this discussion.



*Because you don't know what you're looking at*.

----If it takes in-depth knowledge of and indoctrination into WSLVT, then your theory is invalid.  If it cannot hold up to someone with knowledge of Wing Chun and Wing Chun pole methods examining similarities, then your theory is invalid.  Anything that  takes such specialized knowledge to accept as true is not a very good theory.



*The power generation is the same. Stances and range differ because in one case you're holding a pole, and in the other you're not, and because VT boxing is a concept-based method. Again, fighting exactly as if we're holding a pole while empty handed is retarded.*

---Denying an obvious difference in the way one moves when empty-hand versus while holding a pole is retarded.   Saying that they are "exactly the same" is retarded when anyone with a brain can see that they are not.  Resorting to...."but, but, its conceptual!" is retarded.  A physical skill is a physical skill.  The physical skills (biomechanics) used when doing Wing Chun empty hand versus doing the pole are different.  To deny that is just plain retarded! 



*It has not been demonstrated that the alternative belief "could be" true.*

----But it has!  Just as much as you have demonstrated that your theory "could be" true!  That's what you refuse to acknowledge!  BOTH are speculation!




*Legends and fairytales are not history!*

*Personal testimony from actual people about actual people and events are oral history.*

*Big difference.*

---Wrong.  And if Ip Man's testimony in a written magazine article can be discounted then certainly any personal testimony can be discounted.  After all, we have to go by the "observable facts"!!


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> I think you meant "hearsay".



Yes, you are right!  Thanks for the correction!


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> A theory's simplicity is not expressed by counting parts (pole+x=y). Both of the theories I've looked at are equally simple. One has an existing pole style and an empty-hand method created from whole cloth. The other has an existing pole style and an existing empty-hand method that is adapted to the pole. Neither is more complex than the other, and each requires its own assumptions, given the gaps in available evidence.



This is it, exactly!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> A VT boxing system existing prior to the weapons has just as much evidence to support it as aliens, that is none. There are only legends and fairytales.



A VT boxing system derived entirely from the weapon existing prior to YMVT has as much evidence to support it as aliens as well.....none!  NOT EVEN legends and fairytales!!!  Why can't you see that????


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> They didn't start training until later in life, learned largely from others, and were never fighters. YM preferred to teach real fighters. Most of his students didn't ever fight.



William Cheung was a fighter.   Duncan Leung was a fighter.  Hawkins Cheung was a fighter.  There were others.  Yet none of them seem to have this "pole = empty hand" understanding.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> *LJ taught some the weapons and not others.  Just like YM is known to have done.
> 
> It is likely the same happened at every generation through history. Very few received it.
> 
> Obviously without the weapon theory taught, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction.*
> 
> ---Yes.  But your theory then relies on there being that "proto-Wing Chun" version that was based entirely upon the weapons with no prior empty hand method involved.  There is not evidence for its existence any more than there is evidence for a "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method that  was then influenced by and evolved when the weapons were included as add ons.  You can't have it both ways!  Either both theories are equally valid in this respect or neither theory is valid in this respect!  Which is it?



Huh?

LFJ showed that the pole existed prior to YM VT. There is evidence for this, but not evidence for any pre-weapons empty hand wing chun. 

YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons. 

What are you even talking about?



> ---And if this "proto-Wing Chun" that was derived entirely from the weapons DID exist, we would expect to find other systems than WSLVT that track so closely with pole and empty hand.  But we don't.  Not even amongst Ip Man's other students!



YM didn't teach many people fully. This is why their wing chun isn't the same as his.   



> So there is no evidence to support the existence of your version of a "proto-Wing Chun" than there is to support the existence of the other version!



Your thinking is badly faulty here. 

*



			My standards involve honesty. That is a difficult area for you.
		
Click to expand...

*


> ---I am being VERY honest now and simply discarding everything other than the "observable facts" as YOU suggested!   And that line of reasoning leads directly to WSL!  You are the one being dishonest by not acknowleding that.  Just as you have been dishonest by not acknowledging the point that multiple people have made so far in this thread that the theory that Wing Chun empty hands evolved under the influence of the weapons as an add on is just as valid as the theory that they empty hands derived entirely from the pole!



You are being blatantly dishonest because LFJ is talking about discounting legends and fairlytales, not things that actual people said about actual things happening in their actual lives. You know this but pretend not to.

You are being blatantly dishonest in pretending you haven't understood that LFJ's argument is supported by the actual facts that are available, while the idea of an earlier "hands only" wing chun adds complexity without increasing understanding and so is not as good a theory as LFJ's. You know this but pretend not to.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> *LJ taught some the weapons and not others.  Just like YM is known to have done.
> 
> It is likely the same happened at every generation through history. Very few received it.
> 
> Obviously without the weapon theory taught, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction.*
> 
> ---Yes.  But your theory then relies on there being that "proto-Wing Chun" version that was based entirely upon the weapons with no prior empty hand method involved.  There is not evidence for its existence any more than there is evidence for a "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method that  was then influenced by and evolved when the weapons were included as add ons.  You can't have it both ways!  Either both theories are equally valid in this respect or neither theory is valid in this respect!  Which is it?



Huh?

LFJ showed that the pole existed prior to YM VT. There is evidence for this, but not evidence for any pre-weapons empty hand wing chun. 

YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons. 

What are you even talking about?



> ---And if this "proto-Wing Chun" that was derived entirely from the weapons DID exist, we would expect to find other systems than WSLVT that track so closely with pole and empty hand.  But we don't.  Not even amongst Ip Man's other students!



YM didn't teach many people fully. This is why their wing chun isn't the same as his.   



> So there is no evidence to support the existence of your version of a "proto-Wing Chun" than there is to support the existence of the other version!



Your thinking is badly faulty here. 

*



			My standards involve honesty. That is a difficult area for you.
		
Click to expand...

*


> ---I am being VERY honest now and simply discarding everything other than the "observable facts" as YOU suggested!   And that line of reasoning leads directly to WSL!  You are the one being dishonest by not acknowleding that.  Just as you have been dishonest by not acknowledging the point that multiple people have made so far in this thread that the theory that Wing Chun empty hands evolved under the influence of the weapons as an add on is just as valid as the theory that they empty hands derived entirely from the pole!



You are being blatantly dishonest because LFJ is talking about discounting legends and fairlytales, not things that actual people said about actual things happening in their actual lives. You know this but pretend not to.

You are being blatantly dishonest in pretending you haven't understood that LFJ's argument is supported by the actual facts that are available, while the idea of an earlier "hands only" wing chun adds complexity without increasing understanding and so is not as good a theory as LFJ's. You know this but pretend not to.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> You said only that you are from Australia.  That isn't much.  Are you being evasive on purpose?



I don't believe you introduced yourself to me either? All I have seen is you acting a bit oddly towards someone making a good logical argument on a forum. You sound like a child more than anything. If you want information then try acting like a normal person, not a weirdo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons.


This is a conclusion in question, not a statement of fact.


----------



## KPM

*There is no reason to believe YMVT boxing was not always based on the pole. It's the only one I'm aware of that matches this pole exactly. I have not seen another one with the exact pole method, suggesting lots of expansion and evolution on more than just the boxing, whereas YMVT has remained relatively simple. Easy to do when based on a short, simple weapon theory. Deviation is immediately obvious and avoidable*.

---Very faulty logic here!  First, there is also no reason to believe that YMVT boxing was always based on the pole.  YM or WSL could have aligned the empty hands with the pole on their own.  Second, you can't even reliably refer to "YMVT", because the only example of YMVT this applies to is WSLVT!  No other version of YMVT is like WSLVT.  And if "deviation is immediately obvious and avoidable" why would that not also apply to any system prior to YM/WSL that was also based on this "proto Wing Chun" that  was derived from the weapons?  Very faulty logic here!


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Sorry. You can't have it both ways! If the written history of Wing Chun that Ip Man himself provided for a magazine article to be published for all posterity can be completely dismissed, then certainly any "personal testimony" given decades after said events should be discounted. We are going only by "observable facts", remember??



The "written history" provided by YM was legend and as such should be treated like all other legend. It was mostly a discussion of legendary people, not real people. 

Things that actual people are recorded as actually saying are entirely different. If you repeat this idiocy again then I will definitely ignore you. Life is too short to spend time interacting with people who are either mentally deficient or trolling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> I don't believe you introduced yourself to me either? All I have seen is you acting a bit oddly towards someone making a good logical argument on a forum. You sound like a child more than anything. If you want information then try acting like a normal person, not a weirdo.


Existing members don't typically stop to introduce themselves to every new member unless asked. New members are typically encouraged to fill in their backgrounds, so we know what direction they're coming from (background, level of experience, what they are likely to know that we don't, etc.).

AS for the "good logical argument", I've pointed out 3 major fallacies LFJ keeps repeating, using at least one of them as evidence when it is not. I've also pointed out that where his positive logic is decent, his refutations often are simply fiat statements without support.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> This is a conclusion in question, not a statement of fact.



No, it is a statement of fact. Maybe you need to get out more?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> No, it is a statement of fact. Maybe you need to get out more?


You are stating as fact that which even LFJ has said is not proven. He has stated it as the most likely conclusion from the evidence, but it is not proven. As such, it is not a fact. Maybe you need a dictionary.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> I don't believe you introduced yourself to me either? All I have seen is you acting a bit oddly towards someone making a good logical argument on a forum. You sound like a child more than anything. If you want information then try acting like a normal person, not a weirdo.



I am not the newbie here, and not the one that showed up to lend support to LFJ exactly when he need it!  He is not making a good logical argument.  He has been ignoring any logical points that others have made.  We've all dealt with LFJ multiple times here and have found that it takes a special approach to deal with his dogmatic assertion of things as if they were widely accepted facts.  I just find it strange that you would join the forum and chime right in on a discussion but be unwilling to tell us anything about your background to understand where your viewpoint is coming from.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Nice post N.I.!
> And, if YM knew/learned two different versions of WC...maybe he wanted to reserve the refinements for his select few(?). I.E. maybe he didn't really care about the majority...and only taught the refinements to 2 or 3 of his most dedicated...so that they could also experience this profound impact with their understanding of the art. ?
> If some or all of the 'profound impactful' knowledge is contained in the weapons...and the weapons were only taught the the 2 or 3.....



But the problem you have with this idea is the following.  Remember that YM trained people in WC/VT for money (with the exception of his sons).  It seems, and correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of what you say, that you are proposing he had what he saw as a "correct" and thus more profound form of WC/VT and then a simply functional but ultimately "flawed" form of WC/VT he taught to others.  So the traditional and honorable YM, in short, ripped off the vast majority of his students, and even short changed his own sons by teaching them the "flawed" version of WC/VT.  

I say this because all the YM sub-lineages point to important stuff being in the weapons.  The pole helps reinforce the concepts of power generation and the like, the blades introduce longer stepping which can be useful etc.  However none of the other ones come close to saying "starts with weapon forms that predate a unique empty hand form created from whole cloth" as it seems some of our WSLVT brethern believe.  

I simply find issue with accepting the premise of the first paragraph. /shrug


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> No, it is a statement of fact. Maybe you need to get out more?



No, that is NOT one of the "observable facts" that has been established.  Have you been even trying to follow this thread???


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> But the problem you have with this idea is the following.  Remember that YM trained people in WC/VT for money (with the exception of his sons).  It seems, and correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of what you say, that you are proposing he had what he saw as a "correct" and thus more profound form of WC/VT and then a simply functional but ultimately "flawed" form of WC/VT he taught to others.  So the traditional and honorable YM, in short, ripped off the vast majority of his students, and even short changed his own sons by teaching them the "flawed" version of WC/VT.
> 
> I say this because all the YM sub-lineages point to important stuff being in the weapons.  The pole helps reinforce the concepts of power generation and the like, the blades introduce longer stepping which can be useful etc.  However none of the other ones come close to saying "starts with weapon forms that predate a unique empty hand form created from whole cloth" as it seems some of our WSLVT brethern believe.
> 
> I simply find issue with accepting the premise of the first paragraph. /shrug


I don't think it has to be an ethical issue. If he knew two versions, he may have offered to teach the one version, and chosen folks to teach the other version to as they proved to meet his standards. I don't know how likely that is, but it is a version that would put YM on solid ethical grounds without having to teach his best material to everyone. It would be like me teaching NGA the way I was taught (quite functional), and teaching Shojin-ryu (my refinement of it, which may or may not be any better, but which I prefer) to folks who showed enough promise. Shojin-ryu is harder for me to teach, so I could have chosen to keep most folks on the mainline curriculum.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Existing members don't typically stop to introduce themselves to every new member unless asked. New members are typically encouraged to fill in their backgrounds, so we know what direction they're coming from (background, level of experience, what they are likely to know that we don't, etc.).
> 
> AS for the "good logical argument", I've pointed out 3 major fallacies LFJ keeps repeating, using at least one of them as evidence when it is not. I've also pointed out that where his positive logic is decent, his refutations often are simply fiat statements without support.



I was watching the conversation without commenting and I have to say KPM, yourself and 1 or 2 other people (Juany?) have been awfully biased and almost unbalanced. Given this I didn't feel particularly motivated to introduce myself in a friendly way when I decided to comment- I was more motivated to add support for LFJ who was being attacked by KPM, you and others. 

I don't agree with any fallacy you personally have highlighted. You sound like a bit of a blowhard with quite a large ego not backed up by thinking ability. Given that you don't even do VT, I tend to just gloss over what you post as irrelevant at this point, considering past form. 

If either of you guys want to talk in a normal way to me then maybe I will respond in kind. I don't have anything invested in making friends on this forum though, and given what I have seen of you and KPM, would not want to anyway. 

Maybe it would just be easier to ignore both of you- trolling doesn't make for good reading.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> No, that is NOT one of the "observable facts" that has been established.  Have you been even trying to follow this thread???



You obviously don't have any knowledge of YM VT via WSL.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> I think most people looking at the pole and empty hands would disagree. The body mechanics are completely different. That should be obvious to anyone with a brain! The stances are different. The method of power generation is different. The range is different.



Ok, you don't understand the pole. No big deal.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Oral history has been discounted as unreliable in this discussion.



No, it hasn't. Legend and fairytales have, because they are not oral "history". They are myths.



> ----If it takes in-depth knowledge of and indoctrination into WSLVT, then your theory is invalid.  If it cannot hold up to someone with knowledge of Wing Chun and Wing Chun pole methods examining similarities, then your theory is invalid.  Anything that  takes such specialized knowledge to accept as true is not a very good theory.



Evolution is a valid scientific theory, despite some uneducated idiots thinking it's wrong because monkeys and humans exist together.



> Resorting to...."but, but, its conceptual!" is retarded.



Your Wing Chun is not concept-based? Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time here.



KPM said:


> there is also no reason to believe that YMVT boxing was always based on the pole.



It is now and has been confirmed to be identical to the preexisting pole method. There is no reason to believe it has not always been that way.

This topic is done anyway. Can we agree to disagree, or what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> I was watching the conversation without commenting and I have to say KPM, yourself and 1 or 2 other people (Juany?) have been awfully biased and almost unbalanced. Given this I didn't feel particularly motivated to introduce myself in a friendly way when I decided to comment- I was more motivated to add support for LFJ who was being attacked by KPM, you and others.
> 
> I don't agree with any fallacy you personally have highlighted. You sound like a bit of a blowhard with quite a large ego not backed up by thinking ability. Given that you don't even do VT, I tend to just gloss over what you post as irrelevant at this point, considering past form.
> 
> If either of you guys want to talk in a normal way to me then maybe I will respond in kind. I don't have anything invested in making friends on this forum though, and given what I have seen of you and KPM, would not want to anyway.
> 
> Maybe it would just be easier to ignore both of you- trolling doesn't make for good reading.


Show me where I "attacked" LFJ. I have commented only on his arguments, until such point as he started referring to my posts as untruths, relating my logic to "aliens did it", etc. In fact, I never even took a side as to which theory is more likely - I simply showed some flaws in LFJ's argument. I was actually thinking he'd have responses to them, because his logic starts out pretty solid. Instead, he decided to attack, moved on to some pure logical fallacies, and started throwing out fiat statements. I don't think there's much strength in the evidence presented on either side, and I've acknowledged that. I have also pointed out that LFJ's experience with WSLVT may be the salient point I don't have, and which he couldn't possibly provide via forum. Had he simply leaned on that, rather than the logical fallacies, I'd have been okay with it.

As for your ad hominem attack, perhaps go back and look at my posts. I've done my best to remain polite and courteous until LFJ went on the attack. Perhaps he felt I was taking a side, because the fallacies I pointed out were his.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> You are stating as fact that which even LFJ has said is not proven. He has stated it as the most likely conclusion from the evidence, but it is not proven. As such, it is not a fact. Maybe you need a dictionary.



It is a fact that YMVT is interpreted and taught this way. To this extent, we can say it is a fact that YMVT boxing is based on the weapons. We certainly teach it with that understanding.

It is just not historically proven by official records to have been created in this order, despite having evidence to support that theory. So, not officially a "historical fact", but whatever. The important thing is that it actually works, and damn well.

Can this thread be done now?


----------



## Nobody Important

DALE80 said:


> Huh?
> 
> LFJ showed that the pole existed prior to YM VT. There is evidence for this, but not evidence for any pre-weapons empty hand wing chun.



I hate to interrupt, but there is a fallacy that needs addressed here. Yes it is true that the LDBK can be proven to exist prior to Yip Man. There are a couple of points to address here though.

1. The pole seen in YMVT, as verified by Lam Guei Chung's HSHK version, is also present in YKSWC & Kulo.

2. Since the existence of the pole is applicable as being pre-Yip Man, so must to be, the empty hand sets SNT, CK & BJ as these sets are also passed on by YKSWC & other Leung Jan lineages, the same as YMVT. Theory, principles, methodology etc. of the forms and pole of that time cannot be definitively proven, only outward appearance.

3. Even though the appearance of the empty hand sets differ slightly, it doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to the pole. We can deduce that at minimum they existed at the same time.

4. Yip Man's version of the empty hand forms didn't exist prior to YMVT, because YMVT didn't appear prior to Yip Man.

5. The significance of the YMVT empty hand forms being based on the pole is only applicable to YMVT and could only have occurred prior to Yip Man, with Yip Man or after Yip Man. But this does not at any point eliminate the existence of SNT, CK or BJ until the emergence of the LDBK. Because if we take the previous points into consideration, we see that the empty hand sets, like the pole were passed on independent of Yip Man's lineage.

6. This leaves the conclusion that any correlation to pole with empty hand occurred only within the Yip Man line and since the existence of SNT, CK & BJ can be verified prior to YMVT, that the merging of the theory could only have occurred in one of the following ways:

A. Leung Bik/Fung Wah taught it to Yip Man. Since no other students of Chan Wah Shun pass this on, he can be ruled out.

B. Yip Man re-engineered the hands to align with the pole and passed it on to a select few.

C. Wong Shun Leung formulated this methodology and passed it on.

There are no other possible solutions based on the available evidence that would support a plausible explanation.


----------



## KPM

*LFJ showed that the pole existed prior to YM VT. There is evidence for this, but not evidence for any pre-weapons empty hand wing chun.*

---Yes, the pole existed prior to YMVT.  But that is totally unrelated to whether or not that pre-existing pole method became the source for the empty hands, or whether it was added to an empty hand system and then influenced its development and evolution from there.   There may be no evidence for a "pre-weapons" empty hand wing chun, but there is also no evidence for a "weapons-based" empty hand wing chun prior to YM either!   How many times now has this point been made????


*YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons.*

---How do you know that?  Did Ip Man tell you that personally?  Did Ip Man write that down anywhere?  Does any Ip Man student other than WSL believe that?   Wouldn't this mean that Chan Wah Shun's Wing Chun was also derived entirely from weapons as well since he was YM's teacher? Wouldn't this mean that Leung Jan's Wing Chun was also derived entirely from weapons since he was CWS's teacher?  But now we are in the realm of "non-YM Wing Chun", and LFJ has said the theory doesn't apply here.  So that's a logical problem, don't you think?




*YM didn't teach many people fully. This is why their wing chun isn't the same as his.* 

---How do you know?  Where you there?  Did you see what Ip Man taught personally?  If you take most of his close long-time students and look at what they learned it isn't all that different.  WSL is the only one that seems so very different than the rest.  So without a written statement from Ip Man himself declaring that he passed down the only "true and original" version of his art to WSL, the most logical conclusion is that WSL innovated and refined what he learned from YM and THAT is why is differs from everyone else!



*Your thinking is badly faulty here.*

---In what way?  How can you say that the idea of  "proto-Wing Chun" based entirely on the weapons is any more valid than the idea of a "proto-Wing Chun" to which the weapons were added and then evolved from there??



*You are being blatantly dishonest because LFJ is talking about discounting legends and fairlytales, not things that actual people said about actual things happening in their actual lives. You know this but pretend not to.*

---What things that actual people said about actual things are you talking about?

*You are being blatantly dishonest in pretending you haven't understood that LFJ's argument is supported by the actual facts that are available, while the idea of an earlier "hands only" wing chun adds complexity without increasing understanding and so is not as good a theory as LFJ's. You know this but pretend not to.*

---That is not at all true.  Go back and read my post #302.  There is no "added complexity."  Just because he wrote out some silly formula doesn't make it true!


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it has to be an ethical issue. If he knew two versions, he may have offered to teach the one version, and chosen folks to teach the other version to as they proved to meet his standards. I don't know how likely that is, but it is a version that would put YM on solid ethical grounds without having to teach his best material to everyone. It would be like me teaching NGA the way I was taught (quite functional), and teaching Shojin-ryu (my refinement of it, which may or may not be any better, but which I prefer) to folks who showed enough promise. Shojin-ryu is harder for me to teach, so I could have chosen to keep most folks on the mainline curriculum.



But then ethically it would be something you "hang on your shingle" so to speak, and we have no evidence of that.  As an example at my School there is a "seniors" only class held at a special time.  Everyone knows about it and knows that you have to show a specific level of skill and control to get into the class.  The reason for this is that it has a fair amount of Kali grappling and ground fighting in it.  Kali grappling, especially ground fighting, isn't about submissions but actual breaks and dislocations.  The Sifu/Guro wants to make sure you have adequate technique and control before teaching these to students so they don't "break" their training partners.

Additionally you would THINK that some student other than WSL would have been taught this, at least one of his sons, given the fact that YM is almost always referred to as a "traditional" Chinese Man and it would be virtually unheard of not to pass down your methods to one of your children.  However like I said this is the first time I think any of the YM people round these parts have heard such a theory regarding the pole. 

As an example I have heard some people propose the BJD as a point of origin.  It is more similar to the empty hand than the pole and it also has certain things, especially regarding footwork, that add to the empty hand.  This theory usually pops up in the context of "If Bruce Lee would have finished the BJD, he would have seen WC/VT is not limited to close range combat."  However it ignores the fact, that as here, there is no evidence of a Proto-BJD like we see with the pole.

I really think that most people simply end up taking a western context of teaching into an analysis.  They can't imagine that a system would be set up where something taking up as much "space" is there simply to reinforce already taught principles, that there must be some larger and more unique purpose to it.


----------



## KPM

*It is a fact that YMVT is interpreted and taught this way. To this extent, we can say it is a fact that YMVT boxing is based on the weapons. We certainly teach it with that understanding.*

---No.  That is NOT true.  What you just wrote applies ONLY to WSLVT! 

*It is just not historically proven by official records to have been created in this order, despite having evidence to support that theory. So, not officially a "historical fact", but whatever. The important thing is that it actually works, and damn well.*

---What, are you finally admitting that the rest of us might be right and have had a point all along!!!   

*Can this thread be done now?*


----Hey, I gave you an "out" and suggested we move on multiple times in the past.  But you chose to keep denying everyone else's points and kept it going.  So if you want it "done" its time you start listening to what others are saying!


----------



## dudewingchun

Why are all WSL guys so stuck up?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> There are no other possible solutions based on the available evidence that would support a plausible explanation.



Actually, I'm sure I've said this before...

LJ is the earliest verifiable ancestor of VT/WC.

Some lineages have LJ passing on the weapons, others don't.

So, it's entirely possible that the other forms got passed on without the weapon theories, allowing the boxing methods to change and evolve, with weapons being added back in later, as some LJ lineages claim.

While on the other side, we have the other forms getting passed on with the weapons from LJ down through YM, leaving the weapons-based boxing method intact.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---No.  That is NOT true.  What you just wrote applies ONLY to WSLVT!



WSLVT is YMVT and it is true.



> ---What, are you finally admitting that the rest of us might be right and have had a point all along!!!



No. You are not right and have no point.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> 1. The pole seen in YMVT, as verified by Lam Guei Chung's HSHK version, is also present in YKSWC & Kulo.



Got videos? I haven't seen quite the same pole method. Most are more complex or differ in major ways. Pole method is something where seemingly insignificant differences in form could result in major tactical and strategic differences.


----------



## KPM

---OK.  Since LFJ has pointed to this post from another thread multiple times now rather than respond to my post #302, let's take a look at it!   

*There is right and wrong in YMVT, both in reference to what he taught and what is functional. I've tried to make this more objective by illustrating problems that result from not getting it right, and all have acknowledged it. So, I think everyone can relate if we lay ego aside and take an honest look at things.

Everyone can test out the drill/scenario and see what works, how and why, and why alternatives fail so easily where one should not.

Also, looking at the photos I posted, even though they are still shots, with explanation it can be seen clearly that awareness of the VT strategy YM taught is missing in the latter two (three). If there is still doubt, any video or direct interaction will dispel that.

Since *_*wu-sau*_* is only a small part of the whole, I think it may be a bit more obvious now that it wasn't a WSL invention. It is too cohesive with the rest of the system for this idea and strategy to have been reconceptualized into the existing actions of SNT for example, without changing anything.

If the actions are not changed, but explanation is given, then it will be evident what the original interpretation must be. Where there is strategic information represented in abstract actions meant to establish certain concepts, others have replaced this information/gap-filled with application ideas devoid of strategy.

The opening actions of SNT are a perfect example. Everyone sees blocks or strikes of all sorts, or training shapes for these types of things, or they have changed it to add rolling arms, introducing complicated double arm actions like *_*kwan-sau*_* before even looking at the basic punch in the system. Very illogical learning progression and not a "little" idea.

When I look at it I see abstract concepts setting up an understanding of space and attack lines which we'll deal with when looking at the punch in the following *_*taan*_* and *_*fuk*_* section, which are also abstract pre-punch elbow training, not deflections and controlling arm actions. Each step of the form and indeed the rest of the system is built upon in logical progression this way.

If we look at other YM derived lineages, we wonder why all this information is missing and their systems are comparatively so disjointed and full of applications, not to mention failures we've discussed. We then look back at various student testimonials of YM's temperament (preferring to teach 1 good student over 10 lousy ones, and not wasting time on people he felt not worth it) and teaching style (having students go through the motions with little or no explanation), and the lack of fighting experience of most, and we can plainly see why their systems are the way they are.

If I tell a beginner this is *_*taan-sau*_*, it means spreading hand, but give no further detail, they will naturally assume it's for blocking. If I say to them this is *_*chi-sau*_* practice, it means sticking hands, but give no further detail, they will assume it is for sticking to, feeling, and wrestling with an opponent's arms.

Why else would other YM lineages be missing all the information and what they do have is exactly what an uninformed beginner would come up with?

I know it's hard to avoid offense when talking about this, and I'm really not trying to insult anyone. But hopefully I am conveying to you just why I have the views I do. That they are based on an honest examination of the evidence (technical analysis and comparison of teachings and functionality; YM student testimonials and experience or lack thereof; photos of YM showing ideas no one else can explain), and not just "because I said so".      
*
----I see nothing there that either answers or refutes what I wrote in post #302 about the simplest and most logical theory being that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features in WSLVT that have been discussed. 

---Again.....if what WSLVT taught is so very different than what all other students of Ip Man teach, while all those others are pretty similar.....without documentation from Ip Man himself stating that he taught and passed on the "true and real" version of his VT only to WSL....the logical conclusion is that WSL himself innovated and developed what we now know as WSLVT based upon what he learned from Ip Man.  I see nothing above that would disprove this idea.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Now look. This discussion started out perfectly reasonable. LFJ presented his theory. Multiple other people pointed out another theory that was equally as valid



Multiple other people (basically you and your trolling buddies) were wrong. Reasoning was explained, yet you continue to go at it, dishonestly.



> LFJ refused to acknowledge that, discounted most of what everyone else had to say as being speculation and based upon fairytales or as "strawman".



Advise that you don't support your arguments with fairytales or set up strawman arguments



KPM said:


> So I have simply decided to use his own strategy in continuing this discussion. I am also discounting anything other than the "observable facts", just as LFJ has done. When you do that, then the reasoning process based upon what is left leads directly back to WSL. That isn't trolling. That is simply using LFJ's own approach to this discussion. I will stick dogmatically and stubbornly to my theory just as LFJ has stuck to his until he is willing to acknowledge that there is a very real possibilty that an early version of Wing Chun developed and evolved AFTER weapons were included as an add on. That's not trolling. That is simply playing by LFJ's own rules!



So you decided to troll. Interesting admission. The difference between fairlytales and eyewitness testimony of real people have been pointed out already, many times. Advise you get with the program and start acting like an adult. This stuff just looks dumb.


----------



## KPM

*WSLVT is YMVT and it is true.*

----Nope.  That is just another fiat statement!  Prove it!


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> It seems most likely that WSL is the source of the differences.



Lol what incredible bias


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Additionally you would THINK that some student other than WSL would have been taught this, at least one of his sons, given the fact that YM is almost always referred to as a "traditional" Chinese Man and it would be virtually unheard of not to pass down your methods to one of your children.



Doesn't matter what you would THINK. It really has no bearing on the truth. His sons' styles contradict each other too.


----------



## KPM

*Multiple other people (basically you and your trolling buddies) were wrong. Reasoning was explained, yet you continue to go at it, dishonestly.*

---Oh!  So anyone that disagrees with you and LFJ are simply "trolls"!  How convenient!  



*Advise that you don't support your arguments with fairytales or set up strawman arguments*

---Point out where I have done so in regards to my theory that WSL is the one that aligned the pole and the empty hand methods.



*So you decided to troll. Interesting admission.*

---You should really look up what "troll" means!  That is not trolling.  Giving someone a dose of their own medicine is not trolling unless THEY were trolling to begin with!  


*The difference between fairlytales and eyewitness testimony of real people have been pointed out already, many times. Advise you get with the program and start acting like an adult. This stuff just looks dumb.*

----What is the difference between "eyewitness testimony" and the testimony of Ip Man himself in his written history of Wing Chun published for all posterity???


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----I see nothing there that either answers or refutes what I wrote in post #302 about the simplest and most logical theory being that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features in WSLVT that have been discussed.



Try reading with your eyes open this time.



> ---Again.....if what WSLVT taught is so very different than what all other students of Ip Man teach, while all those others are pretty similar.....



They aren't. They all contradict one another. 

Not finishing your sentence.

You are arguing entirely from ignorance.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Lol what incredible bias



No bias here!  That conclusion is based entirely on the "observable evidence"!!!!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Try reading with your eyes open this time.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't. They all contradict one another.
> 
> Not finishing your sentence.
> 
> You are arguing entirely from ignorance.



That's all you've got?  Not very convincing at all!!!!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----What is the difference between "eyewitness testimony" and the testimony of Ip Man himself in his written history of Wing Chun published for all posterity???



Seriously?

Relation of actual events vs legend and fairytales.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> That's all you've got?  Not very convincing at all!!!!



Not worth trying to convince you. 

You're like those people who deny evolution because they can't wrap their heads around monkeys and humans existing together.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> It is a fact that YMVT is interpreted and taught this way. To this extent, we can say it is a fact that YMVT boxing is based on the weapons. We certainly teach it with that understanding.
> 
> It is just not historically proven by official records to have been created in this order, despite having evidence to support that theory. So, not officially a "historical fact", but whatever. The important thing is that it actually works, and damn well.
> 
> Can this thread be done now?


Okay, from that standpoint, we can agree. I might argue that the principles are taught from that basis, rather than it being based upon it, but that's probably arguing semantics. That it works, as you said, is the important point.

And, yeah, I think we can let it die. We've beaten it sufficiently.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Actually, I'm sure I've said this before...
> 
> LJ is the earliest verifiable ancestor of VT/WC.
> 
> Some lineages have LJ passing on the weapons, others don't.
> 
> So, it's entirely possible that the other forms got passed on without the weapon theories, allowing the boxing methods to change and evolve, with weapons being added back in later, as some LJ lineages claim.
> 
> While on the other side, we have the other forms getting passed on with the weapons from LJ down through YM, leaving the weapons-based boxing method intact.


True he is, but we cannot discount other lineages that passed on similar material with similar origins just because it suits a narrative. We do not conclusively know what Leung Jan passed on, it's speculation as to what his Wing Chun consisted of, much like it is for Wong Wa Bo or Dai Fa Min Kam. Also it has to be taken into consideration that the only known example of LDBK outside of Wing Chun is Lam Guei Chung's version. It can't be ignored that either he or Lam Sai Wing choreographed the HSHK version of LDBK. It cannot be verified, but it also has to taken into consideration as a possibility, because it's quite plausible and if true creates an entirely new conundrum.

This entire theory is an example of Schrodinger's Cat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> Lol what incredible bias


Would you like to point out what bias that might be? I know nothing of any of the lines, except what folks on here have told me. From what I've been told, it seems apparent WSL was remarkable. If a remarkable student teaches differently than others, and there's no firm evidence otherwise, then the most likely cause (not the only likely cause, but the most likely) is that this remarkable person is the reason for the difference.

What's the bias in that?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Got videos? I haven't seen quite the same pole method. Most are more complex or differ in major ways. Pole method is something where seemingly insignificant differences in form could result in major tactical and strategic differences.


There are some. I do remember seeing a 3 1/2 Point version that was exact. My version is same, with the exception of more repetition and performed on both sides. We also have to take into consideration that the HSHK version wasn't melded with the 8 diagram pole completely. It's quite possible that only the salient points were included. I am currently attempting to gather more information on this with some Hung Kuen friends.

I like your theory, I think it has promise, but there are holes that need addressed and crossed off before validation. I cannot support the premise in how you came to your conclusion because of the various questions that are left unanswered. That being said, outside of remarks suggestive of only WSL passing on this method, I don't see what all the resistance is about. Because this is a theory that could benefit any branch of Wing Chun.  I think I have done a good job of mapping some of it out, but there is a lot left to be explained in a consistent and plausible manner. Good luck with it should you continue to explore it.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> So, you're going to say that all the other principle students of YM cannot possibly have carried forth his style?



You mean principal I guess? Certainly a lot of these guys were not particularly principled!



> That's a very strong claim, which requires very strong evidence to support it.



Suggest you try some VT rather than talking about it from a position of complete ignorance


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons.*
> 
> ---How do you know that?  Did Ip Man tell you that personally?  Did Ip Man write that down anywhere?  Does any Ip Man student other than WSL believe that?   Wouldn't this mean that Chan Wah Shun's Wing Chun was also derived entirely from weapons as well since he was YM's teacher? Wouldn't this mean that Leung Jan's Wing Chun was also derived entirely from weapons since he was CWS's teacher?  But now we are in the realm of "non-YM Wing Chun", and LFJ has said the theory doesn't apply here.  So that's a logical problem, don't you think?



Well my question is this regarding weapons in general.  

1. We have a WSL student who actually explains how, according to WSL himself, YMVT is different in many respects than Main Land WC and according to that story it simply has to do with YM having to remember, and reinvent what could not be remembered, more than what he personally practiced in order to teach a complete system.

2. If the weapons are indeed the core, and this WSL student is in error, then logically their should be a proto-BJD as well, which has yet to be produced.  You can't say "weapons" without it.

3. While there are indeed differences between Main Land WC and YMVT they are not so dissimilar as for YMVT empty hands to be seen as unique with no influence from it's predecessors which would also be a requirement for this theory to be considered "confirmed".   




> *YM didn't teach many people fully. This is why their wing chun isn't the same as his.*
> 
> ---How do you know?  Where you there?  Did you see what Ip Man taught personally?  If you take most of his close long-time students and look at what they learned it isn't all that different.  WSL is the only one that seems so very different than the rest.  So without a written statement from Ip Man himself declaring that he passed down the only "true and original" version of his art to WSL, the most logical conclusion is that WSL innovated and refined what he learned from YM and THAT is why is differs from everyone else!



1.  While I don't really expect to find much in terms of WSL himself commenting on the weapons in terms of "points of origin" because of his "period" (largely pre-web) but I have yet to find a single direct student of his that says this.  Not only do they all appear to share the ideas of the other YMVT sub-Lineages but at least one even speaks of modifications made knowing by WSL based on his own experience.



> *You are being blatantly dishonest because LFJ is talking about discounting legends and fairlytales, not things that actual people said about actual things happening in their actual lives. You know this but pretend not to.*
> 
> ---What things that actual people said about actual things are you talking about?
> 
> *You are being blatantly dishonest in pretending you haven't understood that LFJ's argument is supported by the actual facts that are available, while the idea of an earlier "hands only" wing chun adds complexity without increasing understanding and so is not as good a theory as LFJ's. You know this but pretend not to.*
> 
> ---That is not at all true.  Go back and read my post #302.  There is no "added complexity."  Just because he wrote out some silly formula doesn't make it true!



I am confused by this as well because the idea that some students (apparently just one) were taught some "secret" teaching is actually a fiat statement, aka a fairly tale, without supporting evidence.  

getting to your #302 post you said this



> 2. WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun



But what does "track so closely" mean?  According to DP it means



> ...the best description of this form would be that of "One-armed Wing Chun." Basically, what the form resembles most of all is the way in which one might have to fight if restricted to just one side of the body, whilst still utilising Wing Chun concepts and strategies. If that were the case, due to injury to one arm for example, the smart way to fight would be to use extremely short deflecting movements and very direct thrusting attacks, whilst reducing one's own target area and increasing one's reach...
> 
> Having knowledge of the Luk Dim Boon Gwan offers an introduction as to how to make use of ANY long object as an effective weapon, confirming that the same basic concepts of the system that apply to the hands can also be applied to weapons usage. In addition, it provides an efficient means of strengthening the body, especially the wrists and arms, enhancing one's ability to hit harder, as well as how to draw more power from the body structure, stance and the ground. Sure, you won't be carrying a 12 foot pole around with you on a daily basis, but regular training with the Luk Dim Boon Gwan will add greatly to your Wing Chun skills base.



GL says...



> When considering its proportions, it is easy to understand why some may doubt the luk dim boon quan's relevancy to modern martial arts training. The dragon pole measures 9.5 feet to 10 feet in length and weighs 10 to 15 pounds (poles made of purple heart wood can weigh over 20 pounds). Why all this length and weight? The primary purpose of dragon pole training is not in its use as a weapon. The main points of dragon pole training are to develop internal power, confidence...The fighting applications of the dragon pole do stand alone as good combat technique. The method for usage is simple, powerful and can be learned and utilized quickly. But it is important to remember why the founders of our tradition found the luk dim boon gwun training valuable in the first place. Dragon pole training is most valuable as a method for developing physical power...dragon pole training is essential to the explosive short-range power and structural stability necessary for the execution of strong Wing Chun techniques. The idea is to take the large, wide, explosive movements used in dragon pole training and condense them down to energize the small, simple and powerful techniques that characterize Wing Chun.



So are their correlations?  Yes but in terms of this correlation it is more in terms of again having a tool that builds up, enhances what has already been learned.  So can the pole have come from Hung Kuen (GL says this as well) he also states that while when the pole was added to WC/VT is subject to much debate it was added later.  



> ...When this Hung Kuen master finally did make the pole form available... he found plenty of raw material to work with... The pole form taught by this person provided a fast and sure means for developing internal power, which greatly augmented the Wing Chun training regimen. Ultimately the pole training was simplified to suit the character and needs of Wing Chun



It makes very little sense to think that the pole is the start because of the HK origin, not according to me but GL, because 


> Whoever he was...he was a master of the Hung Kuen (or Hung Gar) system of kung fu. This is why the pole training, with its low horse stance and big wide movements look so different from the rest of Wing Chun.



If the pole really was the origin, it makes little sense that the empty hand would make such fundamental changes to the over all body structure.  HOWEVER if the pole was added later, first to provide a commonly available weapon, and most importantly to provide the enhancement of the existing empty hand form, then the structural differences begin to make more sense.

Now this isn't to say that 100% absolutely positively confirmed the pole was added later however the differences between the pole and the first are profound enough that the form itself undermines the idea that it is the point of origin as well.


----------



## KPM

*I was watching the conversation without commenting and I have to say KPM, yourself and 1 or 2 other people (Juany?) have been awfully biased and almost unbalanced. Given this I didn't feel particularly motivated to introduce myself in a friendly way when I decided to comment- I was more motivated to add support for LFJ who was being attacked by KPM, you and others.*

---Attacked?  Paleeeezzzz!    Trying to get a point across to someone being purposefully evasive and ignoring logic is not attacking!

*I don't agree with any fallacy you personally have highlighted. You sound like a bit of a blowhard with quite a large ego not backed up by thinking ability. Given that you don't even do VT, I tend to just gloss over what you post as irrelevant at this point, considering past form.*
-
---And you sound like another WSLVT follower who has "drank the koolaide" and become a "true believer"!!!     You aren't by chance in a PB lineage are you?

*If either of you guys want to talk in a normal way to me then maybe I will respond in kind. I don't have anything invested in making friends on this forum though, and given what I have seen of you and KPM, would not want to anyway. *

---Fine.  You are welcome to go elsewhere!  We have enough of your kind of dogmatic belief with just LFJ being here! 


*Maybe it would just be easier to ignore both of you- trolling doesn't make for good reading*

---Anyone that repeatedly accuses others of being trolls simply because he does not agree with the points they are making probably isn't  worth carrying on a discussion with anyway!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> You obviously don't have any knowledge of YM VT via WSL.



Worthless statement.  It means nothing.  That's just a "trolling" statement if you ask me!  It didn't answer the point I made at all.  It is NOT an "observable fact".   If you would like to explain how it is, then please go ahead.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Ok, you don't understand the pole. No big deal.



Another statement that contributes nothing and could be seen as an example of just "trolling."  I understand the pole well enough.  But that is irrelevant to the points that have been made.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> You mean principal I guess? Certainly a lot of these guys were not particularly principled!
> 
> 
> 
> Suggest you try some VT rather than talking about it from a position of complete ignorance


I've made absolutely no statements that required any knowledge of VT. I've only discussed the points of logic. Suggest you try some logic rather than talking about it from a position of complete ignorance.


----------



## KPM

*Evolution is a valid scientific theory, despite some uneducated idiots thinking it's wrong because monkeys and humans exist together.*

---What?  That makes no sense and is irrelevant to what I said.

*Your Wing Chun is not concept-based? Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time here.*

---Also an irrelevant and pointless statement.  Sounds like you are running out of steam LFJ!  And I'm not the one having a hard time here! 



*It is now and has been confirmed to be identical to the preexisting pole method. There is no reason to believe it has not always been that way.*

---And no reason to believe that is HAS always been that  way either! 

*This topic is done anyway. Can we agree to disagree, or what?*

----I don't know LFJ.  I offered that many pages ago and you turned it down.   Now that things aren't exactly going your way you've changed your mind????


----------



## Nobody Important

This discussion has gone from Schrodinger's Cat to Russell's Paradox, lol!

I suggest putting differences aside to how it could have came to be, and explore the premise that the weapons could contain information to keep the empty hand methodology consistent within YOUR method. Ultimately people's beliefs on origin is of little value to the actual validity of a quality control measure.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Both of the theories I've looked at are equally simple. One has an existing pole style and an empty-hand method created from whole cloth. The other has an existing pole style and an existing empty-hand method that is adapted to the pole. Neither is more complex than the other, and each requires its own assumptions, given the gaps in available evidence.



No, the second theory is less simple because it requires an extra factor, the now vanished empty hand style. More factors increases complexity, for no additional insight. First theory is a better one than second theory.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Not worth trying to convince you.
> 
> You're like those people who deny evolution because they can't wrap their heads around monkeys and humans existing together.



You don't have the support for your theory to convince me.  And I wasn't the one that denied the existence of a "proto-Wing Chun" because after more than 100 years it is no longer around for us to examine, you where!   And if you recall, I was the one that equated that to denying the theory of evolution.  So your use of that analogy above is somewhat amusing!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> No, the second theory is less simple because it requires an extra factor, the now vanished empty hand style. More factors increases complexity, for no additional insight. First theory is a better one than second theory.



And the first theory also suffers from the fact that there is no "proto-Wing Chun" that was initially derived entirely from the weapons still around to  examine either!  How do you not see that???  No one knows when this "weapons-derived" Wing Chun might have occurred within the lineage.  Was it with Leung Jan? Was it with Chan Wah Shun?  Was it earlier?  The first theory requires that "extra factor" the same as the second!  How can you not follow that logic!!!


----------



## KPM

I am bringing my post #302 forward again because I think it  was largely ignored.  I'm not convinced that Dale or LFJ even read it.  So here it is again.  If you eliminate speculation and oral history and  go just by "observable facts" and logic.  This is what you come up with.  If you disagree, please point out the flaw in my logic and WHY you disagree!   Just stating "wrong" or "you obviously don't know WSLVT" or "you're just a troll" will be seen as evidence that you cannot deny the logic I have used!!!!




KPM said:


> Ok, so here is an exercise in theory development based upon observable facts:
> 
> 1.  WSL's pole form is very similar to an older pole form also know as LDBK that is said to predate the existence of Wing Chun.  (We'll assume age of said older LDBK is indeed older than Wing Chun, but that little tidbit hasn't actually been well established either!  The oldest recorded version of this pole form seems to be from about 1945.  I believe Wing Chun is older than that!  But we proceed anyway!)
> 
> 2.  WSLVT empty hands correlates with and tracks closely with the pole form.  (We'll also just have to assume this is true based upon LFJ's testimony since none of the rest of us know the "complete" WSLVT.)
> 
> 3.  Other versions of Wing Chun, both Ip Man VT and Mainland Wing Chun, do not track the empty hands with the pole.  Thus fact #2 seems to only apply to WSLVT.
> 
> 4.  Any kind of oral history, legend, or testimony can be disregarded as fairytales or unreliable.  (That is a rule applied to this discussion by LFJ)
> 
> 5.  Wong Shun Leung learned his Wing Chun from Ip Man.  Ip Man learned his Wing Chun from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So.  Chan Wah Shun learned his Wing Chun from Leung Jan.
> 
> 
> So based upon the above, the theory of the weapons being the entire source of the empty hand method would apply only to WSLVT.   Based upon only the observable facts it cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole.
> 
> But there is a problem!  Clearly neither Ip Man or WSL started from nothing but the pole and knives.  They had an empty hand system as noted in #5 above.  So if the theory cannot be generalized further back than WSL, if the theory cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole, then it cannot be valid. Because both WSL and YM had a base empty hand method to start with!
> 
> You cannot argue that the other methods have diverged away from the original weapons-based approach, because you would have to prove that they started out with the empty hand tracking closely with the pole.  And that can't be proven.  Remember....we are going solely by observable facts here!!!!  Fact #3 above applies.
> 
> So the observable facts do not actually support the theory that Wing Chun empty hands (even WSLVT empty hands) derived entirely from the weapons.   Because for this theory to be true based upon observable facts, either WSL would have had to start without a empty hand base system, or ALL versions of Wing Chun would need to be observed to have that same version of LDBK and to have empty hand methods that tracked very closely with the pole!
> 
> Now I'm sure LFJ will have plenty of things to repeat over and over again.  But I challenge anyone to deny the logic that I have put forth above and tell me where it is wrong!  And simply stating "wrong" is not enough!
> 
> 
> 
> Now to continue to show how deriving interesting theories from limited observations can lead to fun stuff, I offer a new theory below that also takes into account the observable facts noted above!
> 
> This theory is that WSL learned this older version of LDBK from Ip Man or even someone else (it doesn't really matter).  He also learned the knives very thoroughly.  Based upon his in-depth knowledge of both the pole and the knives he set out to refine and adapt the empty hand VT he had learned from Ip Man.  This resulted in a version of VT very focused on the punch and on using each arm as if it was a "pole" to close in as quickly and directly as possible.  This theory explains why:
> 
> 1.  WSLVT is different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that are currently in existence.
> 2.  WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun
> 3.  None of Ip Man's other close long-term students do Wing Chun like WSL and have this same understanding of empty hand and pole methods.
> 
> All of this matches "observable facts"!!!


----------



## Nobody Important

DALE80 said:


> No, the second theory is less simple because it requires an extra factor, the now vanished empty hand style. More factors increases complexity, for no additional insight. First theory is a better one than second theory.


To be fair this would only ring true if you believe that the YMVT empty hand forms bear absolutely no relation to other lineages of Wing Chun not connected to Yip Man. I don't see how that could be factual. Improbable to think that the YMVT versions of SNT, CK & BJ could have developed independent of other Wing Chun versions of SNT, CK & BJ and retain like choreography & naming convention.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Only if you think an empty-hand method without weapons is as unlikely as alien abduction.



Any arbitrary factor can be a part when you are just pulling things from you know where. All have the same level of support and all add precisely nothing to the simpler alternative.


----------



## geezer

dudewingchun said:


> Why are all WSL guys so stuck up?



You just say that because you haven't met_ my _kung fu brothers in my old lineage!


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> To be fair this would only ring true if you believe that theYMVT empty hand forms bear absolutely no relation to other lineages of Wing Chun not connected to Yip Man. I don't see how that could be factual. Improbable to think that the YMVT versions of SNT, CK & BJ could have developed independent of other Wing Chun versions of SNT, CK & BJ and retain like choreography & naming convention.




And this is the main issue.  While there are differences in specific execution there are also many similarities between YMVT and Main Land WC.  If we are to take the accounts of some of YM's students, most clearly elaborated second hand via DP, the differences are not the product of a unique art created from whole cloth.  Rather YM first did what we are all supposed to do, namely make the art our own.  Second he suddenly finds himself having to recall and/or create a curriculum to do what he never planned on doing in Hong Kong, teaching.  Heck he never even planned to be in Hong Kong, he fled the Communists.  This process of "rememberance" would also fall in line with those students of YM who say, not that he actually had to remember the WC he was taught but that he just "simplified" it.  As a matter of fact that is the most obvious thing, imo, someone sees when they look at SLT without knowing either of these two accounts, that YMVT SLT is basically just a more simple version than the Main Land versions. 

With that said the insistence that YMVT is entirely unique from the Main Land arts is completely unsupported by any objective evidence.


----------



## Transk53

Think this thread needs a toys being thrown out of a pram emoticon. Never known one art that can evoke such amounts of click baiting, arguing and such like. Such a simple premis that Yip Man made changes to the curriculum.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> This is a fallacy of "false equivalence". You've paired this with the "appeal to the stone" and/or "argument from silence" fallacy repeatedly.



The fallacy of false equivalence is what you are doing. LFJ is not making a truth claim and so argument from silence etc is nonsense. All he is doing is pointing to the better theory on the basis of its simplicity and requiring no extra evidence, which is the one he has outlined.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> I think you meant "hearsay".



No he probably meant heresy, given the reaction here to a simple and logical explanation for the available facts. If LFJ was present in person with you guys he would probably be burning at the stake by now. Talk about dogmatic and limited thinking!


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Important to what?



To the system of VT?


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Why would that be idiotic? A lot of martial arts use a version of one arm forward as their preferred fighting position. It has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the square-on stance preferred by WC.



VT is a concept based system. It isn't a system of physical mimicry, whether tat be of animals or of people holding poles. 

Standing with one arm forward as if holding a pole would be utterly moronic in terms of the pole concepts being used.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> That's my point. That's not the only conclusion. It's the one most readily supported by the observable facts, but those facts don't actually counter other theories - they simply appear to support that theory somewhat better. Adding information (like the fact that YM's sons started training late) lends some additional possibility to the idea that YM may not have passed his complete system to them. Likewise, some of the quotes I've seen from WSL seem to support the idea that he provided some refinement to VT. Those aren't strong supports for either side, so also don't preclude the other possibilities.



It is a fact that YM taught 1 or 2 people his system. One of these was WSL. Refine your speculation accordingly.


----------



## DALE80

LFJ said:


> I've explained exactly how they are equivalent.
> 
> I've explained exactly how your theory is absurd.
> 
> I've made no conclusion based on the absence of your variable, other than that it can't be investigated and so is unviable as it stands. I haven't said it's impossible, but I don't accept your assertion that it is. You understand the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> It was KPM who said "entirely based on the pole".
> 
> 
> 
> What's confusing?
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it matches the preexisting pole method and there is no reason to believe it didn't always.
> 
> 
> 
> KPM suggests that if we are basing our boxing method on the pole, we shouldn't fight with two arms working independently. How is that not the most idiotic idea ever?



Good post. KPM's idea is worse than idiotic (although it is)..it is also trolling, dishonest, insulting to anyone that reads it, and the work of a child brained man. It is hideous.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> The fact that it shows no evidence of ever being so closely related to the pole would seem to suggest the pole alignment is contemporary to YM, rather than the origin of WC as a whole. I'm sure I'm missing something here, so point me toward what I've missed.



LFJ is not saying anything about wing chun as a whole, only about YM VT. I can't understand why you forget this so quickly?


----------



## geezer

Hey _Dale_, just let it go. You and _LFJ _have made your point, as have those who partly or entirely disagree. _Nobody Important_ in post 493 above said:
_
I suggest putting differences aside to how it could have came to be, and explore the premise that the weapons could contain information to keep the empty hand methodology consistent within YOUR method. Ultimately people's beliefs on origin is of little value to the actual validity of a quality control measure._

I agree completely. At this point further argumentation is moot, and neither side is going to persuade the other on this matter. What might be interesting to share is how the weapons sets inform your WSL strategy. Certainly they influence _my _strategy even though I train YM VT that does not come through WSL. In fact, in our branch it is held that the Biu Tze form was reverse engineered from the Bart Cham Dao. However, I am not about to engage in a 500+ post argument defending that idea. To me, speculation on origin and arguments regarding lineage mean little. As my first Escrima instructor, Rene Latosa often stated, "It's not who you learned from, it's what you can do that matters".

So, _Dale_, if you are just here to lend support to LFJ, fine. Not that he needs it anyway, but if that was the case, your job is done and I expect you will be moving on from this forum. On the other hand, if you actually enjoy discussing your VT, hang around, but for God's sake, let's move on to a new topic!!!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> No he probably meant heresy, given the reaction here to a simple and logical explanation for the available facts. If LFJ was present in person with you guys he would probably be burning at the stake by now. Talk about dogmatic and limited thinking!



Well, let's see....before you came along to lend support, LFJ was disagreeing with me, Gerry, Juany, Geezer, and Nobody Important.  All of us were essentially saying the same thing and LFJ would have nothing of it.  So just WHO do you think was the "dogmatic" one here????


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Well, let's see....before you came along to lend support, LFJ was disagreeing with me, Gerry, Juany, Geezer, and Nobody Important.  All of us were essentially saying the same thing and LFJ would have nothing of it.  So just WHO do you think was the "dogmatic" one here????



Hey Keith, you can't knock the guy just for sticking to his guns. _You_ do that too. The difference, IMO is that you are a "questioner" and a bit of a skeptic. LFJ on the other hand has found the truth and can't figure out why the rest of us are so stubbornly determined to remain ignorant.


----------



## DALE80

geezer said:


> BTW Dale -- I see that you study WSL VT in Australia and in another post mentioned that you had trained some other WC and then put it aside. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit. What was your prior experience and what did you find most appealing about WSL VT?



Hi Geezer,

I studied with David Peterson before he went to Malaysia, now I am a solo operator occasionally learning from a different teacher. I teach a small class myself. 

Before WSL VT I learned a different lineage, also popular in Australia, which I later discovered to be fake/made up/fraudulent (whatever description you want to use). 

I like WSL VT because it works and makes logical sense. It is simple and there is no nonsense.


----------



## Juany118

DALE80 said:


> The fallacy of false equivalence is what you are doing. LFJ is not making a truth claim and so argument from silence etc is nonsense. All he is doing is pointing to the better theory on the basis of its simplicity and requiring no extra evidence, which is the one he has outlined.



First when your thesis is, in part has a foundation based on a "truth" you are making such a claim.  Coming late to the debate you may have missed when he opened his position by stating the only portions of YMVT that come from other systems  are the weapons.  He specifically stated that YMVT empty hand is entirely unique.  Yet we know that YMVT empty hand has a foundation in Main Land WC Lineages.  We also know these Lineages share not only techniques but also certain foundational principles such as centerline theory, straight punching and simultaneous attack and defense all based on the centerline theory with older arts.  So YMVT is not wholely unique and the Main Land arts it's based on were also not uniquely created out of whole cloth

Next, if you aren't making a statement of "truth" one doesn't say "wrong" in response to an opposing opinion that is also based on observable facts.  One can say "I believe my idea has a stronger foundation" and the like but a simple "wrong" or "false" is in effect stating that you speak truth.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Well, let's see....before you came along to lend support, LFJ was disagreeing with me, Gerry, Juany, Geezer, and Nobody Important.  All of us were essentially saying the same thing and LFJ would have nothing of it.  So just WHO do you think was the "dogmatic" one here????



Looking at the thread? I would say you guys. I haven't seen previous threads so can't comment on your history with LFJ. But this thread didn't make you look very good.


----------



## DALE80

Juany118 said:


> First when your thesis is, in part has a foundation based on a "truth" you are making such a claim.



Lack of understanding of LFJ's argument



> Coming late to the debate you may have missed when he opened his position by stating the only portions of YMVT that come from other systems  are the weapons.  He specifically stated that YMVT empty hand is entirely unique.  Yet we know that YMVT empty hand has a foundation in Main Land WC Lineages.



There is nothing like YMVT that I am aware of. Mainland wing chun is entirely different, why would you assume it has anything to do with YMVT?



> We also know these Lineages share not only techniques but also certain foundational principles such as centerline theory, straight punching and simultaneous attack and defense all based on the centerline theory.  So YMVT is not wholely unique and the Main Land arts it's based on were also not uniquely created out of whole cloth



Mainland wing chun appears completely unrelated to YM VT



> Next, if you aren't making a statement of "truth" one doesn't say "wrong" in response to an opposing opinion that is also based on observable facts.  One can say "I believe my idea has a stronger foundation" and the like but a simple "wrong" or "false" is in effect stating that you speak truth.



It is fine to say "wrong" when someone makes a mistake or is dishonest. It doesn't mean you are making a truth claim


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Good post. KPM's idea is worse than idiotic (although it is)..it is also trolling, dishonest, insulting to anyone that reads it, and the work of a child brained man. It is hideous.



Ok genius.  Since you chose to again ignore my post where I explained my reasoning, let me sum it up a bit so you can't miss it!

We have essentially established 2 "observable facts" that are underlying this discussion.  They are:

1.  The pole form that WSL taught is the same as an much older version of the LDBK.  Therefore neither WSL or YM could have created this pole form themselves.  The LDBK pre-dates YMVT.
2.   The empty hand method within WSLVT tracks very closely with the weapons and is based upon the concepts, strategies and tactics from the pole and knives.

Now, if we go only by these facts and discount any speculation, oral history, stories, or legends we can reach several logical possibilities:

1.  There was an early "proto" Wing Chun empty hand system to which the weapons were added.  This system then continued to develop  and evolve so that it became closely "tracked" with those weapons and adjusted to be based upon the strategies and tactics taught with those weapons. 
2.  There was an early "proto" Wing Chun empty hand system that developed directly from the pole and knives with no preexisting empty hand method being used.  It then continued to evolve and refine this relationship with the weapons.
3.  WSL himself recognized the value of the weapons and worked to adjust what he learned from YM to align or "track" with the weapons as closely as possible.

Any of the 3 theories above could account for the "observable facts" noted.   The existence of or lack of existence of a "proto Wing Chun" to examine affects both theory 1 and theory 2 equally.   Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence!

IF we then introduce some speculation and things to support these theories things can shift.  One theory or the other can be seen as more or less plausible than the alternative.  Nobody Important offered some interesting and intriguing possibilities!  But just to keep it basic:

1.  Weapons added to empty hand:
---Supported by the lineage history of every known version of Wing Chun.
---Supported by the magazine article that Ip Man himself wrote for a HK magazine.
---Supported by the fact that various versions of Wing Chun...both Ip Man and Mainland incorporate weapons understanding to various and differing degrees.
---Lack of a "proto-Wing Chun" that didn't have the weapons isn't really a problem, because it can be assumed that different lineages would have made use of the weapons to differing degrees after the weapons were incorporated.  You wouldn't expect to find a system of Wing Chun without weapons, because the weapons became part of the system!


2.  Empty hand derived entirely from the weapons:
---Unsupported by the fact that no other system other than WSLVT seems to track empty hands and weapons so closely.
---Unsupported by the fact that no lineage other than WSLVT even teaches this theory.
---If ANY system other than WSLVT was shown to teach this theory and also tracked weapons and empty hand so closely, this would go a long ways towards validating this theory!  But that system doesn't seem to exist.


3.  WSL tracked the weapons to the empty hands:
---Supported by the fact that no other Ip Man student teaches this or does their Wing Chun empty-hands like WSL.
---Supported by the fact that no other version of Wing Chun tracks the empty hands to the weapons so closely.

So, in my assessment theory #2 is the LEAST plausible.   So I still have to go with either theory #1 or #3.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> I'm done trying to explain the weaknesses



Great news for the thread



> All I've done is show where there are weaknesses in arguments, and show where arguments have support (and where claims against them lack support)


----------



## DALE80

Nobody Important said:


> Based on LFJ's claim, I presented some scenarios as to how YMVT could have came to be based upon pole work. They are conjecture and unsubstantiated, yet quite plausible. LFJ has agreed with many parts of it. There are holes and "what if" questions that demand attention, but until more information becomes available, what presented is what we have.
> 
> In the course of this discussion there have been claims of "truth", argument over semantics to the point of minutiae, various fallacies etc. I would suggest re-reading some posts for clarification to answer many of the questions that have been repeated over & over, the answers are there. Many points of contention, as well as clarification, have been addressed only to be ignored in side discussion.
> 
> For what it's worth, I feel this to be an unproven, yet plausible theory. When examined it does make sense in certain aspects of why YMVT is so different to other branches of Wing Chun. It by no means suggests superior, simply in and of itself, consistent.
> 
> I don't feel as if I really have any more to add to this discussion, so I'll bow out. Thank you all for your time and input. This has been a very fruitful and productive discussion, and if nothing else, thought provoking. Kudos to LFJ for bringing it to light.



Good constructive post


----------



## DALE80

LFJ said:


> That's all it was ever presented as.
> 
> I too would like it if we all just agreed to drop the topic here.
> 
> Everything that is going to be said has been said, more than a few times.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I'm leaving the country for a month in a couple days and probably won't be on for a long while anyway.



Good post, and very interesting thread. Thanks


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Hi Geezer,
> 
> I studied with David Peterson before he went to Malaysia, now I am a solo operator occasionally learning from a different teacher. I teach a small class myself.
> 
> Before WSL VT I learned a different lineage, also popular in Australia, which I later discovered to be fake/made up/fraudulent (whatever description you want to use).
> 
> I like WSL VT because it works and makes logical sense. It is simple and there is no nonsense.




Well then, before you get too cozy with LFJ, you should know that he does not consider DP a valid student of WSL.  He did not learn the "complete" system and was only a seminar student.  His understanding is also "broken" compared to someone that knows the "complete" WSLVT.  Now those are HIS words, not mine!  I don't believe that at all.  But this has come up in multiple discussions in the past.  Therefore according to LFJ, your Wing Chun would also be "broken."    So does DP actually teach what you and LFJ have been so dogmatically supporting?  I don't recall this theory that Wing Chun derived entirely from the weapons being featured in the book that he wrote.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> There is no more evidence to say that there was a "proto-Wing Chun" that was created exclusively from the pole and knives than there is to say there was a "proto-Wing Chun" that added on the pole and knives and then evolved from there. Both premises are on equal footing.



There is YM VT (based exclusively upon pole and knives). There is pole elsewhere. There is not hand only prehistoric VT style. So you are wrong (again).


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> You are stating as fact that which even LFJ has said is not proven. He has stated it as the most likely conclusion from the evidence, but it is not proven. As such, it is not a fact. Maybe you need a dictionary.



It's a fact that today the empty hands of YM VT is based upon the understanding in the weapons. LFJ is presenting a theory for how it got that way. You don't seem to like either facts or theories, only the sound of your own voice droning on about a system you don't understand, never pausing to listen.


----------



## Juany118

DALE80 said:


> Lack of understanding of LFJ's argument



Not when you consider what I said after.




> There is nothing like YMVT that I am aware of. Mainland wing chun is entirely different, why would you assume it has anything to do with YMVT?



Then you don't look at them with an open mind.  They are little more different the pole that LFJ admits was imported.  It also ignores what YM's first generation students say.  They either say YMVT is different because he had to remember the curriculum he was taught because he never intended to teach, resulting in change, or that he didn't have to remember what he was taught, rather he just simplified and refined what he had been taught.  

In either case his first generation students all state it is founded in the Mainland WC he had been taught and YMVT as we know it is a product of a refinement based on one of the two above mechanisms.





> It is fine to say "wrong" when someone makes a mistake or is dishonest. It doesn't mean you are making a truth claim



Simply saying "wrong" as a fiat statement, without elaboration on an error of FACT is a claim of truth.


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Show me where I "attacked" LFJ. I have commented only on his arguments, until such point as he started referring to my posts as untruths, relating my logic to "aliens did it", etc.



You are an incredibly biased person with a massive ego, commenting obsessively about a tcma system you don't have the slightest understanding of. I can only assume you are unemployed to spend your days in such a pathetic way. What I have learned reading this thread is that it isn't worth reading the self-indulgent and hateful waffle that you churn out in massive quantities to make yoursef feel important. 

You are ignored.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> There may be no evidence for a "pre-weapons" empty hand wing chun, but there is also no evidence for a "weapons-based" empty hand wing chun prior to YM either!



YM VT is evidence for a weapons based empty hand VT. Who needs for it to be from before YM?


----------



## DALE80

Nobody Important said:


> I hate to interrupt, but there is a fallacy that needs addressed here. Yes it is true that the LDBK can be proven to exist prior to Yip Man. There are a couple of points to address here though.
> 
> 1. The pole seen in YMVT, as verified by Lam Guei Chung's HSHK version, is also present in YKSWC & Kulo.
> 
> 2. Since the existence of the pole is applicable as being pre-Yip Man, so must to be, the empty hand sets SNT, CK & BJ as these sets are also passed on by YKSWC & other Leung Jan lineages, the same as YMVT. Theory, principles, methodology etc. of the forms and pole of that time cannot be definitively proven, only outward appearance.
> 
> 3. Even though the appearance of the empty hand sets differ slightly, it doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to the pole. We can deduce that at minimum they existed at the same time.
> 
> 4. Yip Man's version of the empty hand forms didn't exist prior to YMVT, because YMVT didn't appear prior to Yip Man.
> 
> 5. The significance of the YMVT empty hand forms being based on the pole is only applicable to YMVT and could only have occurred prior to Yip Man, with Yip Man or after Yip Man. But this does not at any point eliminate the existence of SNT, CK or BJ until the emergence of the LDBK. Because if we take the previous points into consideration, we see that the empty hand sets, like the pole were passed on independent of Yip Man's lineage.
> 
> 6. This leaves the conclusion that any correlation to pole with empty hand occurred only within the Yip Man line and since the existence of SNT, CK & BJ can be verified prior to YMVT, that the merging of the theory could only have occurred in one of the following ways:
> 
> A. Leung Bik/Fung Wah taught it to Yip Man. Since no other students of Chan Wah Shun pass this on, he can be ruled out.
> 
> B. Yip Man re-engineered the hands to align with the pole and passed it on to a select few.
> 
> C. Wong Shun Leung formulated this methodology and passed it on.
> 
> There are no other possible solutions based on the available evidence that would support a plausible explanation.



ok?


----------



## DALE80

Juany118 said:


> Kali grappling, especially ground fighting, isn't about submissions but actual breaks and dislocations.



Sounds like the kind of thing that doesn't work. Be careful!


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Oh! So anyone that disagrees with you and LFJ are simply "trolls"! How convenient!



Don't troll if you don't want to be called a troll



KPM said:


> You should really look up what "troll" means! That is not trolling. Giving someone a dose of their own medicine is not trolling unless THEY were trolling to begin with!



intentionally harassing someone while contributing zero to the thread is trolling, yes


----------



## Nobody Important

DALE80 said:


> ok?


Lol! I know it's over analytical, but the entire concept poses a paradox concerning origins. This has absolutely no bearing though on the validity of the premise of pole work influencing hand work.


----------



## DALE80

Juany118 said:


> Not when you consider what I said after.



Sorry I have been ignoring your posts because you were trolling before. I tried to read this one but it was too boring to focus on. Might try again later.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Well then, before you get too cozy with LFJ, you should know that he does not consider DP a valid student of WSL.  He did not learn the "complete" system and was only a seminar student.  His understanding is also "broken" compared to someone that knows the "complete" WSLVT.  Now those are HIS words, not mine!  I don't believe that at all.  But this has come up in multiple discussions in the past.  Therefore according to LFJ, your Wing Chun would also be "broken."    So does DP actually teach what you and LFJ have been so dogmatically supporting?  I don't recall this theory that Wing Chun derived entirely from the weapons being featured in the book that he wrote.



Please stop trolling and let LFJ speak for himself


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> The fallacy of false equivalence is what you are doing. LFJ is not making a truth claim and so argument from silence etc is nonsense. All he is doing is pointing to the better theory on the basis of its simplicity and requiring no extra evidence, which is the one he has outlined.


Again, you need to learn a bit about logic. I'm done with you, but thanks.


----------



## DALE80

Nobody Important said:


> Lol! I know it's over analytical, but the entire concept poses a paradox concerning origins. This has absolutely no bearing though on the validity of the premise of pole work influencing hand work.



I don't see why some earlier figure could not have passed on the full weapon based system to some people, while passing on a simplified version with hands only or weapons and hands understanding missing? But it really doesn't concern me where it came from, only that it exists. LFJ's theory is a nice one and it is interesting to think about whenever the trolls take a breather from the attack. I can't understand why it provokes such opposition myself.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Well then, before you get too cozy with LFJ, you should know that he does not consider DP a valid student of WSL.  He did not learn the "complete" system and was only a seminar student.  His understanding is also "broken" compared to someone that knows the "complete" WSLVT.  Now those are HIS words, not mine!  I don't believe that at all.  But this has come up in multiple discussions in the past.  Therefore according to LFJ, your Wing Chun would also be "broken."    So does DP actually teach what you and LFJ have been so dogmatically supporting?  I don't recall this theory that Wing Chun derived entirely from the weapons being featured in the book that he wrote.



I think you are overstating things a bit, _KPM._ _LFJ_ may have said some of those things, but his main point was that David Peterson hadn't spent the same amount of time with WSL as Philip Bayer and some others, and consequently LFJ feels that Peterson is not at the same level as Bayer. Furthermore he has stated that DP 's instruction is application-based rather than the more abstract, strategy based method of Philip Bayer, and some others (which he insists is the _correct_ method).

You know, I don't have as much of a problem with _LFJ's_ perspective as his_ attitude._ If he wouldn't express his strongly held opinions as _proven facts_, I'd be a lot more receptive. He's a smart, articulate guy who knows a lot about_ his_ art, but he sure doesn't know much about _the art of persuasion! _


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Again, you need to learn a bit about logic. I'm done with you, but thanks.



This is like the third time you have been done with the thread, with me, with others. Just go already, and don't let the door hit your giant but damaged ego on the way out, you clown.


----------



## Nobody Important

DALE80 said:


> I don't see why some earlier figure could not have passed on the full weapon based system to some people, while passing on a simplified version with hands only or weapons and hands understanding missing? But it really doesn't concern me where it came from, only that it exists. LFJ's theory is a nice one and it is interesting to think about whenever the trolls take a breather from the attack. I can't understand why it provokes such opposition myself.


As previously stated, the origins are irrelevant, the premise is plausible. It's a good theory of quality control IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> Sounds like the kind of thing that doesn't work. Be careful!


Sounds like you also know nothing about grappling beyond submissions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DALE80 said:


> I don't see why some earlier figure could not have passed on the full weapon based system to some people, while passing on a simplified version with hands only or weapons and hands understanding missing? But it really doesn't concern me where it came from, only that it exists. LFJ's theory is a nice one and it is interesting to think about whenever the trolls take a breather from the attack. I can't understand why it provokes such opposition myself.


Have you seriously not noticed that I have said REPEATEDLY that it's a nice theory and not without support?? I've not opposed the theory, at all. Not once. I've only discussed the logic of the evidence.


----------



## geezer

Dale, no need to continue the name calling. My mom taught me that "Sicks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me!" ....When the truth of that sank in, I took up _Escrima_.


----------



## DALE80

geezer said:


> You know, I don't have as much of a problem with _LFJ's_ perspective as his_ attitude._ If he wouldn't express his strongly held opinions as _proven facts_, I'd be a lot more receptive. He's a smart, articulate guy who knows a lot about_ his_ art, but he sure doesn't know much about _the art of persuasion! _



I guess it's the thing where someone inside the system can see and understand things that are impossible from without.

Personally in terms of my short time on the forum, it looks like many of you guys are more into forum politics than learning something. There are a couple of posters here that know a great deal about their respective areas. LFJ is obviously one of these.

For me, it is a lot more interesting and rewarding to interact politely and learn from such people, rather than give any consideration to what they might be _thinking_ or whether I like their _attitude_. It just seems so counter productive to focus on such trivial things.


----------



## geezer

gpseymour said:


> Sounds like you also know nothing about grappling beyond submissions.



In competition and certain jobs like security/law enforcement you may use control and hold back, you cause pain and effect a submission. If you are fighting for your life you go all out and break things. That's pretty straightforward. I'm not sure why Dale made that comment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> In competition and certain jobs like security/law enforcement you may use control and hold back, you cause pain and effect a submission. If you are fighting for your life you go all out and break things. That's pretty straightforward. I'm not sure why Dale made that comment.


Everyone I know who practices submissions knows which ones easily turn into destructions, even if they only train for competition (they still need to know it for safety, of course).


----------



## DALE80

geezer said:


> Dale, no need to continue the name calling. My mom taught me that "Sicks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me!" ....When the truth of that sank in, I took up _Escrima_.



Are you some kind of moderator?

If so then maybe try and call off the some of the dogs here (KPM, Seymour, Juany). They are really ruining the forum from an outside observer's point of view and add very little to nothing of substance. If they back off and become civil then i am happy not to call them names which might hurt their poor feelings 

LFJ is worth 100 of these because he actually knows what he is talking about and is willing to share it. Who cares if he isn't _friendly_ and doesn't _make you feel special_? At the end of the day it's about learning VT, not mincing around the forum feeling good about yourself,


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> There is YM VT (based exclusively upon pole and knives). There is pole elsewhere. There is not hand only prehistoric VT style. So you are wrong (again).



Uh, no.  Sorry.  You logic is obviously flawed.  No one would expect there to be a "prehistoric" VT style still around.  Its the whole "theory of evolution" argument.  Haven't you been following this thread???   But there is NO system of Wing Chun independent of WSLVT that teaches the "empty hands come  entirely from weapons" theory and that tracks the empty hand and weapons so closely together.  THAT is a much bigger problem that there being no present day "prehistoric" VT style!


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Have you seriously not noticed that I have said REPEATEDLY that it's a nice theory and not without support?? I've not opposed the theory, at all. Not once. I've only discussed the logic of the evidence.



Which I think you treated in a very biased way in order to troll LFJ. Personally I would rather hear about VT than stuff you read on wikipedia because you like to feel clever.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> You are an incredibly biased person with a massive ego, commenting obsessively about a tcma system you don't have the slightest understanding of. I can only assume you are unemployed to spend your days in such a pathetic way. What I have learned reading this thread is that it isn't worth reading the self-indulgent and hateful waffle that you churn out in massive quantities to make yoursef feel important.
> 
> You are ignored.



With statements like that just because someone happens to disagree with you....you are certainly welcome to go elsewhere!!!


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> there is NO system of Wing Chun independent of WSLVT that teaches the "empty hands come entirely from weapons" theory and that tracks the empty hand and weapons so closely together. THAT is a much bigger problem that there being no present day "prehistoric" VT style!



This is because YM didn't teach many people his VT. It is a much larger problem for other YM derived wing chun than for WSL VT


----------



## geezer

DALE80 said:


> For me, it is a lot more interesting and rewarding to interact politely and learn from such people, rather than give any consideration to what they might be _thinking_ or whether I like their _attitude_. It just seems so counter productive to focus on such trivial things.



Good on you, mate. I agree, and am here to learn as well as to share.

On the other hand, you have to consider that_ others here are not exactly ignorant._ Many have been involved in WC/VT/WC for a long time. I switched from another TCMA to WC in 1979 and even so, I am way junior to many others like Joy (Vajramusdi). He has been a student of Ho Kam Ming's student Augustine Fong since I was a boy (and I'm 61 now). He has also done chi-sau with the likes of Tsui Sheung Tin and Wong Shun Leung. That's just one example. So I come here with a healthy dose of humility.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> YM VT is evidence for a weapons based empty hand VT. Who needs for it to be from before YM?



Ok.  So now you are proposing the it was Ip Man himself that created a Wing Chun method completely from the weapons and completely independent of any other Wing Chun system?  Really???  That he just totally "forgot" everything he learned from Chan Wh Shun and Ng Chung So and started over completely from scratch?  That's really what you think?


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> Sounds like you also know nothing about grappling beyond submissions.



Go and put on your ninja skirt and play at fighting, there's a good chap


----------



## DALE80

geezer said:


> I am way junior to many others like Joy (Vajramusdi). He has been a student of Ho Kam Ming's student Augustine Fong since I was a boy (and I'm 61 now). He has also done chi-sau with the likes of Tsui Sheung Tin and Wong Shun Leung. That's just one example. So I come here with a healthy dose of humility



He sounds like an interesting guy, don't think I have seen him posting though. Hope he joins the conversation.


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> I don't see why some earlier figure could not have passed on the full weapon based system to some people, while passing on a simplified version with hands only or weapons and hands understanding missing? But it really doesn't concern me where it came from, only that it exists. LFJ's theory is a nice one and it is interesting to think about whenever the trolls take a breather from the attack. I can't understand why it provokes such opposition myself.



Dude!  You really need to go back and read this thread from the beginning!  There was no opposition until LFJ starting dogmatically stating things as if they were facts and completely denying any logic or points anyone else made that contradicted his belief!  THAT is what provoked so much opposition!  And that is common practice for LFJ in most discussions in which he participates!  You really have no idea!  And then to come around calling anyone that doesn't agree with YOU a troll just boggles the mind!!


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Uh, no.  Sorry.  You logic is obviously flawed.  No one would expect there to be a "prehistoric" VT style still around.  Its the whole "theory of evolution" argument.  Haven't you been following this thread???   But there is NO system of Wing Chun independent of WSLVT that teaches the "empty hands come  entirely from weapons" theory and that tracks the empty hand and weapons so closely together.  THAT is a much bigger problem that there being no present day "prehistoric" VT style!



zzzzzzzz


----------



## geezer

DALE80 said:


> Are you some kind of moderator?



No, I'm just a "Mentor". Like a Mod with no teeth. We are folks who try to lead by example and encourage civility. If we fail, the Mods come in. You will know when that happens.


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Dude!  You really need to go back and read this thread from the beginning!  There was no opposition until LFJ starting dogmatically stating things as if they were facts and completely denying any logic or points anyone else made that contradicted his belief!  THAT is what provoked so much opposition!  And that is common practice for LFJ in most discussions in which he participates!  You really have no idea!  And then to come around calling anyone that doesn't agree with YOU a troll just boggles the mind!!



Okay, see you at the start of the thread. You go first, I'll meet you there in a bit. Don't come back too soon


----------



## DALE80

geezer said:


> No, I'm just a "Mentor". Like a Mod with no teeth. We are folks who try to lead by example and encourage civility. If we fail, the Mods come in. You will know when that happens.



I will try to be more civil, especially when you are around! Can you do something about these trolls ruining the actual thread of discussion?


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Are you some kind of moderator?
> 
> If so then maybe try and call off the some of the dogs here (KPM, Seymour, Juany). They are really ruining the forum from an outside observer's point of view and add very little to nothing of substance. If they back off and become civil then i am happy not to call them names which might hurt their poor feelings
> 
> LFJ is worth 100 of these because he actually knows what he is talking about and is willing to share it. Who cares if he isn't _friendly_ and doesn't _make you feel special_? At the end of the day it's about learning VT, not mincing around the forum feeling good about yourself,



Just who the heck are you???  You just arrived on the scene and you are making pronouncements about "ruining the forum"???  And once again, you are not acknowledging all the valid points that myself, Gerry, and others have contributed simply because the contradict your pet theory?  You've repeatedly insulted Gerry now for no real reason.   And you have no idea what kind of reputation LFJ has created for himself here by the way he has treated people and posted in the past.  And you certainly are not off to a good start!  You should know that WSLVT people have developed a rather poor reputation here and you are just adding to that impression!


----------



## KPM

DALE80 said:


> Okay, see you at the start of the thread. You go first, I'll meet you there in a bit. Don't come back too soon



Oh, unlike you I've actually read it already!  You do realize that calling other people names and making derogatory comments about them given your recent responses does not at all support the idea that you know what you are talking about or support your points in any way???


----------



## DALE80

KPM said:


> Just who the heck are you???  You just arrived on the scene and you are making pronouncements about "ruining the forum"???



I'm a person that likes to read the forum. Who are you?



> And once again, you are not acknowledging all the valid points that myself, Gerry, and others have contributed simply because the contradict your pet theory?



I didn't agree that you had any valid points, and i didn't apprevciate your incessant trolling which almost ruined the discussion.



> You've repeatedly insulted Gerry now for no real reason



Gerry has been trolling the thread, and has almost ruined it, along with you and Juany. Seems a good reason to me.



> And you have no idea what kind of reputation LFJ has created for himself here by the way he has treated people and posted in the past.  And you certainly are not off to a good start!  You should know that WSLVT people have developed a rather poor reputation here and you are just adding to that impression!



LFJ's reputation in the wider world is as someone that knows a lot about VT and is willing to share. I don't feel particularly well disposed to apparently jealous people like yourself and Gerry who seem to feel too self important to listen and learn. 

Forum popularity isn't my top priority either, but I bear you no grudge and I will treat you the way you treat others, i.e. fairly


----------



## Juany118

DALE80 said:


> Sounds like the kind of thing that doesn't work. Be careful!



Actually it works quite well, very similar to Traditional Japanese Jujutsu in that regard.  Joints are only designed to work in specific ways.  what keeps them stabilized is soft tissue.  Just as a proper WC/VT kick can hyperextend/"break" the knee due to the proper application force and leverage if applied properly, there are grappling techniques that can do the same to the various joints.


----------



## Juany118

DALE80 said:


> LFJ's reputation in the wider world is as someone that knows a lot about VT and is willing to share. I don't feel particularly well disposed to apparently jealous people like yourself and Gerry who seem to feel too self important to listen and learn.
> 
> Forum popularity isn't my top priority either, but I bear you no grudge and I will treat you the way you treat others, i.e. fairly



It's odd because his reputation in the wider world is indeed of someone who knows quite a bit about WSLVT but it is also as one who believes that the rules of WSLVT apply universally to all YMVT when they do not.  Even first gen students of WSL state that WSL altered things based on his personal experiences in challenge matches. 

He was was to simply say "based on my knowledge of WSLVT this is what I have personally come to believe..."  I don't think any of us would be having any issue with what he says.  However he contradicts at least two living students of WSL himself AND to make matters more infuriating he extends his opinion based on his experience in WSLVT to ALL of YMVT.  So He says "based on my research DP, GL lie about what they were taught by WSL, the surviving Ips and all the other first gen students of YM are also wrong.  They have no clue about what YM actually taught them."


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> In competition and certain jobs like security/law enforcement you may use control and hold back, you cause pain and effect a submission. If you are fighting for your life you go all out and break things. That's pretty straightforward. I'm not sure why Dale made that comment.



Exactly.  The reason my Sifu/Guro saves that training for a specific place in a student's growth is because he wants to be 100% sure that the student's in question are capable of not crossing that line, because with some techniques it is a very fine line.


----------



## Juany118

From the past few pages why am I definitely getting the feeling we have a "sock account?"  Blatant hero worship, no actual independent contribution to the discussion and endless ad hominem attacks.


----------



## DALE80

Juany118 said:


> He says "based on my research DP, GL lie about what they were taught by WSL



Please provide me with a link to where he has said this.


----------



## DALE80

Juany118 said:


> It's odd because his reputation in the wider world is indeed of someone who knows quite a bit about WSLVT but it is also as one who believes that the rules of WSLVT apply universally to all YMVT when they do not



This forum is not even a microcosm of the world of VT


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> From the past few pages why am I definitely getting the feeling we have a "sock account?"  Blatant hero worship, no actual independent contribution to the discussion and endless ad hominem attacks.


If it is, it's unlikely to be LFJ. While I feel LFJ can be hard to debate with because he doesn't seem to want to follow arguments that are only about the validity of information, he doesn't quickly resort to name-calling and other middle school attempts to control the situation.


----------



## DALE80

DALE80 said:


> I will try to be more civil, especially when you are around! Can you do something about these trolls ruining the actual thread of discussion?



I'll take that as a no?


----------



## DALE80

gpseymour said:


> he doesn't seem to want to follow arguments that are only about the validity of information



Sign me up, sounds awesome


----------



## Juany118

DALE80 said:


> This forum is not even a microcosm of the world of VT



Well it could be here or on the old KF forums.  Everywhere I have seen him he shows knowledge of WSLVT but makes the inaccurate extension of that knowledge to ALL of VT, including to people even better known for there knowledge not of WSLVT but YMVT who post here as well, such as Joy.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *Evolution is a valid scientific theory, despite some uneducated idiots thinking it's wrong because monkeys and humans exist together.*
> 
> ---What?  That makes no sense and is irrelevant to what I said.



You said my theory is invalid if it requires special knowledge.

Evolution is not rendered invalid because people are uneducated on the topic.

Likewise, my theory is not rendered invalid because you are uneducated on the topic.

From my perspective, one just has to laugh at the fumbling around in the dark most of you guys are doing.

Especially you and Juany, who (I still can't get over) didn't even know YM kicks in his CK form, but now thinks he is sufficiently educated on YMVT and WSLVT (by googling) that he can conduct quality comparisons with other MAs he has equally 0 knowledge of and somehow reach valid conclusions.

You both are like those Evolution denialists who think logic is on their side because monkeys and humans _obviously_ cohabit the Earth.

It is an utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of the entire topic due to lack of education in the subject matter.

You don't know the first thing about what WSL learned from YM or taught to his students, yet you think you can explain what he learned and what he invented.

Your cluelessness and guessing is just laughable.



> *Your Wing Chun is not concept-based? Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time here.*
> 
> ---Also an irrelevant and pointless statement.



You are having a hard time understanding how VT boxing could be based on the pole if it doesn't physically mimic it.

The reason is you aren't able to understand how concept-based systems function. They are not physical mimicry.

Therefore, you cannot even begin to discuss how they may have been developed. You need to educate yourself on the topic first.



> *It is now and has been confirmed to be identical to the preexisting pole method. There is no reason to believe it has not always been that way.*
> 
> ---And no reason to believe that is HAS always been that  way either!



The sun rises in the east today and there is evidence that it has in the past. There is no reason or evidence to believe it hasn't always.

If you want to suggest the contrary is even possible, you need to provide evidence for that, and not just say "you can't prove it".

Science never deals with absolute certainty, and I haven't made a truth claim on the origins of YMVT.

But on the other hand, I do not accept your alternate origin theory as true or even possible.

This does not mean I believe it is false or impossible. I am just not convinced, as you have not even demonstrated the possibility, so I cannot investigate it.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> the pole that LFJ admits was imported.



That's the exact opposite of my theory!

Please don't tell lies about me when I'm not around. Thanks.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> the idea that some students (apparently just one) were taught some "secret" teaching is actually a fiat statement, aka a fairly tale, without supporting evidence.



This from a follower of William Cheung's "Traditional Wing Chun"! 

Oh, the irony! 



DALE80 said:


> Juany118 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He says "based on my research DP, GL lie about what they were taught by WSL
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide me with a link to where he has said this.
Click to expand...


If anyone has ever lied about anything it's this Juany character.

Can't stand little lying punks like this!


----------



## KPM

*You said my theory is invalid if it requires special knowledge.  Evolution is not rendered invalid because people are uneducated on the topic.*

---Not the same thing.  Evolution would be invalid if the theory required people to wear special glasses to see the connections! 


*Likewise, my theory is not rendered invalid because you are uneducated on the topic.*

----We have outlined the simple logic.  I really isn't all that complicated.  Yet you have denied the logic based on the fact that you have special insider knowledge that we don't.  That does not negate the logic unless you can provide something that shows where the logic is flawed.   Is certainly sounds much more like a case of "sifu sez" to me!!


*From my perspective, one just has to laugh at the fumbling around in the dark most of you guys are doing.*

---And from our perspective we all are scratching our heads and wondering just how you and Dale can be so dogmatic and continue to deny simple logical and reasonable arguments as if we were challenging your religious beliefs!   I mean, just look as the visceral reaction Dale has had and the way he has resorted to just insulting anyone that disagrees with your pet theory!!!


*You both are like those Evolution denialists who think logic is on their side because monkeys and humans obviously cohabit the Earth.*

---So why have you again avoided going back to my recent posts and showing just where my logic and reasoning is wrong?  Because your criticism above again just sounds like someone grasping at straws because they don't know what else to do!



*You don't know the first thing about what WSL learned from YM or taught to his students, yet you think you can explain what he learned and what he invented.*

---And you really don't either!  You weren't there!  You don't even know truly what YM's Wing Chun was like.  All we can do is compare his long-time direct students.


*Your cluelessness and guessing is just laughable.*

---And your dogmatism and clinging to "sifu sez" and denial of any point that contradicts "sifu sez" is just pitiful.


*But on the other hand, I do not accept your alternate origin theory as true or even possible.*

---So you do not accept the idea that the weapons were an add on to the Wing Chun system that then influenced how it developed as even being a possibility?   Hence the problem we have had through-out this discussion!      You are not coming from a position of reason and open mindedness.  You are obviously coming from a position of religious belief and "sifu said it so it MUST be true!"

---In contrast, I never even considered the possibility that the system could have been entirely derived from the weapons until Guy B. mentioned it and then you revisited it in this thread.   Unlike you, I acknowledge that it is a possibility and an interesting theory.  But when I look at the evidence I see several theories that can explain that evidence.  I look at the possibilities and consider multiple factors and conclude which theory looks the most plausible.   And sorry, but your theory is actually the least plausible of the three.  That's my conclusion.  But again, unlike you, I don't just throw it out.   If other information presents in the future  that makes it seem more plausible, then I will take that into consideration!   Now, unless you care to go back to my recent post and show where my reasoning and logic is wrong....we can now "agree to disagree"!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *You said my theory is invalid if it requires special knowledge.  Evolution is not rendered invalid because people are uneducated on the topic.*
> 
> ---Not the same thing.  Evolution would be invalid if the theory required people to wear special glasses to see the connections!



Exactly the same thing.

If you want to talk about what WSL learned and what he invented, you need to educate yourself on the topic first.



> *Likewise, my theory is not rendered invalid because you are uneducated on the topic.*
> 
> ----We have outlined the simple logic.  I really isn't all that complicated.



That monkeys and humans cohabit the Earth is pretty simple too. But it's flawed logic and a complete misunderstanding of Evolution.



> Yet you have denied the logic based on the fact that you have special insider knowledge that we don't.



Evolutionary scientists also reject the monkey "logic" because they are educated on the topic, as anyone can go and do for themselves.



> That does not negate the logic unless you can provide something that shows where the logic is flawed.



It's available for examination. You have not made the effort.



> Is certainly sounds much more like a case of "sifu sez" to me!!



That is a charge of an Appeal to Authority I have not once made.



> *From my perspective, one just has to laugh at the fumbling around in the dark most of you guys are doing.*
> 
> ---And from our perspective we all are scratching our heads and wondering just how you and Dale can be so dogmatic and continue to deny simple logical and reasonable arguments as if we were challenging your religious beliefs!



Scratching your heads like monkeys and wondering why the evolutionary scientists can't see your logic.



> ---So why have you again avoided going back to my recent posts and showing just where my logic and reasoning is wrong?



I have.



> You don't even know truly what YM's Wing Chun was like.  All we can do is compare his long-time direct students.



Then everything becomes crystal clear, as I've elaborated on before.



> *Your cluelessness and guessing is just laughable.*
> 
> ---And your dogmatism and clinging to "sifu sez" and denial of any point that contradicts "sifu sez" is just pitiful.



Again with the charge of an Appeal to Authority I have not once made.

You are going to have to quote me if you wish to continuing making that charge.



> *But on the other hand, I do not accept your alternate origin theory as true or even possible.*
> 
> ---So you do not accept the idea that the weapons were an add on to the Wing Chun system that then influenced how it developed as even being a possibility?



You have not demonstrated a Wing Chun system or anything remotely similar to YMVT that predates the weapons.



> You are obviously coming from a position of religious belief and "sifu said it so it MUST be true!"



I have consistently appealed only to the facts which you have conceded. Quote me, or don't make this false charge again.



> And sorry, but your theory is actually the least plausible of the three.  That's my conclusion.



Your conclusion is wrong.



> But again, unlike you, I don't just throw it out.



Because our theories are not on equal ground.



> Now, unless you care to go back to my recent post and show where my reasoning and logic is wrong....



Already did. I don't mean to be rude, but you are too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.



> we can now "agree to disagree"!



Great, bye!


----------



## KPM

^^^^Like I said, this "witty exchange" back and forth just reinforces the idea that you've got nothing left.  You aren't willing to go back and actually point out where my logic is wrong because you can't.  That is becoming pretty obvious.  So you just go right on believing whatever you want to believe.  At least until your Sifu tells you something else to believe!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> We have essentially established 2 "observable facts" that are underlying this discussion.  They are:
> 
> 1.  The pole form that WSL taught is the same as an much older version of the LDBK.  Therefore neither WSL or YM could have created this pole form themselves.  The LDBK pre-dates YMVT.
> 2.   The empty hand method within WSLVT tracks very closely with the weapons and is based upon the concepts, strategies and tactics from the pole and knives.



Yes.



> Now, if we go only by these facts and discount any speculation, oral history, stories, or legends we can reach several logical possibilities:
> 
> 1.  There was an early "proto" Wing Chun empty hand system to which the weapons were added.  This system then continued to develop  and evolve so that it became closely "tracked" with those weapons and adjusted to be based upon the strategies and tactics taught with those weapons.



0 evidence whatsoever to support a WC boxing system or anything remotely similar to YMVT prior to the weapons.

This proposed base system is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory more complicated, in turn less likely, not even a demonstrable possibility, and impossible to investigate. 

Can be disregarded without further evidence.



> 2.  There was an early "proto" Wing Chun empty hand system that developed directly from the pole and knives with no preexisting empty hand method being used.  It then continued to evolve and refine this relationship with the weapons.



The simplest theory, with no unknown or indemonstrable variables. All based on known and observable facts.



> 3.  WSL himself recognized the value of the weapons and worked to adjust what he learned from YM to align or "track" with the weapons as closely as possible.



Requires an extremely unlikely and complete overhaul of the entire system from ground up, yet without adding, subtracting, or changing a single piece.

Also wrongly and unwarrantedly calls WSL a liar.



> Any of the 3 theories above could account for the "observable facts" noted.   The existence of or lack of existence of a "proto Wing Chun" to examine affects both theory 1 and theory 2 equally.   Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence!



It doesn't effect them equally. Theory 1 is not demonstrated to even be a possibility.

Does not equate to evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



> IF we then introduce some speculation and things to support these theories things can shift.  One theory or the other can be seen as more or less plausible than the alternative.  Nobody Important offered some interesting and intriguing possibilities!  But just to keep it basic:





> 1.  Weapons added to empty hand:
> ---Supported by the lineage history of every known version of Wing Chun.
> ---Supported by the magazine article that Ip Man himself wrote for a HK magazine.



Legends and fairytales are not history and are invalid as evidence of anything.



> ---Supported by the fact that various versions of Wing Chun...both Ip Man and Mainland incorporate weapons understanding to various and differing degrees.



This doesn't support an indemonstrable base style.

It supports YMVT and Mainland systems having taken different courses through history.



> ---Lack of a "proto-Wing Chun" that didn't have the weapons isn't really a problem, because it can be assumed that different lineages would have made use of the weapons to differing degrees after the weapons were incorporated.  You wouldn't expect to find a system of Wing Chun without weapons, because the weapons became part of the system!



Same as the last point. It is a problem if you wish to posit the existence of such a base style.

Different lineages incorporating the weapons to different degrees only speaks to them having taken different directions with the boxing method. 

It says nothing about their origins.



> 2.  Empty hand derived entirely from the weapons:
> ---Unsupported by the fact that no other system other than WSLVT seems to track empty hands and weapons so closely.



Inconsequential to the theory.

Non-YM lineages obviously took a different course.

Other YM lineages do not even match their pole methods to the proven preexisting pole method. He taught it to very few people.



> ---Unsupported by the fact that no lineage other than WSLVT even teaches this theory.



Inconsequential to the theory that it came through YM who is known to have taught less than a handful of people the complete system, and fewer than that in any detail whatsoever.

Also not true. Others have said similar things.

(Example: "_It is possible that the entire Wing Chun art is based on the art of the spear._") 



> ---If ANY system other than WSLVT was shown to teach this theory and also tracked weapons and empty hand so closely, this would go a long ways towards validating this theory!  But that system doesn't seem to exist.



Doesn't need to if this weapon-based boxing system only came through YM.



> 3.  WSL tracked the weapons to the empty hands:
> ---Supported by the fact that no other Ip Man student teaches this or does their Wing Chun empty-hands like WSL.



No two YM students taught the same system. They are all inconsistent and contradictory.

None of them even match the proven preexisting pole method exactly in theory and application, so of course their hands will not track it.

None of them even match the clip of YM's pole actions, which matches the HSHK method exactly. None but WSL of course.



> ---Supported by the fact that no other version of Wing Chun tracks the empty hands to the weapons so closely.



Has nothing to do with WSL. Non-YM lineages took a different course a long, long time ago.



> So, in my assessment theory #2 is the LEAST plausible.   So I still have to go with either theory #1 or #3.



#1 is not a demonstrable possibility. No evidence of a base style predating the weapons. Not even investigable.

#2 is a demonstrable possibility. Has all the evidence it needs to be presented as a viable theory.

#3 is only "supported" by unrelated or fragmented systems differing, i.e. wholly unsupported.

Only #2 is really plausible without further evidence.


----------



## KPM

---Ah!  Thank you for finally making the effort!  

*0 evidence whatsoever to support a WC boxing system or anything remotely similar to YMVT prior to the weapons.*

---There is also 0 evidence whatsoever to support an early WC boxing system that was derived completely from the weapons.  Both theories have the same problem!   All we know is that WC evolved over the generations WITH the weapons.  That is ALL we know for sure!   When was this period "prior to the weapons" that you refer to?  You don't know when this occurred, so how can you so confidently say your theory is the only valid one?  Theory 1 and Theory 2 are on equal footing as far as the 2 "observable facts" that we have both agreed upon are concerned.  You keep denying that, but it is a logical and reasonable fact.

---And this is not even necessary for theory #1 to be valid.  Wing Chun has evolved and developed over the past 100 years or so with the weapons as part of the system.  So why would anyone expect this "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method prior to the weapons to still be around today??  As noted before, this is like saying the theory of evolution is invalid because the original ancestor of apes and men is no longer around to examine.  That just makes no logical sense!


*This proposed base system is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory more complicated, in turn less likely, not even a demonstrable possibility, and impossible to investigate.*

--And likewise an early version of WC derived completely from the weapons is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory impossible to investigate.   In the absence of this early version of weapons-based WC to investigate, showing another system other than WSLVT that tracks so very closely the empty hands with the weapons would be a strong supporter for the theory because it would show that it is not unique to WSLVT.  But no such system exists!


*Can be disregarded without further evidence.*

---That is just flat wrong and not a logical conclusion that follows from the facts!   You did not justify WHY theory 1 can be disregarded without evidence while retaining theory 2, which also has no evidence!


*The simplest theory, with no unknown or indemonstrable variables. All based on known and observable facts.*

---Oh, but it does have "unknown or indemonstrable variables."  You don't know who derived WC entirely from the weapons or when it even occurred.  You can't even demonstrate another system that so closely tracks empty hands and weapons that would disprove theory 3.  So really, if you want to go with the theory that is simplest and fits the observable facts, that is the theory that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features of WSLVT!   That is what follows from logic based upon those 2 facts we agreed upon!



*Requires an extremely unlikely and complete overhaul of the entire system from ground up, yet without adding, subtracting, or changing a single piece. Also wrongly and unwarrantedly calls WSL a liar.*

---That is speculation on your part.   And you haven't provided WSL's own testimony as part of any evidence so far.   So we don't know whether he was lying or not.  We are going just by the "observable facts", remember??



*It doesn't effect them equally. Theory 1 is not demonstrated to even be a possibility.*

---Neither has theory 2.   What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1?  You keep making statements here without backing them up.  Fiat statements do not count in a discussion of logic.


*Does not equate to evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.*

---Fair enough!  Then we could stop this discussion right now and dismiss both theory 1 and theory 2 because neither have any actual evidence!  The only theory with evidence is theory 3...and that evidence is the existence of the WSLVT system currently being taught in multiple places with this emphasis on the weapons tracking so closely with the empty hands.  And that is the ONLY real evidence we have for any of the theories!




*Legends and fairytales are not history and are invalid as evidence of anything.*

---I said they lend support.   And they do.





*Different lineages incorporating the weapons to different degrees only speaks to them having taken different directions with the boxing method. It says nothing about their origins.*

---True.  But the existence of even one system independent of WSLVT that also tracked empty hand and weapons so closely would lend support to theory 2.  But none exist.


*
Inconsequential to the theory. Non-YM lineages obviously took a different course. Other YM lineages do not even match their pole methods to the proven preexisting pole method. He taught it to very few people.*

---It is consequential.  You point to lack of evidence for theory 1, and I point to lack of evidence for theory 2.   It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons.  But you have never made that point clear.  Is that what you believe???


*Inconsequential to the theory that it came through YM who is known to have taught less than a handful of people the complete system, and fewer than that in any detail whatsoever.*

---"Coming through YM" implies it existed prior to Ip Man.  If it existed prior to Ip Man, then no longer being able to find this previous "weapons-based" WC is a problem....same problem you have pointed out for theory #1!   

--- But again, you have been unclear.  Are you saying that Ip Man is the creator???   If so, how are you going to prove or show any evidence that Ip Man completely disregarded his prior WC background and started solely from scratch using only the weapons????


*Also not true. Others have said similar things*.

---You haven't entered that as evidence in the past.  Remember, it was you who dismissed lineage stories and oral histories.  We are going only by the "observable facts" that you provided at the beginning of this discussion.


*(**Example**: "It is possible that the entire Wing Chun art is based on the art of the spear.")*

---Who said that and where and when?  That is not quite the same thing as theory #2!



*Doesn't need to if this weapon-based boxing system only came through YM.*

---You need to clarify that.  Because that takes this discussion in a whole different direction!



*No two YM students taught the same system. They are all inconsistent and contradictory.

None of them even match the proven preexisting pole method exactly in theory and application, so of course their hands will not track it.

None of them even match the clip of YM's pole actions, which matches the HSHK method exactly. None but WSL of course.*

---All true!  So that makes the idea that this was something that Ip Man taught to WSL much less likely and more likely that WSL came up with it himself.  Because, again, if there was another version of YMVT that was exactly like what WSL taught, then it would support that Ip Man taught it. But there isn't.  Again...."observable facts".



*#1 is not a demonstrable possibility. No evidence of a base style predating the weapons. Not even investigable.*

---Exact same criticism applies to theory #2.  Why can't you see that?  Its just simple logic!


*#2 is a demonstrable possibility. Has all the evidence it needs to be presented as a viable theory.*

---If there is evidence for it why have you not gone over it in your post?  Because from what we have been seeing here, theory #2  has the same evidence as theory #1.  So where was it demonstrated to be more of a possibility than theory #1?  I don't think you have done that.  Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2.  Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed.


*#3 is only "supported" by unrelated or fragmented systems differing, i.e. wholly unsupported.*

---Theory #3 is supported by the existence of multiple people in the WSLVT lineage teaching this idea of the weapons and empty hand system tracking so closely together, while no one in any other Ip Man derived lineage teaches this.  Again, just basic logic.  If there were ANY other WC system teaching that WC was derived entirely from the weapons and taught the empty hands and weapons tracking so closely, then that would negate theory #3.  But there isn't one!  So the logical conclusion is that it originated with WSL himself.  And since there is no evidence for either theory 1 or theory 2, this theory is actually the most plausible one at this point!

*Only #2 is really plausible without further evidence.*

---That just makes no sense.  That is illogical.  You haven't provided any real evidence for theory #2.   All you have done is make fiat statements and declared it to be true based upon your own "insider" knowledge.  That isn't evidence.  You'll have to do better than that!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---There is also 0 evidence whatsoever to support an early WC boxing system that was derived completely from the weapons.



The existing YMVT boxing system maps to the weapons. In can be investigated. This is what led to the discovery and confirmation of a pre- and non-VT pole method to help validate the theory in the first place!



> Both theories have the same problem!



The alternate theory cannot be investigated.



> Wing Chun has evolved and developed over the past 100 years or so with the weapons as part of the system.  So why would anyone expect this "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method prior to the weapons to still be around today??



So, not able to be investigated. Indistinguishable from there having been no such method.



> As noted before, this is like saying the theory of evolution is invalid because the original ancestor of apes and men is no longer around to examine.



We can analyze their DNA, find a 99% match between some, find ancestors of both, and logically theorize a common ancestor.

We can do the same with YMVT and an ancestor we have found.

Can't even begin to investigate an unknown and indemonstrable style.



> --A likewise an early version of WC derived completely from the weapons is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory impossible to investigate.



YMVT is known and when investigated it matches a found ancestor. There is nothing to suggest the VT that came through YM was not always matched to this ancestor.

It doesn't need to be proven to be a viable theory.



> showing another system other than WSLVT that tracks so very closely the empty hands with the weapons would be a strong supporter for the theory because it would show that it is not unique to WSLVT.



It doesn't need to not be unique. It's possible that it only came through YM who taught it to very few.



> You did not justify WHY theory 1 can be disregarded without evidence while retaining theory 2, which also has no evidence!



I just did, and theory 2 has evidence.



> *The simplest theory, with no unknown or indemonstrable variables. All based on known and observable facts.*
> 
> ---Oh, but it does have "unknown or indemonstrable variables."  You don't know who derived WC entirely from the weapons or when it even occurred.



Those aren't variables making the theory that pole + knives = boxing inviable.

The theory is viable based on known and observable facts. Those bits of information would prove it.

Without them it can't be proven, but it is certainly viable, as you conceded.



> You can't even demonstrate another system that so closely tracks empty hands and weapons that would disprove theory 3.



Don't need to.



> So really, if you want to go with the theory that is simplest and fits the observable facts, that is the theory that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features of WSLVT!   That is what follows from logic based upon those 2 facts we agreed upon!



This doesn't follow all the facts we have.



> *Requires an extremely unlikely and complete overhaul of the entire system from ground up, yet without adding, subtracting, or changing a single piece. Also wrongly and unwarrantedly calls WSL a liar.*
> 
> ---That is speculation on your part.   And you haven't provided WSL's own testimony as part of any evidence so far.   So we don't whether he was lying or not.  We are going just by the "observable facts", remember??



It is not speculation. You just lack the knowledge and experience, even though it's readily available.

WSL always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM. If you are saying otherwise, you are unwarrantedly calling him a liar.



> *It doesn't effect them equally. Theory 1 is not demonstrated to even be a possibility.*
> 
> ---Neither has theory 2.   What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1?



It has. You have already conceded the possibility. Do not lie.



> *Does not equate to evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.*
> 
> ---Fair enough!  Then we could stop this discussion right now and dismiss both theory 1 and theory 2 because neither have any actual evidence!



False. Evidence already put forward and conceded by you and others.



> The only theory with evidence is theory 3...



That unrelated or fragmented systems differ is not evidence that WSL was the originator.



> and that evidence is the existence of the WSLVT system currently be taught in multiple places with this emphasis on the weapons tracking so closely with the empty hands.  And that is the ONLY real evidence we have for any of the theories!



False. There is substantial evidence that WSL taught exactly what he learned from YM. Already presented.



> *Legends and fairytales are not history and are invalid as evidence of anything.*
> 
> ---I said they lend support.   And they do.



Then the theory that the Tooth Fairy exists has support. You are being silly.



> *Different lineages incorporating the weapons to different degrees only speaks to them having taken different directions with the boxing method. It says nothing about their origins.*
> 
> ---True.



Now stop saying it.



> But the existence of even 1 system independent of WSLVT that also tracked empty hand and weapons so closely would lend support to theory 2.  But none exist.



Not necessary if as I said the system only came through YM who didn't teach it to hardly anyone else.



> *Inconsequential to the theory. Non-YM lineages obviously took a different course. Other YM lineages do not even match their pole methods to the proven preexisting pole method. He taught it to very few people.*
> 
> ---It is consequential. You point to lack of evidence for theory 1, I point to lack of evidence for theory 2.



No, you haven't. You conceded the evidence already. You are now lying.



> It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons.  But you have never made that point clear.  Is that what you believe???



Not true. The systems diverged many, many decades prior to YM. That they differ is inconsequential to the origin theory of YMVT.



> ---"Coming through YM" implies it existed prior to Ip Man.  If it existed prior to Ip Man, then no longer being able to find this previous "weapons-based" WC is a problem!



No, because YMVT _is_ that VT. Investigation of the origin theory reveals the exact same pole method preexists, as predicted, which strengthens the theory.



> But again, you have been unclear.  Are you saying that Ip Man is the creator???



No. I have been very clear. You are just extremely slowwitted.



> *Also not true. Others have said similar things*.
> 
> ---You haven't entered that as evidence in the past.  Remember, it was you who dismissed lineage stories and oral histories.  We are going only by the "observable facts" that you provided at the beginning of this discussion.



I have entered evidence of others outside WSLVT talking about the weapons-base theory.

I have not dismissed oral histories. Legends and fairytales are not oral history.



> *(**Example**: "It is possible that the entire Wing Chun art is based on the art of the spear.")*
> 
> ---Who said that and where and when?  That is not quite the same thing as your theory 2!



Don't care. Not WSLVT.

I didn't say the same. I said similar. You had stated that only I've ever spoke of such a thing. Demonstrably false.

Also, it could still be the same if pole originally came from spear, I think this has been presented before too. This is just tracing the source further back.



> *Doesn't need to if this weapon-based boxing system only came through YM.*
> 
> ---You need to clarify that.  Because that takes this discussion in a whole different direction!



Dude?! That has been my entire theory the entire time!!! I have never spoken of non-YM lineages that are obviously very far removed at this point!



> *No two YM students taught the same system. They are all inconsistent and contradictory.
> 
> None of them even match the proven preexisting pole method exactly in theory and application, so of course their hands will not track it.
> 
> None of them even match the clip of YM's pole actions, which matches the HSHK method exactly. None but WSL of course.*
> 
> ---All true!  So that makes the idea that this was something that Ip Man taught to WSL much less likely and more likely that WSL came up with it himself.  Because, again, if there was another version of YMVT that was exactly like what WSL taught, then it would support that Ip Man taught it. But there isn't.  Again...."observable facts".



WTF?!

WSL's VT matches YM's where others don't. That is evidence that WSL accurately received his teachings.

It does not matter if there are none that also match, because YM didn't hardly teach anyone beyond CK, and without details even then!



> *#1 is not a demonstrable possibility. No evidence of a base style predating the weapons. Not even investigable.*
> 
> ---Exact same criticism applies to theory #2.  Why can't you see that?  Its just simple logic!



Because it's wrong. We have analyzed YMVT and the theory that it is based on weapons. Upon investigation we have found a pole ancestor that it matches exactly.

This is a predictable outcome of investigation, and strong supporting evidence for the theory.

It strengthens the theory, and there is no reason to believe the VT that came through YM and to WSL was not always based on this method.



> *#2 is a demonstrable possibility. Has all the evidence it needs to be presented as a viable theory.*
> 
> ---It has the same evidence as theory #1.  So where was it demonstrated to be more of a possibility than theory #1?  I don't think you have done that.  Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2.  Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed.



All explained above. You are being very slow to follow.



> *#3 is only "supported" by unrelated or fragmented systems differing, i.e. wholly unsupported.*
> 
> ---Theory #3 is supported by the existence of multiple people in the WSLVT lineage teaching this idea of the weapons and empty hand system tracking so closely together, while no one in any other Ip Man derived lineage teaches this.  Again, just basic logic.



But WSLVT matches YMVT where others don't, is internally consistent where others aren't, and is consistent with the predictably discovered ancestor style where others aren't.

All evidence that WSL accurately received YM's VT where others didn't.



> If there were ANY other WC system teaching that WC was derived entirely from the weapons and taught the empty hands and weapons tracking so closely, then that would negate theory #3.  But there isn't one!



Not necessary to validate origin to YM to WSL. Other systems are irrelevant.



> So the logical conclusion is that it originated with WSL himself.  And sense there is no evidence for either theory 1 or theory 2, this theory is actually the most plausible one at this point!



Absolutely wrong. You are apparently too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.



> *Only #2 is really plausible without further evidence.*
> 
> ---That just makes no sense.  That is illogical.  You haven't provided any real evidence for theory #2.   All you have done is make fiat statements and declared it to be true based upon your own "insider" knowledge.  That isn't evidence.  You'll have to do better than that!



I admit I'll have to do better than I have done to "prove" the theory, but that is not my goal at this point.

What has been accomplished;

Origin theory formed (pole + knives = boxing);

Investigation conducted ("the pole as the main source must preexist");

Predictable outcome of investigation confirmed (pole method proven to preexist).

That's how science is conducted, pal.

We don't deal with absolute certainty, but the evidence leads to a very plausible conclusion, and investigations have succeeded as predicted. This is by far the most viable theory to date.


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> His points are either inconsequential, can be explained by the theory presented in this thread, or are just flat out wrong. Boxing uses _lin-siu-daai-da_? Not at all. The author doesn't even know what that is.


Simultaneous attack and defense?  Nothing special about that.  In many Western martial traditions influenced by fencing, it's called a Single-Time Counter.  It certainly exists in boxing, particularly in "Old School Boxing."  I've posted numerous references to it before.



> OSB and VT ready stance are not the same at all, much less what happens from there. They are in fact just as contradictory as other TCMAs are to VT.


The fact that you seem to be ignorant of single-time counters in boxing makes me question whether or not you are qualified to make such a comparison.


----------



## KPM

*The existing YMVT boxing system maps to the weapons. In can be investigated. This is what led to the discovery and confirmation of a pre- and non-VT pole method to help validate the theory in the first place!*

---A pole method predating Wing Chun supports theory #1 just as easily as theory #2.   Why is it you can't grasp that simple point of logic?


*The alternate theory cannot be investigated.*

---Theory #2 cannot be investigated any more than theory #1 can.   We only have our 2 "observable facts", remember? 



*So, not able to be investigated. Indistinguishable from there having been no such method.*

---The exact same logic applies to theory #2.  Can't you see that???? 


*
We can analyze their DNA, find a 99% match between some, find ancestors of both, and logically theorize a common ancestor.  We can do the same with YMVT and an ancestor we have found.*

---You have only found an older pole method.  You have not found the "ancestor" in the sense of the original "proto-Wing Chun" that was developed directly from the weapons (except now it is becoming apparent that you believe that YMVT itself IS that ancestor)   The older pole method could have easily been adopted by a system of Wing Chun without weapons long ago (by Wong Wah Bo perhaps?).  Just because that older pole method is shown to exist does not support theory #2 any more than it does theory #1.   Again, simple logic!



*Can't even begin to investigate an unknown and indemonstrable style.*

---Do you mean like...an original style created directly from the weapons and nothing else???   (Oh wait...you think that style IS YMVT!)



*YMVT is known and when investigated it matches a found ancestor. There is nothing to suggest the VT that came through YM was not always matched to this ancestor.*

---True.  But that also does not rule out the possibility that the VT that came through YM was derived from an older version of empty hands that incorporated this "ancestral" pole method and then developed and evolved from there.  It is matched to this ancestor, but there is nothing to suggest that this ancestor was the sole source of the empty hands either!   You really need to start thinking logically and get past this dogmatic and stubborn adherence to what you've been taught!!


*It doesn't need to be proven to be a viable theory.*

---Wait, what?  You rule out theory #1 because it can't be proven, but say its Ok that theory #2 is unproven???   That isn't very logical!



*I just did, and theory 2 has evidence.*

---What evidence?  I asked this in my previous post.  Now you are just making fiat statements again rather than actually trying to participate in an honest and logical discussion. 



*Those aren't variables making the theory that pole + knives = boxing inviable.

The theory is viable based on known and observable facts. Those bits of information would prove it.

Without them it can't be proven, but it is certainly viable, as you conceded.*

---Yes.  Just as viable as theory #1.  But no more viable than theory #1 and less viable than theory #3!




*This doesn't follow all the facts we have.*

---It certainly follows the 2 "observable facts" that we agreed upon.  So what facts are you referring to?  Again....making fiat statements without backing them up is why discussions like this become long and convoluted. 





*WSL always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM. If you are saying otherwise, you are unwarrantedly calling him a liar.*

---I'm doing no such thing.  I didn't hear him say that!  Did you?  Can you provide the exact quote?  Ip Man wrote a magazine article on the history of Wing Chun that didn't include the idea of it being derived entirely from the pole and you dismissed it as a fairytale.  Are you calling Ip Man a liar???



*It has. You have already conceded the possibility. Do not lie.*

---I asked you:  "What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1?"  Rather than provide an answer to that you just resort to calling me a liar.  I'm not lying about anything.  Are you participating in this discussion or not?  Now is the time to lay out your evidence and the logic behind your theory to back it up.  But you are not doing that.  Why is that? 



*That unrelated or fragmented systems differ is not evidence that WSL was the originator.*

---And the fact that  WSLVT tracks empty hands together with the pole is not evidence that it was ALWAYS that way! 



*False. There is substantial evidence that WSL taught exactly what he learned from YM. Already presented.*

---You "presented" the idea that "WSL said so"!  That is not "substantial evidence".  So what are you talking about?  This is just another fiat statement. 


*No, you haven't. You conceded the evidence already. You are now lying.*

----What evidence are you talking about?  You certainly haven't presented it in this post!   And stop calling me a liar!  We are trying to have a reasonable and logical discussion here.  Why are you resorting to name-calling? 



*Not true. The systems diverged many, many decades prior to YM. That they differ is inconsequential to the origin theory of YMVT.*

---Actually I asked you:  "It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons. But you have never made that point clear. Is that what you believe???"   You didn't  actually answer my question here.


*No. I have been very clear. You are just extremely slowwitted.*

---Uh, no.  And you continue to be evasive in your responses.  Why is that?  How are we to have a reasonable and logical discussion about this if you continue to avoid answering questions and would rather resort to name-calling and insults?



*I have entered evidence of others outside WSLVT talking about the weapons-base theory.*

---You mean that one quote from your prior post????    If you have more you need to put it here to back up your argument or you are just making fiat statements again. 




*Dude?! That has been my entire theory the entire time!!! I have never spoken of non-YM lineages that are obviously very far removed at this point!*

----Well, if it has then I apologize for missing that!  You have never explicitly stated it that way!  And saying "very far removed at this point!" is still somewhat confusing.  They are very far removed from WHAT, if you believe that Ip Man was the one that created exclusively from the weapons??? 

---So you believe that Ip Man himself took the pole and the knives and created the entire YM system from scratch?   He did not draw upon what he had previously learned from Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So and others at all?   How do you account for the fact that his VT still looked very much like Yuen Kay Shan's Wing Chun as well as others?   And if this was such a fundamental part of his VT, why would he teach this idea only to WSL?   Students should have been learning that this was the main approach of the system right from the beginning.  Why would he hide that fact from anyone? The idea is taught right from the beginning in WSLVT, is it not?   Why would he keep the fact that he had developed his own Wing Chun system based entirely on the weapons from his own sons, or from people close to him like Ho Kam Ming and Tsui Tsung Ting?  Really, your theory is getting less and less plausible the more I learn of it  




*WSL's VT matches YM's where others don't. That is evidence that WSL accurately received his teachings.*

---How do you know?  YM taught Ho Kam Ming closely for many years and Ho Kam Ming's VT does not match WSL's.  



*We have analyzed YMVT and the theory that it is based on weapons. Upon investigation we have found a pole ancestor that it matches exactly.*

---You have simply restated our 2 "observable facts."  You have not explained how those 2 facts contradict theory #1.  Based on what you just said, there is a very real possibility that the older version of LDBK was incorporated into an already existing version of Wing Chun and then the empty hands were adjusted and reworked to match the concepts and strategies from the pole.  Nothing you have presented so far rules out that possibility. 



*All explained above. You are being very slow to follow.*

---I stated:  "Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed."  If you think you just "explained" that away above, then you are the one that is a bit slow here!  Because you haven't explained anything!  You are not following logical discussion at all.



*But WSLVT matches YMVT where others don't, is internally consistent where others aren't, and is consistent with the predictably discovered ancestor style where others aren't.*

---All of which makes WSLVT unique, and therefore likely to have been created by WSL himself!  Again, simple logic!!!

*
All evidence that WSL accurately received YM's VT where others didn't.*

---It is evidence of no such thing!  All you can really say based on those facts that you just  wrote is that WSLVT is different from what every other student learned from Ip Man.  That's all!  That does not prove how those differences actually came to be!  Could it be because Ip Man taught only WSL his "true" version of VT?  Maybe!  Could it be because WSL himself continued to develop and rework what Ip Man taught him?  Maybe!! 





*Absolutely wrong. You are apparently too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.*

---And once again, you are just flinging insults rather than actually try to show where my logic is wrong.  I can only conclude that you can't show my logic is wrong, and so you resort to insults. 



*What has been accomplished;

Origin theory formed (pole + knives = boxing);

Investigation conducted ("the pole as the main source must preexist");

Predictable outcome of investigation confirmed (pole method proven to preexist).

That's how science is conducted, pal.*

---Uh, no "pal."   Science would look at each possible explanation for a given outcome and then seek to rule each one out until only one remains.  You haven't done that at all!  Science would not dismiss a theory out of hand simply because the investigator had already decided upon what the best theory was going to be!  That is considered very "poor" science!   The pole method being proven to preexist supports more than one theory. 


*We don't deal with absolute certainty, but the evidence leads to a very plausible conclusion, and investigations have succeeded as predicted. This is by far the most viable theory to date.* 

---So let me get this right.....you think that because someone formed the theory that the system derived entirely from the weapons and then did a little looking around and found that the pole form comes from another system is enough "science" to just dismiss any other theory that would explain how the empty hands and pole track so well together within WSLVT?  Dude, you really need to learn more about the "scientific method"!!  

---But his is going nowhere because you seem incapable of conducting a straight-forward discussion based upon logic.  Now it appears you believe it was Ip Man himself that created VT exclusively from the weapons!  That makes your theory even less plausible than I thought!  So its probably better if we do just agree to disagree at this point!


----------



## KPM

So, as it finally emerges after many pages of pretty pointless banter.....LFJ's theory seems to be this:

Ip Man took the LDBK pole form that predates Wing Chun and that is found within the Hung Kuen system as well as other systems.  He then managed to completely set aside and forget his years of training Wing Chun with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and his years of practicing alongside Yiu Choi and Yuen Kay Shan.  He then created his own version of Wing Chun completely from scratch using only the pole and the knives as his guide.  I guess the fact that this newly created system still bore a striking resemblance to mainland styles of Wing Chun...complete with a SNT, CK, BG, and dummy form, similar system of  Chi Sao, etc.....doesn't suggest to him that Ip Man may have built upon his Wing Chun knowledge rather than completely discarding it (which would actually be a version of theory #1).  Then once Ip Man had developed this far superior version of Wing Chun that was based ONLY on the weapons and did not draw upon his prior knowledge of Wing Chun....he taught this system ONLY to Wong Shun Leung!

Is anyone buying this??


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> Simultaneous attack and defense?  Nothing special about that.  In many Western martial traditions influenced by fencing, it's called a Single-Time Counter.  It certainly exists in boxing, particularly in "Old School Boxing."  I've posted numerous references to it before.
> 
> The fact that you seem to be ignorant of single-time counters in boxing makes me question whether or not you are qualified to make such a comparison.


Taught in many Japanese MA, as well. As you pointed out, not particularly special.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> So, as it finally emerges after many pages of pretty pointless banter.....LFJ's theory seems to be this:
> 
> Ip Man took the LDBK pole form that predates Wing Chun and that is found within the Hung Kuen system as well as other systems.  He then managed to completely set aside and forget his years of training Wing Chun with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and his years of practicing alongside Yiu Choi and Yuen Kay Shan.  He then created his own version of Wing Chun completely from scratch using only the pole and the knives as his guide.  I guess the fact that this newly created system still bore a striking resemblance to mainland styles of Wing Chun...complete with a SNT, CK, BG, and dummy form, similar system of  Chi Sao, etc.....doesn't suggest to him that Ip Man may have built upon his Wing Chun knowledge rather than completely discarding it (which would actually be a version of theory #1).  Then once Ip Man had developed this far superior version of Wing Chun that was based ONLY on the weapons and did not draw upon his prior knowledge of Wing Chun....he taught this system ONLY to Wong Shun Leung!
> 
> Is anyone buying this??



I have been trying to figure out if this is REALLY what he means tbh.  The fact it seemed to be the case is why I returned him to ignore.  It is all well and good to have different opinions but when one not only beggars a basic logical analysis, but the accounts of his students who were there, it's just not worth it.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> I have been trying to figure out if this is REALLY what he means tbh.  The fact it seemed to be the case is why I returned him to ignore.  It is all well and good to have different opinions but when one not only beggars a basic logical analysis, but the accounts of his students who were there, it's just not worth it.



There you see, some thirty pages of bootless bickering could have been avoided if only people would not lazily depend upon the ignore function, but instead learn to develop their own  innate ability to selectively ignore things that truly merit being ignored. Really, sometimes the ability to completely ignore things is almost a survival skill!


----------



## geezer

Here's an introductory article on WSL-VT that was an enjoyable read:

» Wing Chun: when the “Wong Way” gets results!  Ving Tsun Combat Science

Interesting how Mr. Peterson is able to give an overview of the WSL method of Yip Man Ving Chun without insisting that it is an entirely distinct system. Rather he makes a perfectly defensible distinction between what average or even good WC does and what _great_ WC does.

I especially noted the following words in his concluding remarks:

_For him (Master Wong Shun Leung), wing chun had to be relevant for modern times, and he taught it as a concept-based system that was adaptive, *its purpose to create individuals, free thinkers and problem solvers*, not people repeating the loop like a broken record._

Hmmm. _Not people repeating the same loop like a broken record._  I like that a lot. Quite a bit different than what I've been reading on this thread. He actually seems like a guy you might want to train under.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> There you see, some thirty pages of bootless bickering could have been avoided if only people would not lazily depend upon the ignore function, but instead learn to develop their own  innate ability to selectively ignore things that truly merit being ignored. Really, sometimes the ability to completely ignore things is almost a survival skill!




Just to clarify @geezer I didn't engage it until Saturday.  I was participating and responding directly to him for sometime.  I used the feature on Saturday.  I figured A) @KPM and @Nobody Important were doing a better job than I and the core issue that I just responded to seemed to be the issue and it was making my hurt a bit /shrug.  So it's not like I just universally ignore.

The reason why I mentioned my question is because, regardless of how many times it was asked and regardless of how it was asked, the answer was the same, YMVT empty hand is entirely unique.  While I believe all the other issues are debatable, this one issue so obviously isn't that I was flabbergasted.

What I tend to do at points like that is take certain actions until a thread stops "trending" then I return to "normal" operation.  It helps my inbox as well since I get email notifications


----------



## Nobody Important

FWIW, the discussion between LFJ & I was quite fruitful. We came to agree on some points & disagree on others, all devoid of vitriol, largely because politics was left out of it.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Here's an introductory article on WSL-VT that was an enjoyable read:
> 
> » Wing Chun: when the “Wong Way” gets results!  Ving Tsun Combat Science
> 
> Interesting how Mr. Peterson is able to give an overview of the WSL method of Yip Man Ving Chun without insisting that it is an entirely distinct system. Rather he makes a perfectly defensible distinction between what average or even good WC does and what _great_ WC does.
> 
> I especially noted the following words in his concluding remarks:
> 
> _For him (Master Wong Shun Leung), wing chun had to be relevant for modern times, and he taught it as a concept-based system that was adaptive, *its purpose to create individuals, free thinkers and problem solvers*, not people repeating the loop like a broken record._
> 
> Hmmm. _Not people repeating the same loop like a broken record._  I like that a lot. Quite a bit different than what I've been reading on this thread. He actually seems like a guy you might want to train under.



I would love to have a beer with this guy.  He is clearly someone who is very thoughtful about his art and uses what you bolded as the lens through which he sees the martial arts.



Nobody Important said:


> FWIW, the discussion between LFJ & I was quite fruitful. We came to agree on some points & disagree on others, all devoid of vitriol, largely because politics was left out of it.


I know.  It was actually your exchange that made me say to myself "okay, since HK was remembering and reinventing what he had been taught it is possible that the pole was up front in his mind while doing so BUT I still believe it more likely the other way around."

My "hang up" has been the idea that the empty hand is entirely unique from all WC.   Now I believe the reasoning behind this is the "strategy" issue but, in terms of striking especially, the same biomechanical principles can be applied to multiple strategies.  So a unique strategy  doesn't necessarily=/= an entirely unique art.  Far more often than not it simply = a further refinement of what came before. 

I think a good example in grappling may be Judo to BJJ.  BJJ has some strategic and technique differences from Judo but it can't be debated that BJJ is an evolution of Judo.


----------



## dudewingchun

is Dale 12 years old or something


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> FWIW, the discussion between LFJ & I was quite fruitful. We came to agree on some points & disagree on others, all devoid of vitriol, largely because politics was left out of it.



Well, maybe.  But I didn't talk about politics either.  I think the difference was that you weren't directly challenging his belief system and asking him to back it up.


----------



## KPM

Let me tell you guys a story.  Now the old-timers like me and Geezer will know this story.  But maybe some of the newer people haven't heard it.  I don't tell this with the intent of opening old wounds or stirring up old controversies.  And I truly hope that my TWC brothers do not take offense.  But I think it has bearing on a lot of what we have been seeing lately.   This is how I remember it:

William Cheung studied with Ip Man in Hong Kong for many years.  He was one of Ip Man's teenage fighters that went out and made a name for the system in street fights and Bei Mo right alongside Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung and others.  Good evidence shows that Bruce Lee considered him one of the best fighters in the clan.   When he turned 19 Cheung left Hong Kong and moved to Australia. When he left Hong Kong, by all accounts his Wing Chun was the same as everyone else's.

Now fast-forward 10 years or so and William Cheung is starting to teach publically and build up an organization.  But what he was teaching was very different from what every other Ip Man student had learned.  How do we explain this?  Well, in the 80's Cheung published an article in Inside Kung Fu Magazine.  I held on to that copy for many years, but foolishly got rid of it at some point.  I wish I still had it!  In this article Cheung explained that while studying Wing Chun in Hong Kong he actually lived with Ip Man for many years and Ip Man taught him privately.  But what he taught him was different from what he was teaching everyone else.  The story explained that when Leung Jan was teaching in Foshan, Chan Wah Shun heard of his reputation and wanted to learn his Wing Chun.  But LJ wouldn't teach him.  So CWS resorted to spying on training sessions when LJ was teaching his sons.  When LJ discovered this, he started to purposefully teach a "modified" version of Wing Chun whenever he thought CWS was around.  CWS was persistent and eventually LJ agreed to actually teach him.  But CWS was a big strong guy and LJ's sons not so much.  LJ did not want CWS to have any advantage over his own sons!  So he continued to teach CWS this "modified" version of Wing Chun that was inferior to his "traditional" version of Wing Chun.  But since CWS was big and strong he was able to make this inferior version of Wing Chun work quite well, and gained a reputation and following of students of his own...including a young Ip Man.   Fast-forward and now Ip Man is a teenager going to a finishing school in Hong Kong and has a chance encounter with an old man that essentially kicks his butt!  He finds out that this old man is none other than Leung Bik....Leung Jan's son!   Leung Bik ends up agreeing to teach Ip Man the "traditional" Wing Chun that he is missing.  Cheung noted that it was THIS version of Wing Chun that Ip Man had taught him privately!   And since he was the ONLY one that Ip Man taught this to, this made him the new Grandmaster of all of Wing Chun!  However, Ip Man made him swear to keep this secret until after Ip Man himself had died.

So William Cheung pops back on the scene after laying low in Australia for about 10 years to announce that he is the Grandmaster of all of Wing Chun and that all of his classmates under Ip Man had learned a "modified" form of Wing Chun rather than the "real" Wing Chun.  You can imagine how well THAT went over in the Wing Chun world!   And Ip Man was dead at that point and so wasn't around to set people straight!  And back then the internet was new and there was no youtube and China's borders were still very restrictive.  Very few people in the west had seen Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun (which comes from a lineage completely separate from LJ) to realize how strikingly similar it was to "modified" Wing Chun.  Very few people in the west had seen Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun (which DOES come from a lineage tracing to LJ) to realize that it also looked nothing like William Cheung's Wing Chun.  And William Cheung had many "true believers" that would fight to the death to back up his story!  They created animosity with everyone else and often had a very smug and superior attitude.  

But over the years this rhetoric has been toned down considerably!  William Cheung's most recent book hardly mentions it at all.  You come across a "true believer" still on occasion, but nothing like in the past!   And TWC is a great system, regardless of what its true origins are!    As GM Cheung gets holder I keep hoping he will reveal the "real" secret behind his TWC.  But who knows?  He may take that secret to the grave!

Has this been sounding at all familiar?   Wong Shun Leung died a few years back and so is not around to set people straight.  So in recent years it seems we are seeing more and more WSLVT people that are "true believers" telling us that WSL had the "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man and everyone else's Wing Chun is "broken."  How can this be?   Well, because Ip Man had a version of his Wing Chun that he created himself from scratch based ONLY on the pole and knives.  And only WSL seems to have been able to learn this "true" version of Ip Man's Wing Chun!  Everyone else was taught incompletely or were just poor and dull students.  Now we seem to have WSLVT people that are willing to fight to the death to defend this story, creating animosity in many forums.  Many of them seem to have the very same smug and superior attitude I remember from a lot of TWC guys nearly 20 years ago. 

And again, I think WSLVT is a great system!   TWC and WSLVT are BOTH great systems!  And to discount the very real possibility that both William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung were talented enough and smart enough to be responsible for a lot of the technical differences found in their systems compared to other Wing Chun systems is somewhat of an insult to both men!

It seems like history repeats itself....at least Wing Chun history!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Well, maybe.  But I didn't talk about politics either.  I think the difference was that you weren't directly challenging his belief system and asking him to back it up.



I think the problem with this particular topic is this.  If you look to 100% outside influences you can to an extent avoid politics.  If you look at the pole topic that is essentially what you have.  It gets trickier when you start looking at things that have a large internal component and that is what happens when you get into the empty hand portion.  It raises the issues of politics because some people feel there is a right way and a wrong way.  Some people feel he taught to students strengths and weaknesses.  Still others believe it likely his WC/VT evolved over the course of his teaching life and this is all before we debate the idea of whether or not what we see is the product of someone who had to remember teaching methods he had forgotten.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Let me tell you guys a story.  Now the old-timers like me and Geezer will know this story.  But maybe some of the newer people haven't heard it.  I don't tell this with the intent of opening old wounds or stirring up old controversies.  And I truly hope that my TWC brothers do not take offense.  But I think it has bearing on a lot of what we have been seeing lately.   This is how I remember it:
> 
> William Cheung studied with Ip Man in Hong Kong for many years.  He was one of Ip Man's teenage fighters that went out and made a name for the system in street fights and Bei Mo right alongside Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung and others.  Good evidence shows that Bruce Lee considered him one of the best fighters in the clan.   When he turned 19 Cheung left Hong Kong and moved to Australia. When he left Hong Kong, by all accounts his Wing Chun was the same as everyone else's.
> 
> Now fast-forward 10 years or so and William Cheung is starting to teach publically and build up an organization.  But what he was teaching was very different from what every other Ip Man student had learned.  How do we explain this?  Well, in the 80's Cheung published an article in Inside Kung Fu Magazine.  I held on to that copy for many years, but foolishly got rid of it at some point.  I wish I still had it!  In this article Cheung explained that while studying Wing Chun in Hong Kong he actually lived with Ip Man for many years and Ip Man taught him privately.  But what he taught him was different from what he was teaching everyone else.  The story explained that when Leung Jan was teaching in Foshan, Chan Wah Shun heard of his reputation and wanted to learn his Wing Chun.  But LJ wouldn't teach him.  So CWS resorted to spying on training sessions when LJ was teaching his sons.  When LJ discovered this, he started to purposefully teach a "modified" version of Wing Chun whenever he thought CWS was around.  CWS was persistent and eventually LJ agreed to actually teach him.  But CWS was a big strong guy and LJ's sons not so much.  LJ did not want CWS to have any advantage over his own sons!  So he continued to teach CWS this "modified" version of Wing Chun that was inferior to his "traditional" version of Wing Chun.  But since CWS was big and strong he was able to make this inferior version of Wing Chun work quite well, and gained a reputation and following of students of his own...including a young Ip Man.   Fast-forward and now Ip Man is a teenager going to a finishing school in Hong Kong and has a chance encounter with an old man that essentially kicks his butt!  He finds out that this old man is none other than Leung Bik....Leung Jan's son!   Leung Bik ends up agreeing to teach Ip Man the "traditional" Wing Chun that he is missing.  Cheung noted that it was THIS version of Wing Chun that Ip Man had taught him privately!   And since he was the ONLY one that Ip Man taught this to, this made him the new Grandmaster of all of Wing Chun!  However, Ip Man made him swear to keep this secret until after Ip Man himself had died.
> 
> So William Cheung pops back on the scene after laying low in Australia for about 10 years to announce that he is the Grandmaster of all of Wing Chun and that all of his classmates under Ip Man had learned a "modified" form of Wing Chun rather than the "real" Wing Chun.  You can imagine how well THAT went over in the Wing Chun world!   And Ip Man was dead at that point and so wasn't around to set people straight!  And back then the internet was new and there was no youtube and China's borders were still very restrictive.  Very few people in the west had seen Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun (which comes from a lineage completely separate from LJ) to realize how strikingly similar it was to "modified" Wing Chun.  Very few people in the west had seen Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun (which DOES come from a lineage tracing to LJ) to realize that it also looked nothing like William Cheung's Wing Chun.  And William Cheung had many "true believers" that would fight to the death to back up his story!  They created animosity with everyone else and often had a very smug and superior attitude.
> 
> But over the years this rhetoric has been toned down considerably!  William Cheung's most recent book hardly mentions it at all.  You come across a "true believer" still on occasion, but nothing like in the past!   And TWC is a great system, regardless of what its true origins are!    As GM Cheung gets holder I keep hoping he will reveal the "real" secret behind his TWC.  But who knows?  He may take that secret to the grave!
> 
> Has this been sounding at all familiar?   Wong Shun Leung died a few years back and so is not around to set people straight.  So in recent years it seems we are seeing more and more WSLVT people that are "true believers" telling us that WSL had the "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man and everyone else's Wing Chun is "broken."  How can this be?   Well, because Ip Man had a version of his Wing Chun that he created himself from scratch based ONLY on the pole and knives.  And only WSL seems to have been able to learn this "true" version of Ip Man's Wing Chun!  Everyone else was taught incompletely or were just poor and dull students.  Now we seem to have WSLVT people that are willing to fight to the death to defend this story, creating animosity in many forums.  Many of them seem to have the very same smug and superior attitude I remember from a lot of TWC guys nearly 20 years ago.
> 
> And again, I think WSLVT is a great system!   TWC and WSLVT are BOTH great systems!  And to discount the very real possibility that both William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung were talented enough and smart enough to be responsible for a lot of the technical differences found in their systems compared to other Wing Chun systems is somewhat of an insult to both men!
> 
> It seems like history repeats itself....at least Wing Chun history!



After looking all over this dynamic seems to pop up a fair bit whenever a particular person or persons wants to start their own organization and does their marketing push.  Once they feel "secure" though (on the business side) they tend to tone it down.  With Sigung Cheung, as an example, he really seems to just focus on the challenge fights that he and WSL did that helped market YM's school and this is something none of his fellow students dispute.  Heck some go so far as to say both of them were "trouble makers" to an extent.  It helped advertise the school but also resulted in a little drama with HOW they did things on occassion.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ....It seems like history repeats itself....at least Wing Chun history!



Yep. Like the _Leung Ting_ story:

In his early teens he began training WC with a friend, and then decided to study under Leung Sheung. He learned fast and was cocky, and no doubt offended his Sifu and elder brothers at the school. Consequently, Leung Sheung stopped teaching him much. Leung Ting wasn't a happy camper and word got out. 
Fortunately for the young Leung Ting, at this same time Leung Sheung and Yip Man were having their own feud, and things got nasty. I know some specifics but rather not go into that. But the end result was that GM Yip, although pretty much retired from teaching publicly, accepted Leung Ting as a personal student ...primarily as a slap in the face to Leung Sheung. Leung Ting was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time, so to speak. But at any rate he did become a private student of Yip Man for a while.

So starting in the 1970s when Leung Ting began promoting himself as a "Wing Tsun" master, he also developed a pitch. He billed himself as the last, best student of GM Yip, and the one to learn the "final version" of GM Yip's Ving Tsun. He proclaimed that his teaching method was more logical and students would learn faster, and moreover he suggested that what the softer, elastic or "springy" system he taught represented a more evolved form of WC/VT which he eventually named and trademarked as _WingTsun._

Anybody who looks back through old Hong Kong martial arts news-clippings from the time will find that these cocky claims were greeted with the same outrage from his seniors in the system as William Cheung received a few years later. Pre-figuring  Cheung, LT even suggested that his softer, supposedly more sophisticated "WT" may have come from Leung Bic's influence, and that GM Yip emphasized this approach in his last years as he could no longer depend on his strength as before.

Naturally when Cheung burst onto the public scene in the 80s, LT was outraged. But was his indignation due to the falsehood of Cheung's claims, or more likely due to the financial competition and the fact that Cheung had stolen a page from LT's own  playbook?

On the positive side, Cheung's exaggerated claims took attention off LT's puffery, and he was able to patch things up with the Hong Kong VT/WC community and the Ving Tsun Athletitic Assn. where he served in various important-sounding positions.

Next Chapter: Young Emin Boztepe -- Sent by Ting and Kernspecht to humiliate William Cheung. Now that was a play from Wiliam Cheung's playbook from the days when he was a young tough-guy who would challenge rivals in Hong Kong! Now that Emin is older, I heard him admit that it was a stupid stunt that proves nothing. Somebody else could pull the same stunt on him.

I guess I'm at a point where I can see value in the best representatives of WT/WC/VT and TWC. Eventually, most of us outgrow the silliness and politics. _Unfortunately a few do not._


----------



## DanT

Instead of bickering about who's d*ck is bigger, why don't you guys come to Baltimore for the USKSF tourney this year? The thing is I've seen people from all lineages win, sure the William Cheung guys do thing a bit differently in terms of forms, just like the Leung Ting guys do, but at the end of the day if your form is crisp and your sparring is on point or your chi sao is awesome, it doesn't matter what line your from. The funny thing is that people don't like mentioning what line they're from when they lose.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Yep. Like the _Leung Ting_ story:
> 
> In his early teens he began training WC with a friend, and then decided to study under Leung Sheung. He learned fast and was cocky, and no doubt offended his Sifu and elder brothers at the school. Consequently, Leung Sheung stopped teaching him much. Leung Ting wasn't a happy camper and word got out.
> Fortunately for the young Leung Ting, at this same time Leung Sheung and Yip Man were having their own feud, and things got nasty. I know some specifics but rather not go into that. But the end result was that GM Yip, although pretty much retired from teaching publicly, accepted Leung Ting as a personal student ...primarily as a slap in the face to Leung Sheung. Leung Ting was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time, so to speak. But at any rate he did become a private student of Yip Man for a while.
> 
> So starting in the 1970s when Leung Ting began promoting himself as a "Wing Tsun" master, he also developed a pitch. He billed himself as the last, best student of GM Yip, and the one to learn the "final version" of GM Yip's Ving Tsun. He proclaimed that his teaching method was more logical and students would learn faster, and moreover he suggested that what the softer, elastic or "springy" system he taught represented a more evolved form of WC/VT which he eventually named and trademarked as _WingTsun._
> 
> Anybody who looks back through old Hong Kong martial arts news-clippings from the time will find that these cocky claims were greeted with the same outrage from his seniors in the system as William Cheung received a few years later. Pre-figuring  Cheung, LT even suggested that his softer, supposedly more sophisticated "WT" may have come from Leung Bic's influence, and that GM Yip emphasized this approach in his last years as he could no longer depend on his strength as before.
> 
> Naturally when Cheung burst onto the public scene in the 80s, LT was outraged. But was his indignation due to the falsehood of Cheung's claims, or more likely due to the financial competition and the fact that Cheung had stolen a page from LT's own  playbook?
> 
> On the positive side, Cheung's exaggerated claims took attention off LT's puffery, and he was able to patch things up with the Hong Kong VT/WC community and the Ving Tsun Athletitic Assn. where he served in various important-sounding positions.
> 
> Next Chapter: Young Emin Boztepe -- Sent by Ting and Kernspecht to humiliate William Cheung. Now that was a play from Wiliam Cheung's playbook from the days when he was a young tough-guy who would challenge rivals in Hong Kong! Now that Emin is older, I heard him admit that it was a stupid stunt that proves nothing. Somebody else could pull the same stunt on him.
> 
> I guess I'm at a point where I can see value in the best representatives of WT/WC/VT and TWC. Eventually, most of us outgrow the silliness and politics. _Unfortunately a few do not._



What I have found most interesting about it all was how personal relationships transcended these politics.  As an example, for all the drama William Cheung stirred in the greater YMVT community he seemed, by all accounts, to still get along with his contemporaries, Moy Yat and WSL to name two.  Imo a testament to how we should never allow politics and business to become "personal.". Within limits of course.  As an example, if my brother started employing 11 year olds on his job sites I might be perturbed .


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> Instead of bickering about who's d*ck is bigger, why don't you guys come to Baltimore for the USKSF tourney this year? The thing is I've seen people from all lineages win, sure the William Cheung guys do thing a bit differently in terms of forms, just like the Leung Ting guys do, but at the end of the day if your form is crisp and your sparring is on point or your chi sao is awesome, it doesn't matter what line your from. The funny thing is that people don't like mentioning what line they're from when they lose.



I was there 2016 . Didn't take part though, I was playing shaparone to the younger members of the school.  I agree though.  Might do weapons competiton this year.  Depends if the schedule works out.  I actually said much the same leading up to 2016..."Show up to Kuoshu and see if it works.  That's what's important."


----------



## Transk53

Two posts respectively by KPM and Geezer have just made more sense than 25 odd pages. Fanaticism and dogma don't get anybody anywhere. In fact how many millions have actually died down the ages due to it. Anyway, cue the next cronie to have LFJ's back with a ultimately fruitless and pointless argument.


----------



## Danny T

In the final analysis...can you utilize your training (whatever it is) in a real situation. Doesn't matter who you trained under or how good they are...Can You do it.


----------



## DanT

Instead of bickering about who's d*ck is bigger, why don't you guys come to Baltimore for the USKSF tourney this year? The thing is I've seen people from all lineages win, sure the William Cheung guys do thing a bit differently in terms of forms, just like the Leung Ting guys do, but at the end of the day if your form is crisp and your sparring is on point or your chi sao is awesome, it doesn't matter what line your from. The funny thing is that people don't like mentioning what line they're from when they lo


Juany118 said:


> I was there 2016 . Didn't take part though, I was playing shaparone to the younger members of the school.  I agree though.  Might do weapons competiton this year.  Depends if the schedule works out.  I actually said much the same leading up to 2016..."Show up to Kuoshu and see if it works.  That's what's important."


what school? 2016 was amazing, lots of wing chun competitors, hopefully 2017 brings even more!


----------



## KPM

Transk53 said:


> Two posts respectively by KPM and Geezer have just made more sense than 25 odd pages. Fanaticism and dogma don't get anybody anywhere. In fact how many millions have actually died down the ages due to it. Anyway, cue the next cronie to have LFJ's back with a ultimately fruitless and pointless argument.



I suspect that Dale80 got himself at least temporarily banned right off the bat for such horrible behavior.  And LFJ said he was going to be gone for awhile on a trip.  That's why things have calmed down on this thread!


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I suspect that Dale80 got himself at least temporarily banned right off the bat for such horrible behavior.  And LFJ said he was going to be gone for awhile on a trip.  That's why things have calmed down on this thread!



On the downside, without LFJ and company carrying on, things will really slow down on this forum. Nothing draws a crowd like a good fight!


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> I suspect that Dale80 got himself at least temporarily banned right off the bat for such horrible behavior.  And LFJ said he was going to be gone for awhile on a trip.  That's why things have calmed down on this thread!



Boy Scouts maybe. I did like the history post. It does make wonder on logical level to me that Wing Chun fits the slender frame more, well that is what I thought from reading your post anywho. Wonder who is up next on the LFJ bandwagon. To me there has been good guy/bad guy on the sub bench as it were.


----------



## dudewingchun

KPM said:


> I suspect that Dale80 got himself at least temporarily banned right off the bat for such horrible behavior.  And LFJ said he was going to be gone for awhile on a trip.  That's why things have calmed down on this thread!



Dont post much anymore but have to say that guy is rediculous


----------



## KPM

Ok guys.  Pure speculation to follow!

I am pretty sure that Dale80 got himself banned at least temporarily.  So I thought I'd look at his profile page and see if there was any indication of that.  When you click on the button for his "profile page" you get an error message and it says the page is unavailable.  Then it occurred to me that we hadn't seen Hazardi recently and that he would have been a factor in the current discussion.  So I went to his profle page and guess what?  Same result!   So then I pulled up Guy B.'s page and tried to go to his profile page, and  guess what?  Same result!

It sure looks to me like there is a strong possibility that Hazardi truly was Guy B. in disguise and it just took awhile for the moderators to actually follow up on it and check it out.   So now I'm wondering about Dale80!    It sure was a coincidence that he showed up in this thread just when LFJ was needing some support! 

Now, I think that as members of this forum we have the right to know when someone is trying to BS us!  But the moderators don't agree with that.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> Ok guys.  Pure speculation to follow!
> 
> I am pretty sure that Dale80 got himself banned at least temporarily.  So I thought I'd look at his profile page and see if there was any indication of that.  When you click on the button for his "profile page" you get an error message and it says the page is unavailable.  Then it occurred to me that we hadn't seen Hazardi recently and that he would have been a factor in the current discussion.  So I went to his profle page and guess what?  Same result!   So then I pulled up Guy B.'s page and tried to go to his profile page, and  guess what?  Same result!
> 
> It sure looks to me like there is a strong possibility that Hazardi truly was Guy B. in disguise and it just took awhile for the moderators to actually follow up on it and check it out.   So now I'm wondering about Dale80!    It sure was a coincidence that he showed up in this thread just when LFJ was needing some support!
> 
> Now, I think that as members of this forum we have the right to know when someone is trying to BS us!  But the moderators don't agree with that.



Wow...that is just weird!


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Wow...that is just weird!


Well I assume someone high enough in the "admin" chain of command could likely check IPs so not really that weird.  That said the Mods have a strict policy, they don't discuss such matters and I respect that.  They can't stay mum on one and then chat about the other.  That's how most web sites work.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> Ok guys.  Pure speculation to follow!
> 
> I am pretty sure that Dale80 got himself banned at least temporarily.  So I thought I'd look at his profile page and see if there was any indication of that.  When you click on the button for his "profile page" you get an error message and it says the page is unavailable.  Then it occurred to me that we hadn't seen Hazardi recently and that he would have been a factor in the current discussion.  So I went to his profle page and guess what?  Same result!   So then I pulled up Guy B.'s page and tried to go to his profile page, and  guess what?  Same result!
> 
> It sure looks to me like there is a strong possibility that Hazardi truly was Guy B. in disguise and it just took awhile for the moderators to actually follow up on it and check it out.   So now I'm wondering about Dale80!    It sure was a coincidence that he showed up in this thread just when LFJ was needing some support!
> 
> Now, I think that as members of this forum we have the right to know when someone is trying to BS us!  But the moderators don't agree with that.



Seemed obvious threads and threads ago.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Seemed obvious threads and threads ago.




I think the fact the Hazardi said "your wrong, thats wrong, this is perfect, you're not."  but followed it with a pleasant goodbye, threw people.  Me? I initially assumed it was camouflage at best, at worst sarcasm but then I have over the years become more than a little cynical and suspicious of just about everything and everyone.


----------



## geezer

Too bad that our Mods have to be so ethical and all that. It would be really fun to know if KPM is right. It would explain sooo much! 

Also it would clear up a lot. Like for example, Dale claimed to be a David Peterson WSL VT student, but he acted and argued from the same perspective as LFJ and Guy. Perhaps pretending to present a more unified "WSL opposition" to the rest of us. But I now seriously doubt that he accurately represents David Perterson's school. Just goes to show that you have to be very cautious about _any_ info you get online.


----------



## bully

This thread could have been awesome but it went to rat sh*t very quickly.

Im looking at the ad's for Katanas/Mature singles in the side bar and finding them much more interesting than the 30 pages of bickering.

That is a sad fact.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Too bad that our Mods have to be so ethical and all that. It would be really fun to know if KPM is right. It would explain sooo much!
> 
> Also it would clear up a lot. Like for example, Dale claimed to be a David Peterson WSL VT student, but he acted and argued from the same perspective as LFJ and Guy. Perhaps pretending to present a more unified "WSL opposition" to the rest of us. But I now seriously doubt that he accurately represents David Perterson's school. Just goes to show that you have to be very cautious about _any_ info you get online.



And THAT is exactly why we should have the right to know if someone was BSing us!


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> I think the fact the Hazardi said "your wrong, thats wrong, this is perfect, you're not."  but followed it with a pleasant goodbye, threw people.  Me? I initially assumed it was camouflage at best, at worst sarcasm but then I have over the years become more than a little *cynical and suspicious of just about everything and everyone*.



Yeah. Not sure if that is age or job related for me lol.


----------



## Marnetmar

While we're trying to rebuild the ruins of this thread, let's talk about the forms:











Interesting tidbit on the dummy video:

_



			it was taught to me by lun gai that when yip man sifu first taught the dummy set in foshan it was not a set pattern but groups of individual exercises, and that the main goal should be to "free flow" on the dummy. in sifu lun gai's own word to me " first 1-2-3 .... then 3-2-1...then 1-5-2-6..." the idea is that after you understand the movements on the dummy you can change and flow with them any which way you want.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Juany118

Marnetmar said:


> While we're trying to rebuild the ruins of this thread, let's talk about the forms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting tidbit on the dummy video:




The last part actually makes a lot of sense.  Especially if you look at this video...






I posted this on another thread.  At :50 it talks about how YM himself did it free form as well.  I have also read where some people say (and this might annoy some people) YM created the wooden dummy "form" straight up so that he could keep students paying tuition by having more forms to teach.  If you had all the empty hand forms and your own dummy, you could do more training on your own.  Gotta love legends.


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> The last part actually makes a lot of sense.  Especially if you look at this video...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this on another thread.  At :50 it talks about how YM himself did it free form as well.  I have also read where some people say (and this might annoy some people) YM created the wooden dummy "form" straight up so that he could keep students paying tuition by having more forms to teach.  If you had all the empty hand forms and your own dummy, you could do more training on your own.  Gotta love legends.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry. The jong when done well is a very important part of development of wing chun skills. Doing it free form and doing it on the dummy teaches complimentary but quite different skills.


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry. The jong when done well is a very important part of development of wing chun skills. Doing it free form and doing it on the dummy teaches complimentary but quite different skills.




I know, that is why I clarified at the end  "gotta love legends" which, to a degree sadly (and I mean this sincerely as a person obsessed by history), is a part of the discussion as to the evolution of many TCMAs.  I could have made that more clear I suppose.


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> Simultaneous attack and defense?  Nothing special about that.  In many Western martial traditions influenced by fencing, it's called a Single-Time Counter.  It certainly exists in boxing, particularly in "Old School Boxing."  I've posted numerous references to it before.
> 
> The fact that you seem to be ignorant of single-time counters in boxing makes me question whether or not you are qualified to make such a comparison.



No. As I said, the author of the article you posted doesn't know what LSDD is. You make the same assumption as he.

LSDD in YMVT refers specifically to dual-function in a single limb, the unique skill of VT, not just two arms working together in a "single-time counter".

It doesn't exist in any style of Western Boxing.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So, as it finally emerges after many pages of pretty pointless banter.....LFJ's theory seems to be this:
> 
> Ip Man took the LDBK pole form that predates Wing Chun and that is found within the Hung Kuen system as well as other systems.  He then managed to completely set aside and forget his years of training Wing Chun with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and his years of practicing alongside Yiu Choi and Yuen Kay Shan.  He then created his own version of Wing Chun completely from scratch using only the pole and the knives as his guide.



There is no way you could have _honestly_ reached this conclusion.

The very reason I joined this thread was to say YM did not create any of his VT.

I'm not coming back to this again, so to be clear;

I DO NOT BELIEVE YIP MAN CREATED HIS OWN VING TSUN.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> There is no way you could have _honestly_ reached this conclusion.
> 
> The very reason I joined this thread was to say YM did not create any of his VT.
> 
> I'm not coming back to this again, so to be clear;
> 
> I DO NOT BELIEVE YIP MAN CREATED HIS OWN VING TSUN.



Feeling grouchy then? So are youing saying that Ip Man stuck to doctrine. Never a moment of I like this.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> There is no way you could have _honestly_ reached this conclusion.
> 
> The very reason I joined this thread was to say YM did not create any of his VT.
> 
> I'm not coming back to this again, so to be clear;
> 
> I DO NOT BELIEVE YIP MAN CREATED HIS OWN VING TSUN.



Ah!  Welcome back LFJ!  I hope your trip went well!  

But I am confused.   Can you explain exactly what it is that you DO believe?  Because all through this thread you have been somewhat vague and have avoided just coming right out and stating clearly what your theory actually is!

You have said that YMVT was developed entirely from the pole and knives, and that this way of development applies only to YMVT.  Yet then you turn around and say that YM did not create any of his VT.  So exactly who created it???


----------



## Dylan9d

KPM said:


> Ok guys.  Pure speculation to follow!
> 
> I am pretty sure that Dale80 got himself banned at least temporarily.  So I thought I'd look at his profile page and see if there was any indication of that.  When you click on the button for his "profile page" you get an error message and it says the page is unavailable.  Then it occurred to me that we hadn't seen Hazardi recently and that he would have been a factor in the current discussion.  So I went to his profle page and guess what?  Same result!   So then I pulled up Guy B.'s page and tried to go to his profile page, and  guess what?  Same result!
> 
> It sure looks to me like there is a strong possibility that Hazardi truly was Guy B. in disguise and it just took awhile for the moderators to actually follow up on it and check it out.   So now I'm wondering about Dale80!    It sure was a coincidence that he showed up in this thread just when LFJ was needing some support!
> 
> Now, I think that as members of this forum we have the right to know when someone is trying to BS us!  But the moderators don't agree with that.



I still think it was weird, that Hazardi guy was in Holland for 15 years and he didnt understand dutch when I wrote him a message......


----------



## Vajramusti

LFJ said:


> There is no way you could have _honestly_ reached this conclusion.
> 
> The very reason I joined this thread was to say YM did not create any of his VT.
> 
> I'm not coming back to this again, so to be clear;
> 
> I DO NOT BELIEVE YIP MAN CREATED HIS OWN VING TSUN.


----------------------------------
 KPM's history is garbled.IM pole usage is not related to hung kuen.
There is coninuity in IM's development of wing chun.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------
> KPM's history is garbled.IM pole usage is not related to hung kuen.
> There is coninuity in IM's development of wing chun.



Hey, its not my history!  LFJ is the one that showed that Hung Kuen pole form and said it was the same as Ip Man's!   Not me!!


----------



## KPM

Dylan9d said:


> I still think it was weird, that Hazardi guy was in Holland for 15 years and he didnt understand dutch when I wrote him a message......



Yeah, I'm pretty sure both Hazardi and Dale80 were Guy B in disguise!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Ah!  Welcome back LFJ!  I hope your trip went well!
> 
> But I am confused.   Can you explain exactly what it is that you DO believe?  Because all through this thread you have been somewhat vague and have avoided just coming right out and stating clearly what your theory actually is!
> 
> You have said that YMVT was developed entirely from the pole and knives, and that this way of development applies only to YMVT.  Yet then you turn around and say that YM did not create any of his VT.  So exactly who created it???



I would like this answered as well because we really have only one of three possible answers here because of the differences between YMWC and the Main Land Branches...

1. YMWC is the product of some secret mainland WC lineage that no one else has public ally passed down.

2. As has been passed down by some of YM students, he never planned of teaching WC/VT so when he designed his curriculum it was founded in what he had been taught BUT passed on the art he had made his own.

3. If you believe the Leung Bik tale he combined what he had originally learned with new training under Bik.

Number 1 is not a defensible argument.  How do you produce evidence of such a "secret teaching."

Numbers 2 and 3 in essence amount to YM inventing his own WC/VT.  I think sometimes we forget how memory and the creative process come together though and read too much into "invented." As a conceptual Martial Art you can maintain the same principles, concepts and techniques overall but you leave you own unique mark upon it based on our unique physical, mental and emotional make up.  If you do not plan on teaching yet decades after you last formally trained you find yourself teaching, it is this personalized Art you are going to pass on.  You didn't invent it from whole cloth, you simply refined what was taught to you.


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> I would like this answered as well because we really have only one of three possible answers here because of the differences between YMWC and the Main Land Branches...
> 
> 1. YMWC is the product of some secret mainland WC lineage that no one else has public ally passed down.
> 
> 2. As has been passed down by some of YM students, he never planned of teaching WC/VT so when he designed his curriculum it was founded in what he had been taught BUT passed on the art he had made his own.
> 
> 3. If you believe the Leung Bik tale he combined what he had originally learned with new training under Bik.
> 
> Number 1 is not a defensible argument.  How do you produce evidence of such a "secret teaching."
> 
> Numbers 2 and 3 in essence amount to YM inventing his own WC/VT.  I think sometimes we forget how memory and the creative process come together though and read too much into "invented." As a conceptual Martial Art you can maintain the same principles, concepts and techniques overall but you leave you own unique mark upon it based on our unique physical, mental and emotional make up.  If you do not plan on teaching yet decades after you last formally trained you find yourself teaching, it is this personalized Art you are going to pass on.  You didn't invent it from whole cloth, you simply refined what was taught to you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can believe what you want. Ip Man's wing chun is awesome and most
using his name were not with him for long. a few got personal instruction.


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can believe what you want. Ip Man's wing chun is awesome and most
> using his name were not with him for long. a few got personal instruction.



I am not making any judgement or believing in any specific origin sir.  It is indeed an awesome MA.  I am simply saying that, since YMWC has differences from the other lineages I have seen, one way or another refinements were made for some reason that now permits us to declare YM's WC/VT its own unique Lineage of WC.


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> I am not making any judgement or believing in any specific origin sir.  It is indeed an awesome MA.  I am simply saying that, since YMWC has differences from the other lineages I have seen, one way or another refinements were made for some reason that now permits us to declare YM's WC/VT its own unique Lineage of WC.


------------------------------------------
I am not sure what exactly you are saying. I don't want to belabor the point.


----------



## wingerjim

LFJ said:


> It must be taken into account that students can only say what _they_ learned, but not what they _didn't_ learn.
> 
> In YMVT, the pole and knives are too deeply related to the empty hand method and its training system to not have been part of its conception. Highly unlikely that YM created them himself long after the empty hand method had been developed.
> 
> I agree in that those likely were not added by YM, but certainly YM changes some items. We know he even changes items from his earliest Hong Kong students to his later ones, so it would seem  reasonable to beleive he also changes other items before he arrived in HK. The swords are clearly Buddhist of origin based on historical records but who added them to WC is a mystery. The story is that the long pole came from the Junk Boat but again no proof. The more important thing is that we just do not know and the answer, if it exists, is somewhere in China awaiting discovery.


----------



## Vajramusti

1. Poles and double swords were just used objects in the South  China world.
2. Not an issue of change. Ip Man used them in unique ways in his wing chun.
3. Swords Buddhist in origin/ I don't know hos you came to that conclusion.


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> No. As I said, the author of the article you posted doesn't know what LSDD is. You make the same assumption as he.
> 
> LSDD in YMVT refers specifically to dual-function in a single limb, the unique skill of VT, not just two arms working together in a "single-time counter".
> 
> It doesn't exist in any style of Western Boxing.


Cark.  To be blunt, you don't know what you are talking about.  Single Time Counters are not limited to "two arms working together."  The most basic example, which exists both in boxing and in fencing, is a linear punch/thrust which parries off an incoming linear attack while, at the same time, directing that punch/thrust into the opponent.

Again, the simple fact that you do not know about this *exceptionally basic* technique means that you are not qualified to make the comparison.

You should quit while your behind but somehow I doubt you will.


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> Again, the simple fact that you do not know about this *exceptionally basic* technique means that you are not qualified to make the comparison.



LSDD is not a one-off technique.

It's an automatic result of how we engage the central line at all times throughout an exchange.

Western Boxing doesn't function like this at all.


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> LSDD is not a one-off technique.
> 
> It's an automatic result of how we engage the central line at all times throughout an exchange.
> 
> Western Boxing doesn't function like this at all.


More evidence that you don't have any basis to make comparisons on any style of boxing.  Remember how I wrote that you wouldn't quit while you are behind?  I must be prescient.  But hey, keep digging that hole.


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> More evidence that you don't have any basis to make comparisons on any style of boxing.  Remember how I wrote that you wouldn't quit while you are behind?  I must be prescient.  But hey, keep digging that hole.



Good post, .

There is no style of boxing that engages the center as VT.

To say VT's LSDD came from Western Boxing is retarded.


----------



## Vajramusti

LFJ said:


> Good post, .
> 
> There is no style of boxing that engages the center as VT.
> 
> To say VT's LSDD came from Western Boxing is retarded.


---------------------------
I don't know what LSDD stands for- but VT does not come from western boxing.


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> Good post, .


I'm glad you recognize it.



> There is no style of boxing that engages the center as VT.


More evidence that you really shouldn't talk about boxing due to your obvious ignorance of the topic.



> To say VT's LSDD came from Western Boxing is retarded.


Feel free to refute the assertion with actual facts which extend beyond a fairy tale story which includes monks and spurned lovers.  Here, use this space: _______________________________________________


----------



## lklawson

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------
> I don't know what LSDD stands for- but VT does not come from western boxing.


Personally, I don't care either way, to be perfectly honest with you.  This is mostly because I don't give a fat fiddlers fart about Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, or any of the other elements of the art or its petty internal squabbles.  But I do find it amusing to watch the ocasional WC guy go into hysterics at the mere suggestion that western pugilism actually spawned WC while blindly accepting the even less verifiable story of Ng Mui.

I find it even more entertaining to watch people who are obviously ignorant about pre-Marquess boxing claim that there aren't any striking similarities.


----------



## KPM

KPM said:


> Ah!  Welcome back LFJ!  I hope your trip went well!
> 
> But I am confused.   Can you explain exactly what it is that you DO believe?  Because all through this thread you have been somewhat vague and have avoided just coming right out and stating clearly what your theory actually is!
> 
> You have said that YMVT was developed entirely from the pole and knives, and that this way of development applies only to YMVT.  Yet then you turn around and say that YM did not create any of his VT.  So exactly who created it???


----------



## Vajramusti

lklawson said:


> I'm glad you recognize it.
> 
> More evidence that you really shouldn't talk about boxing due to your obvious ignorance of the topic.
> 
> Feel free to refute the assertion with actual facts which extend beyond a fairy tale story which includes monks and spurned lovers.  Here, use this space: _______________________________________________


Best ignored


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> Feel free to refute the assertion with actual facts which extend beyond a fairy tale story which includes monks and spurned lovers.



I have. It's the actual fact that VT's LSDD does not exist in any style of Western Boxing.

You have only attempted to refute this with things that are not LSDD.



lklawson said:


> I don't give a fat fiddlers fart about Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, or any of the other elements of the art or its petty internal squabbles.



You're on the Wing Chun subforum just to troll then?



> But I do find it amusing to watch the ocasional WC guy go into hysterics at the mere suggestion that western pugilism actually spawned WC while blindly accepting the even less verifiable story of Ng Mui.



Strawman.

I don't accept any unsubstantiated origin story, and don't even know anyone who takes the NM story literally.



> I find it even more entertaining to watch people who are obviously ignorant about pre-Marquess boxing claim that there aren't any striking similarities.



Strawman again.

I never said there aren't any striking similarities, but LSDD as defined in YMVT does not exist in any Western Boxing. To claim that VT's LSDD came from WB is to not know what LSDD is.


----------



## KPM

Hey LFJ.....rather than just arguing with Kirk, how about answering my question???


----------



## geezer

lklawson said:


> I find it even more entertaining to watch people who are obviously ignorant about pre-Marquess boxing claim that there aren't any striking similarities.



_Boxing Shmoxing!_ I don't know squat about early bare-knuckle boxing except from old pictures ...which do look a lot like Wing Chun.

Seems like they ought to look alike ...seeing as they were both trying to accomplish pretty much the same thing. You know, parallel evolution and all...with or without actual cross fertilization.

Anyway, Kirk, I'm actually more interested in any opinion you might have the parallels between WC and thrusting sword arts in HEMA. Way back I had a brief introduction to modern fencing, and then later a chance to try some historical rapier work. I found a lot of conceptual similarities, especially using linear deflections to _simultaneously defend and attack_ in a single movement.

Oh and BTW, that's what LFJ was referring to with LSDD. Abbreviating the Cantonese term for simultaneous defense and attack. Why he expects everybody to recognize that acronym is beyond me. No matter. 
.


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> I have. It's the actual fact that VT's LSDD does not exist in any style of Western Boxing.


Poppycock!  Simultaneous attack and defense is an important element to nearly every martial system which employs linear attacks.  In Western based systems, it's usually referred to as a Single Time Counter, Single Time Defense, or Single Time Riposte. 

At this point your stubborn insistence upon personal ignorance is plainly a choice.  None are so blind as those who will not see.

I'm not sure which is more amusing, your willful ignorance or your insistence that only your version of WC contains an extremely basic, and common, tactic.  What else does your WC have that no one else does?  Punches?  Kicks?  Aiming for the nose or the solar plexus?  Nut shots and eye-pokes?  



> You're on the Wing Chun subforum just to troll then?


Perhaps in your zeal to comment on martial arts you are ignorant of your memory might be, um, "compromised," so I'll remind you that I was invited to this conversation.



> I never said there aren't any striking similarities, but LSDD as defined in YMVT does not exist in any Western Boxing.


Yes, yes, we're all aware that you're willing to show your ignorance about pre-Marquess boxing.


----------



## lklawson

geezer said:


> _Boxing Shmoxing!_ I don't know squat about early bare-knuckle boxing except from old pictures ...which do look a lot like Wing Chun.
> 
> Seems like they ought to look alike ...seeing as they were both trying to accomplish pretty much the same thing. You know, parallel evolution and all...with or without actual cross fertilization.


Which, to be honest, is a very plausible answer.  OTOH, it's far less fun than watching someone get all hot-n-bothered by the mere suggestion.



> Anyway, Kirk, I'm actually more interested in any opinion you might have the parallels between WC and thrusting sword arts in HEMA. Way back I had a brief introduction to modern fencing, and then later a chance to try some historical rapier work. I found a lot of conceptual similarities, especially using linear deflections to _simultaneously defend and attack_ in a single movement.


Honestly, there are going to be a crap-ton of similarities because, frankly, there are only so many ways to engage and deflect an incoming attack while simultaneously attacking.  Unless Chinese arms and elbows have more joints than European ones and unless the Dao, Jian, or <ahem> "Staff" somehow use alternate physics than in Europe (please let it be Star Trek physics, please, please please!), then similar attacks are going to, by necessity, result in similar defenses and similar strategies.

It wasn't particularly uncommon for Western Boxing, in particular pre-Marquess and transitional boxing styles, to be thought of as "Fencing with Fists."  The Straight Left and How to cultivate It, for instance, goes on at length about the similarities to linear sword fighting and Outfighting based linear-heavy boxing.



> Oh and BTW, that's what LFJ was referring to with LSDD. Abbreviating the Cantonese term for simultaneous defense and attack. Why he expects everybody to recognize that acronym is beyond me. No matter.
> .


It's still entertaining.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KPM

lklawson said:


> It wasn't particularly uncommon for Western Boxing, in particular pre-Marquess and transitional boxing styles, to be thought of as "Fencing with Fists."  The Straight Left and How to cultivate It, for instance, goes on at length about the similarities to linear sword fighting and Outfighting based linear-heavy boxing.
> 
> It's still entertaining.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Also good to point out to everyone that Bruce Lee had that title and several other "old school" boxing books in his library.  Some of the stuff he wrote about in "Tao of JKD" and other books came right out of Jim Driscoll's works.  One might even say that Bruce's whole idea of making the lead hand a "power punch" and the main weapon for JKD was something he picked up from Driscoll!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> Poppycock!  Simultaneous attack and defense is an important element to nearly every martial system which employs linear attacks.


And in many which employ circular or spiral methods. It's a fairly universal concept, though it appears more common in the styles with more linear methods.


----------



## Jsunlx

KPM said:


> Hey LFJ.....rather than just arguing with Kirk, how about answering my question???



Hey KPM, how about answering my questions? How often and for how long did you train with Jim Roselando? How often and for how long did you train with Mark? You claim to be an instructor in Pin Sun, but how much time did you actually spend training with your instructors?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jsunlx said:


> Hey KPM, how about answering my questions? How often and for how long did you train with Jim Roselando? How often and for how long did you train with Mark? You claim to be an instructor in Pin Sun, but how much time did you actually spend training with your instructors?


What, precisely, does that have to do with the discussion at hand?


----------



## Jsunlx

gpseymour said:


> What, precisely, does that have to do with the discussion at hand?



It's hypocritical to press people to answer questions when you don't answer them yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jsunlx said:


> It's hypocritical to press people to answer questions when you don't answer them yourself.


Only if both sets of questions are relevant to the discussion.


----------



## geezer

Jsunlx said:


> It's hypocritical to press people to answer questions when you don't answer them yourself.



This seems like a separate discussion. I know KPM has said that he has experience in Pin Sun along with other branches/approaches, but I never heard him say he represented anybody other than himself. So I fail to see the relevance here. Moreover, "fraud busting" and hounding people from thread to thread over unrelated topics is against the forum rules here. So, let's get back on topic.


----------



## KPM

Jsunlx said:


> Hey KPM, how about answering my questions? How often and for how long did you train with Jim Roselando? How often and for how long did you train with Mark? You claim to be an instructor in Pin Sun, but how much time did you actually spend training with your instructors?



Hey, how about telling us just who you are?  You came onto this forum as a new member and your only post was to ask probing questions of me.  So not knowing anything about you, I chose not to answer your questions.  I don't know you or anything about you.  You didn't introduce yourself or explain why you were interested in these questions.  So why should I answer them?


----------



## KPM

Jsunlx said:


> It's hypocritical to press people to answer questions when you don't answer them yourself.




You know nothing about his forum, or this discussion in which I asked for LFJ's response.  You are in no position to be calling anyone a "hypocrite."  So you really expect me to be willing to just answer your probing questions???   You are not off to a good start!


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> And in many which employ circular or spiral methods. It's a fairly universal concept, though it appears more common in the styles with more linear methods.


True enough.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Nobody Important

Seems to be quite the influx of new users trolling the forum. Could they be someone we all know and love in disguise? Perhaps someone who was banned recently?


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> Poppycock!  Simultaneous attack and defense is an important element to nearly every martial system which employs linear attacks.  In Western based systems, it's usually referred to as a Single Time Counter, Single Time Defense, or Single Time Riposte.
> 
> At this point your stubborn insistence upon personal ignorance is plainly a choice. None are so blind as those who will not see.
> 
> I'm not sure which is more amusing, your willful ignorance or your insistence that only your version of WC contains an extremely basic, and common, tactic. What else does your WC have that no one else does? Punches? Kicks? Aiming for the nose or the solar plexus? Nut shots and eye-pokes?



Again, what you're talking about is _not_ LSDD as defined in YMVT.

LSDD is not a tactic or technique, but an nonthinking effect of how we engage the center.

No style of WB behaves or functions like this despite having some one-off techniques that accomplish, albeit in a very different way, single-time counters.

It is _not the same_ at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> Seems to be quite the influx of new users trolling the forum. Could they be someone we all know and love in disguise? Perhaps someone who was banned recently?


Seems the latest has at least come in with an existing agenda, and knowledge of at least one member.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Hey LFJ.....rather than just arguing with Kirk, how about answering my question???





LFJ said:


> I'm not coming back to this again



What I think about the possible reasons for diversions between YM and Mainland systems has been made clear _numerous times_ throughout this thread, yet you ended up dishonestly concluding the _exact opposite_ of what I joined this thread to say in the first place!

You did this with the ill-intent to make my position look as unbelievable and indefensible as possible at a time when I was leaving on travel and could not correct it.

I have no interest in engaging further with dishonest discussion partners like this. The answer is in the thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Again, what you're talking about is _not_ LSDD as defined in YMVT.
> 
> LSDD is not a tactic or technique, but an nonthinking effect of how we engage the center.
> 
> No style of WB behaves or functions like this despite having some one-off techniques that accomplish, albeit in a very different way, single-time counters.
> 
> It is _not the same_ at all.


You seem so certain...


----------



## DanT

What's LSDD? I mean I know LSD, but that's for a different discussion.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> You seem so certain...



Because I am certain. The problem is Kirk doesn't know YMVT and makes the same uninformed assumptions as the author of the article he posted.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> _Boxing Shmoxing!_ I don't know squat about early bare-knuckle boxing except from old pictures ...which do look a lot like Wing Chun.
> 
> Seems like they ought to look alike ...seeing as they were both trying to accomplish pretty much the same thing. You know, parallel evolution and all...with or without actual cross fertilization.
> 
> Anyway, Kirk, I'm actually more interested in any opinion you might have the parallels between WC and thrusting sword arts in HEMA. Way back I had a brief introduction to modern fencing, and then later a chance to try some historical rapier work. I found a lot of conceptual similarities, especially using linear deflections to _simultaneously defend and attack_ in a single movement.
> 
> Oh and BTW, that's what LFJ was referring to with LSDD. Abbreviating the Cantonese term for simultaneous defense and attack. Why he expects everybody to recognize that acronym is beyond me. No matter.
> .


I thought exactly the same thing.  My first Martial art was almost 8 years of Olympic fencing (saber and foil) in high school and college.  The first time I did a huen sau into a punch I thought "I just did a riposte?" and while you keep an upright structure the idea of using forward footwork as part of the power generation for a straight punch immediately reminded me of thrusting with a foil.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> Which, to be honest, is a very plausible answer.  OTOH, it's far less fun than watching someone get all hot-n-bothered by the mere suggestion.
> 
> Honestly, there are going to be a crap-ton of similarities because, frankly, there are only so many ways to engage and deflect an incoming attack while simultaneously attacking.  Unless Chinese arms and elbows have more joints than European ones and unless the Dao, Jian, or <ahem> "Staff" somehow use alternate physics than in Europe (please let it be Star Trek physics, please, please please!), then similar attacks are going to, by necessity, result in similar defenses and similar strategies.
> 
> It wasn't particularly uncommon for Western Boxing, in particular pre-Marquess and transitional boxing styles, to be thought of as "Fencing with Fists."  The Straight Left and How to cultivate It, for instance, goes on at length about the similarities to linear sword fighting and Outfighting based linear-heavy boxing.
> 
> It's still entertaining.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I have always tried to make that point.  We have 2 arms and two legs and they articulate the same way.  My HEMA friend who participates at Long Point and I have often said "sometimes it just comes down to biomechanics" when we talk about similarities we find in HEMA and FMA.


----------



## KPM

*What I think about the possible reasons for diversions between YM and Mainland systems has been made clear numerous times throughout this thread, yet you ended up dishonestly concluding the exact opposite of what I joined this thread to say in the first place!*

---No it hasn't.  At times you seemed to be saying that "original" Wing Chun from generations past was developed entirely from the weapons, but somehow everyone but Ip Man departed from that.  Then you ended up saying things that implied that ONLY YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons, but then denied that it was Ip Man that did the "deriving."  You spent so much time arguing against what I and others were saying and not enough time clearly explaining what you actually believe. 


*You did this with the ill-intent to make my position look as unbelievable and indefensible as possible at a time when I was leaving on travel and could not correct it.* 

----What you were saying at the time WAS unbelievable and indefensible!  So correct it now.  I'm not the only one that is unclear as to exactly what your theory really is.  Throughout this whole thread you were a bit evasive and unclear in how you stated things.  I doubt anyone that has been trying to follow this long thread could repeat what your theory of Wing Chun origins really is! 


*I have no interest in engaging further with dishonest discussion partners like this. The answer is in the thread*.

---No it isn't.   You have never clearly and explicitly said how you believe YMVT came to be derived entirely from the weapons.  If you are unwilling to do it now, that just implies that you can't and it is a very weak theory.   Besides, given the passage of nearly a month, there may be people reading the thread now that haven't gone back and waded through past pages.  They may be very interested in reading about your theory at this point.  So a nice clearly stated and detailed presentation from you could be very beneficial.  Aren't you even willing to make the effort?


----------



## lklawson

LFJ said:


> Again, what you're talking about is _not_ LSDD as defined in YMVT.
> 
> LSDD is not a tactic or technique, but an nonthinking effect of how we engage the center.
> 
> No style of WB behaves or functions like this despite having some one-off techniques that accomplish, albeit in a very different way, single-time counters.
> 
> It is _not the same_ at all.


You keep writing things like that but the fact is that Simultaneous Defense and Attack is simply not a "non thinking effect of how we engage the center" which is particularly unique to any martial art.

Look, I know you want to be special, but, frankly, it's not.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> I thought exactly the same thing.  My first Martial art was almost 8 years of Olympic fencing (saber and foil) in high school and college.  The first time I did a huen sau into a punch I thought "I just did a riposte?" and while you keep an upright structure the idea of using forward footwork as part of the power generation for a straight punch immediately reminded me of thrusting with a foil.


The concept of using forward footwork as part of power generation is elemental to nearly any art which includes linear attacks.  The Left Lead and the Jack Dempsey style Drop-step/Falling-Step punch are very similar to a Fencing Lunge, which is very similar to, well, everything else.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> You keep writing things like that but the fact is that Simultaneous Defense and Attack is simply not a "non thinking effect of how we engage the center" which is particularly unique to any martial art.
> 
> Look, I know you want to be special, but, frankly, it's not.



I think part of his issue, in this case, has to be knowing very little about "old school" bare knuckle boxing.  It was ALL about protecting the center.  They punched very similar to the WC straight punch, largely because it is the most simple way to not injure your hand or wrist.  Even then they usually didn't go "head hunting" like modern boxers and largely stuck to the body, using "head/face shots" as jabs to set up and "finishing" moves.  Because of this they "protected" the center, keeping the elbows down, in order to guard the ribs, liver, spleen etc.  At least that is my understanding, you can correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Juany118

As for the falling step punch







Next a WC example. 





While the later instructor is moving faster, (because he is just teaching how to punch vs exaggerating certain aspects to better illustrate "right" vs "wrong" drop punch) you can "hear" what's happening when he does the "double punch." 

The fist hits when the foot completes it's step.  That means, while it may be more subtle due to the stance, and faster due to the educational purpose, for that first punch he HAS to have "dropped" due to the fact that, no matter how briefly, his legs were further apart from one another. That's a simple biomechanical rule, the further apart your feet are the "lower" you are.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> I think part of his issue, in this case, has to be knowing very little about "old school" bare knuckle boxing.  It was ALL about protecting the center.  They punched very similar to the WC straight punch, largely because it is the most simple way to not injure your hand or wrist.  Even then they usually didn't go "head hunting" like modern boxers and largely stuck to the body, using "head/face shots" as jabs to set up and "finishing" moves.  Because of this they "protected" the center, keeping the elbows down, in order to guard the ribs, liver, spleen etc.  At least that is my understanding, you can correct me if I am wrong.


More or less right.  The  head was a target, but the punches were performed differently than modern boxing.  You are right that the body was an important target as well.  The solar plexus, or "The Mark," was such a significant target that very nearly every boxing manual mentions it.  There were also about half a dozen or so <ahem> "Pressure Point" attacks which I've documented in old school boxing.  Nothing any other martial art which has "vital point attacks" doesn't already know, but most asian martial artists are shocked to find out that Westerners knew about and used them too (maybe 19th Century English sailors swiped them from the Chinese?  :rofl: ).

Heck, boxers even used various medicinal applications, sometimes called tinctures, lineaments, and salves, to treat their hands (and sometimes the body) not entirely unlike Jow.  Most of the recipes are lost to time but a few still exist.  The most entertaining of which is one by Bob Fitzsimmons and contains Laudanum.  

Boxers engaged in fist conditioning exercises not entirely dissimilar to some forms of "Iron Fist" type exercises. Bart Doran shows the use of what he calls a "wall pad" which is easily recognizable as sort of like a Makiwara. 

You might enjoy this article, though it's a few years old now: 
http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/breakyourhand/breakyourhand.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> More or less right.  The  head was a target, but the punches were performed differently than modern boxing.  You are right that the body was an important target as well.  The solar plexus, or "The Mark," was such a significant target that very nearly every boxing manual mentions it.  There were also about half a dozen or so <ahem> "Pressure Point" attacks which I've documented in old school boxing.  Nothing any other martial art which has "vital point attacks" doesn't already know, but most asian martial artists are shocked to find out that Westerners knew about and used them too (maybe 19th Century English sailors swiped them from the Chinese?  :rofl: ).
> 
> Heck, boxers even used various medicinal applications, sometimes called tinctures, lineaments, and salves, to treat their hands (and sometimes the body) not entirely unlike Jow.  Most of the recipes are lost to time but a few still exist.  The most entertaining of which is one by Bob Fitzsimmons and contains Laudanum.
> 
> Boxers engaged in fist conditioning exercises not entirely dissimilar to some forms of "Iron Fist" type exercises. Bart Doran shows the use of what he calls a "wall pad" which is easily recognizable as sort of like a Makiwara.
> 
> You might enjoy this article, though it's a few years old now:
> http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/breakyourhand/breakyourhand.html
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Thanks for the article.  I would only argue that this popular belief of the palm strike that it mentions is largely the belief of those unfamiliar with how to do a proper one.  There are two reasons I prefer the palm strike over a punch BUT they both depend on knowing how to do one properly and, maybe, because I am thinking a WC palm strike.  

1.  The WC palm strike has your hand positioned basically like it would be if you were slapping someone.  A lot of self defense systems actually teach it this way now because it minimizes the "snagging" of the fingers issue.  If you screw up you slap, less damage but less injury.

2. The surface area is actually smaller.  Either the "heel" of the palm of the hypothenar etc.  If properly conditioned simple physics kicks in, same force + smaller surface area = more psi = more trauma.

As for the pressure points I think way too many people forget the "martial" in "martial arts." Even if a warrior doesn't know why it hurts, over time the figure out what hurts.  Since their job is to hurt/destroy the other guy and avoid being hurt/destroyed themselves figuring this stuff out amounts to common sense knowledge learned from practical experience.  There is nothing esoteric about it, as much as some people would like to think so.


----------



## LFJ

lklawson said:


> You keep writing things like that but the fact is that Simultaneous Defense and Attack is simply not a "non thinking effect of how we engage the center" which is particularly unique to any martial art.
> 
> Look, I know you want to be special, but, frankly, it's not.



I never said simultaneous defense and attack is unique to any martial art.

The problem is you have no idea what LSDD is or how it works within YMVT.

It's little at all to do with countering, like you're talking about.


----------



## Nobody Important

Just curious......

How do you (anyone in general) perceive LSDD?

Is it, to you, defending with one arm & attacking with the other?

or,

Attacking with one arm that deflects an incoming attack on way to your target?

IMO, the latter would be a happy coincidence, occurring because your attacking arm incidentally occupies the space of an incoming attack. To consciously seek to perform this action is arm chasing. Because to perform it consciously you must focus on intercepting the attack instead of focusing on the impact area of your strike, resulting in a heavy block but weak strike. The intention of your single movement cannot be focused in two separate areas simultaneously, not like with two hands that can be in two different places.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Just curious......
> 
> How do you (anyone in general) perceive LSDD?
> 
> Is it, to you, defending with one arm & attacking with the other?
> 
> or,
> 
> Attacking with one arm that deflects an incoming attack on way to your target?
> 
> IMO, the latter would be a happy coincidence, occurring because your attacking arm incidentally occupies the space of an incoming attack. To consciously seek to perform this action is arm chasing. Because to perform it consciously you must focus on intercepting the attack instead of focusing on the impact area of your strike, resulting in a heavy block but weak strike. The intention of your single movement cannot be focused in two separate areas simultaneously, not like with two hands that can be in two different places.



I agree with what you say with two additional points.

1. Be do believe that some WC lineages look to the second option as the "ideal.". In short your attacks should also be instinctively defenses as well.  I have seen some people use rationalizations such as "we use strategy and tactics that impose our will on the opponent and essentially force him to attack the way we want him too" but these are said by people who, imo, have never been in a real fight/spar or at least never been in a real fight/spar with someone outside of their school/lineage.  

2. I have always hated the term "hand chasing".  Why?  Because someone who, imo, uses the wrong definition for that term, will call the first option you naked hand chasing instead.  They will basically say "if your attacking limb is not instinctively/incidentally defending you are hand chasing.  They seem to think that using a specific technique to stop/temporarily trap = hand chasing.  That isn't what I have been taught though.

To me hand chasing is when I focus (meaning applying power and intent) on the limb I am stopping/temporarily removing vs my attack.  It's not the "all or nothing" idea other people seem to have.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I agree with what you say with two additional points.
> 
> 1. Be do believe that some WC lineages look to the second option as the "ideal.". In short your attacks should also be instinctively defenses as well.  I have seen some people use rationalizations such as "we use strategy and tactics that impose our will on the opponent and essentially force him to attack the way we want him too" but these are said by people who, imo, have never been in a real fight/spar or at least never been in a real fight/spar with someone outside of their school/lineage.
> 
> 2. I have always hated the term "hand chasing".  Why?  Because someone who, imo, uses the wrong definition for that term, will call the first option you naked hand chasing instead.  They will basically say "if your attacking limb is not instinctively/incidentally defending you are hand chasing.  They seem to think that using a specific technique to stop/temporarily trap = hand chasing.  That isn't what I have been taught though.
> 
> To me hand chasing is when I focus (meaning applying power and intent) on the limb I am stopping/temporarily removing vs my attack.  It's not the "all or nothing" idea other people seem to have.


Hello Juany,

I agree, the term "Hand Chasing" is often misunderstood IMO. In reality anytime you purposefully engage in stopping an incoming attack it's hand chasing, plain and simple, because your intention was to stop the attack. Offense can be a primary or secondary action, the same as defense can when it comes to simultaneous attack & defense.  LSDD is about performing two actions simultaneously, cover (block, parry, clear, intercept) and hit. Easiest to perform with two hands but is possible with one. It's all about probability. As a concept it is not unique to Wing Chun, many styles employ this strategy because of its efficiency. Thanks for the reply and insight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I agree with what you say with two additional points.
> 
> 1. Be do believe that some WC lineages look to the second option as the "ideal.". In short your attacks should also be instinctively defenses as well.  I have seen some people use rationalizations such as "we use strategy and tactics that impose our will on the opponent and essentially force him to attack the way we want him too" but these are said by people who, imo, have never been in a real fight/spar or at least never been in a real fight/spar with someone outside of their school/lineage.
> 
> 2. I have always hated the term "hand chasing".  Why?  Because someone who, imo, uses the wrong definition for that term, will call the first option you naked hand chasing instead.  They will basically say "if your attacking limb is not instinctively/incidentally defending you are hand chasing.  They seem to think that using a specific technique to stop/temporarily trap = hand chasing.  That isn't what I have been taught though.
> 
> To me hand chasing is when I focus (meaning applying power and intent) on the limb I am stopping/temporarily removing vs my attack.  It's not the "all or nothing" idea other people seem to have.


I've never liked the way some folks use "hand chasing", simply because it's a clear pejorative in their usage, and a conceptual one. And once someone places movement in that category, they will miss where it is useful within the principles of their art. That type of conceptual approach tends to lead to only being willing to do whatever is considered most purely ideal within a style, which omits a lot of quite good, useful material that is just outside that ideal.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Just curious......
> 
> How do you (anyone in general) perceive LSDD?
> 
> Is it, to you, defending with one arm & attacking with the other?
> 
> or,
> 
> Attacking with one arm that deflects an incoming attack on way to your target?
> 
> IMO, the latter would be a happy coincidence, occurring because your attacking arm incidentally occupies the space of an incoming attack. To consciously seek to perform this action is arm chasing. Because to perform it consciously you must focus on intercepting the attack instead of focusing on the impact area of your strike, resulting in a heavy block but weak strike. The intention of your single movement cannot be focused in two separate areas simultaneously, not like with two hands that can be in two different places.



I agree.  LSDD includes both attacking with one arm while simultaneously defending with the other as well as attacking and defending at the same time with just one arm.  Using the second version is harder to pull off, and if you make it a goal to the exclusion of all else you will certainly end up "hand chasing"!   So to say that the first version is NOT LSDD....well, that's just pretty narrow-minded and wrong.   The second version may be an ideal, but certainly not standard practice....unless you are are training to ONLY face fellow Wing Chun guys!

"Hand chasing" has to be one of the poorest defined and most mis-used terms in Wing Chun!  I like to keep it simple.  To me "hand chasing" is when you focus on the defense when you could have been focusing on striking the opponent.   But the caveat here is....what if you are in a self-defense situation and your  goal was to use a joint-lock to subdue an attacker?  Or.....in a situation defending against a knife-wielding attacker and you need to focus on controlling the weapon hand rather than hitting the guy?   Another way I look at "hand chasing" is that if I use more than 3 motions to accomplish my goal then I am likely being inefficient and "hand chasing" rather than getting  right to it.   You see this all the time in demos......a guy throws an attack and then just freezes while the demonstrator does some kind of complicated multi-step response.  I put a lot of the "Lat Sau" Chi Sau demos in this category.   

Another example I have seen in TWC.   Someone throws a wide loopy punch that is met with a Fak Sau, then you Cheun Sau to get to the other side, Lop Sau to bring his arm down, and then switch to a Pak Sau and punch.  The better alternative being to meet that wide punch with a Biu while stepping across and into it, then transition to a Lop Sau and punch while stepping into the opponent.  One is a 4 count movement, while the other is a 2 count movement.   And there is even a caveat here!   If the wide loopy punch is overwhelming and you are stepping back just enough to make sure it doesn't land AS you meet it with a Fak Sau, and then let its energy carry it across naturally while you are doing the Cheung Sau to set things up....then this might very well be the best way to go!  So you see, its often rather hard for someone to look at what someone else is doing and declare it "hand chasing" if they don't know what the other person's intent may be or the energies involved in the exchange!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> I agree.  LSDD includes both attacking with one arm while simultaneously defending with the other as well as attacking and defending at the same time with just one arm.  Using the second version is harder to pull off, and if you make it a goal to the exclusion of all else you will certainly end up "hand chasing"!   So to say that the first version is NOT LSDD....well, that's just pretty narrow-minded and wrong.   The second version may be an ideal, but certainly not standard practice....unless you are are training to ONLY face fellow Wing Chun guys!
> 
> "Hand chasing" has to be one of the poorest defined and most mis-used terms in Wing Chun!  I like to keep it simple.  To me "hand chasing" is when you focus on the defense when you could have been focusing on striking the opponent.   But the caveat here is....what if you are in a self-defense situation and your  goal was to use a joint-lock to subdue an attacker?  Or.....in a situation defending against a knife-wielding attacker and you need to focus on controlling the weapon hand rather than hitting the guy?   Another way I look at "hand chasing" is that if I use more than 3 motions to accomplish my goal then I am likely being inefficient and "hand chasing" rather than getting  right to it.   You see this all the time in demos......a guy throws an attack and then just freezes while the demonstrator does some kind of complicated multi-step response.  I put a lot of the "Lat Sau" Chi Sau demos in this category.
> 
> Another example I have seen in TWC.   Someone throws a wide loopy punch that is met with a Fak Sau, then you Cheun Sau to get to the other side, Lop Sau to bring his arm down, and then switch to a Pak Sau and punch.  The better alternative being to meet that wide punch with a Biu while stepping across and into it, then transition to a Lop Sau and punch while stepping into the opponent.  One is a 4 count movement, while the other is a 2 count movement.   And there is even a caveat here!   If the wide loopy punch is overwhelming and you are stepping back just enough to make sure it doesn't land AS you meet it with a Fak Sau, and then let its energy carry it across naturally while you are doing the Cheung Sau to set things up....then this might very well be the best way to go!  So you see, its often rather hard for someone to look at what someone else is doing and declare it "hand chasing" if they don't know what the other person's intent may be or the energies involved in the exchange!!


See, I like this explanation. This way, "hand chasing" is not dogmatic. It's a reference to inefficient movement, and the same movement may in one instance be "hand chasing" (because a better, more efficient option is available), yet not "hand chasing" in another instance (because it is the best available answer).


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> See, I like this explanation. This way, "hand chasing" is not dogmatic. It's a reference to inefficient movement, and the same movement may in one instance be "hand chasing" (because a better, more efficient option is available), yet not "hand chasing" in another instance (because it is the best available answer).


Oh, how dare you, you heretic! Pick a side and defend it vehemently until your death. Lol!

You'll never be accepted as a Chunner until you choose to support something with blind zealously.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> Oh, how dare you, you heretic! Pick a side and defend it vehemently until your death. Lol!


My apologies.

@KPM, you are full of crap. "Hand chasing" is an evil term, and should be expunged. Everyone who uses it doesn't understand what a hand is!

Better, NI?


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> My apologies.
> 
> @KPM, you are full of crap. "Hand chasing" is an evil term, and should be expunged. Everyone who uses it doesn't understand what a hand is!
> 
> Better, NI?


Much better, thank you. Now come up with a creation story to create more turmoil.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> I agree.  LSDD includes both attacking with one arm while simultaneously defending with the other as well as attacking and defending at the same time with just one arm.  Using the second version is harder to pull off, and if you make it a goal to the exclusion of all else you will certainly end up "hand chasing"!   So to say that the first version is NOT LSDD....well, that's just pretty narrow-minded and wrong.   The second version may be an ideal, but certainly not standard practice....unless you are are training to ONLY face fellow Wing Chun guys!
> 
> "Hand chasing" has to be one of the poorest defined and most mis-used terms in Wing Chun!  I like to keep it simple.  To me "hand chasing" is when you focus on the defense when you could have been focusing on striking the opponent.   But the caveat here is....what if you are in a self-defense situation and your  goal was to use a joint-lock to subdue an attacker?  Or.....in a situation defending against a knife-wielding attacker and you need to focus on controlling the weapon hand rather than hitting the guy?   Another way I look at "hand chasing" is that if I use more than 3 motions to accomplish my goal then I am likely being inefficient and "hand chasing" rather than getting  right to it.   You see this all the time in demos......a guy throws an attack and then just freezes while the demonstrator does some kind of complicated multi-step response.  I put a lot of the "Lat Sau" Chi Sau demos in this category.
> 
> Another example I have seen in TWC.   Someone throws a wide loopy punch that is met with a Fak Sau, then you Cheun Sau to get to the other side, Lop Sau to bring his arm down, and then switch to a Pak Sau and punch.  The better alternative being to meet that wide punch with a Biu while stepping across and into it, then transition to a Lop Sau and punch while stepping into the opponent.  One is a 4 count movement, while the other is a 2 count movement.   And there is even a caveat here!   If the wide loopy punch is overwhelming and you are stepping back just enough to make sure it doesn't land AS you meet it with a Fak Sau, and then let its energy carry it across naturally while you are doing the Cheung Sau to set things up....then this might very well be the best way to go!  So you see, its often rather hard for someone to look at what someone else is doing and declare it "hand chasing" if they don't know what the other person's intent may be or the energies involved in the exchange!!



What you noted about TWC is something I have spoken to my Sifu about as well as Sifu Devone.  The explanation I was given was "we teach the complicated first, the simple second." The idea being that they want you to know as many variations as possible so you can work out what works best for you and have options.  They sum up that last bit most often by saying "we are not teaching techniques we are teaching skills." 

Btw it was funny the example you used because we were talking about that senario the other day at class the other day.  Someone asked me "what is it with you and cheun sau?" I tend to use a bil sau for looping punches but I almost always use a cheun sau as my cover as I move in and jam as I am moving to the blind side.  Whether I just punch or or drop the cheun into a lap... That depends on the circumstances like you spoke of, am I moving for a lock/control instead of a strike? The reason for a "3 step process in striking though for me (bil>cheun> punch) is because that other hand is coming.  I just don't trust my strike to prevent the other hand from knocking me, whether by the impact of incidental interception.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> Btw it was funny the example you used because we were talking about that senario the other day at class the other day. Someone asked me "what is it with you and cheun sau?" I tend to use a bil sau for looping punches but I almost always use a cheun sau as my cover as I move in and jam as I am moving to the blind side. Whether I just punch or or drop the cheun into a lap... That depends on the circumstances like you spoke of, am I moving for a lock/control instead of a strike? The reason for a "3 step process in striking though for me (bil>cheun> punch) is because that other hand is coming. I just don't trust my strike to prevent the other hand from knocking me, whether by the impact of incidental interception.



Perfectly valid. You may find as you keep training that you can dispense with intermediate steps as your skill and confidence increase. Unless you're really under the pump, where it's all still there if you really need it.


----------

