# Tension



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

Does anyone use any tension or moving tension exercises in their wing chun? If so what do you do and why?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 11, 2015)

Not understanding what you are asking.
We do use strength and tension exercises to understand the difference in being tense and stiff verses being relax and using proper body & elbow structure.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 11, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Does anyone use any tension or moving tension exercises in their wing chun? If so what do you do and why?



Yes, but it's more about developing power thru these type of exercises


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

Like the way tid sin kuen is often done in hung gar, or sarm bo gin and grinding arm in southern mantis. Many south Chinese MA use it. Does anyone do it in their wing chun?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 11, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Yes, but it's more about developing power thru these type of exercises



How do you do it?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 11, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Like the way tid sin kuen is often done in hung gar, or sarm bo gin and grinding arm in southern mantis. Many south Chinese MA use it. Does anyone do it in their wing chun?


No. WC, in the manner I learned, is about releasing tension rather than building it. Within form training one should be learning where there is tension in the body, what is causing the tension and how to release it rather than creating tension.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 11, 2015)

In Hung Fa Yi we have muscle/tendon/bone style training (Siu Lam influence) referred to as "Dip Gwat" which is similar to dynamic tension in the early stages. It's very different to what I've seen in Chris Chan's WC... who i think is the only person I've known to speak of dynamic tension in WC?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 11, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Does anyone use any tension or moving tension exercises in their wing chun? If so what do you do and why?



Just so I'm not misunderstanding what you're asking. ..can you clarify with an example or...?


----------



## KPM (Dec 11, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Like the way tid sin kuen is often done in hung gar, or sarm bo gin and grinding arm in southern mantis. Many south Chinese MA use it. Does anyone do it in their wing chun?




Do you?  You seem to have an odd conception of Wing Chun.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 12, 2015)

KPM said:


> Do you?  You seem to have an odd conception of Wing Chun.



I haven't seen it in wing chun, but I have seen it in very similar southern Chinese MA. Sounthern Mantis would be a good example. The reason for doing it is to build nerve pathways and muscle recruitment in particular directions of movement. I wondered if anyone did anything similar in wing chun? Is there any particular reason not to?

The wing chun I have learned derives from WSL, so a pretty standard interpretation. What do you find odd about it?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 12, 2015)

KPM said:


> Do you?  You seem to have an odd conception of Wing Chun.



I haven't seen it in wing chun, but have seen it in very similar southern Chinese MA like southern praying mantis. It is difficult to think why it shouldn't be used in wing chun, unless anyone has a particular reason?

The wing chun I have learned is derived from WSL, a pretty standard interpretation. What do you find odd about it?


----------



## KPM (Dec 12, 2015)

I haven't seen it in wing chun,

--I haven't really either.  But I do remember reading something about Victor Kan doing some of this.  Anyone know?

but I have seen it in very similar southern Chinese MA. Sounthern Mantis would be a good example. The reason for doing it is to build nerve pathways and muscle recruitment in particular directions of movement. I wondered if anyone did anything similar in wing chun? Is there any particular reason not to?

---Wing Chun usually emphasizes relaxed movement.  But as a training method, I agree with you.  I don't see any reason not to use it.   This would be consider a "Wei Dan" method of Chi Gung/conditioning or "external" as opposed to a "Nei Dan" method or "internal."   Lots of CMAs have these kinds of "external" conditioning exercises.

The wing chun I have learned derives from WSL, so a pretty standard interpretation. What do you find odd about it?

---I found your comment that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole to be somewhat odd.  That, along with your comment that the knives are "very different."   If you go by the legends (which are not necessarily facts), Wong Wah Bo shared empty-hand methods with Leung Yee Tai, who shared the Pole methods.  That says that Wing Chun empty-hands existed prior to any contact with the pole methods.  And the Pole methods are very different from the empty-hands.....different body dynamic...different stances....etc.  The history of the knives is a bit unclear, but as you said on the other thread they seem to have been a much later "add on."  Since the double knives were very common in southern CMAs, it makes sense to me that at  some point a good Wing Chun man decided that if his Hung Kuen buddy could use the knives, so could he!  So he started training the knives and simply adapted his empty-hand methods to the knives.  I've always heard it said that the knives were simply an extension of the hands.  Which does make sense.   And I've always found it odd when I've heard WSL lineage people say that there is no Tan Sau and that it is only a shape for training.  From what I've seen, this idea is unique to WSL lineage...which makes it a bit "odd" as well.


----------



## geezer (Dec 12, 2015)

KPM -- I agree with what you said regarding the pole and knives. Like you I was a little surprised by Guy's assertion that WC was a pole based system. To me, the pole seems more distinct from the empty handed system than the Bart Cham Dao. I don't take the old legends as factually reliable, but in this case they seem to contain a kernel of truth. I suspect that the pole was such a universally available and widely used weapon in Southern China in the 19th Century, that WC had to adopt it. And then they found that it was really useful for training even after it's practical use in fighting faded. But that's just speculation on my part.

As far as being _odd_ goes... pretty much everything about WC is a little odd, depending on your perspective. As are most of the practitioners. It's one of the things I like about it!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 13, 2015)

KPM said:


> I found your comment that Wing Chun is derived from the Pole to be somewhat odd.  That, along with your comment that the knives are "very different."   If you go by the legends (which are not necessarily facts), Wong Wah Bo shared empty-hand methods with Leung Yee Tai, who shared the Pole methods.  That says that Wing Chun empty-hands existed prior to any contact with the pole methods.  And the Pole methods are very different from the empty-hands.....different body dynamic...different stances....etc.



I would disagree. The pole principles are exactly the same as the empty hands, and in terms of methods the pole is essentially one handed empty hand wing chun. The body methods are the same, although the stance is not.

The fact that the pole methods existed (and still do exist) independently of wing chun, coupled with the identical nature of some pole and hand methods, points to the pole coming before the hands.



> The history of the knives is a bit unclear, but as you said on the other thread they seem to have been a much later "add on."  Since the double knives were very common in southern CMAs, it makes sense to me that at  some point a good Wing Chun man decided that if his Hung Kuen buddy could use the knives, so could he!  So he started training the knives and simply adapted his empty-hand methods to the knives.  I've always heard it said that the knives were simply an extension of the hands.  Which does make sense.



The knives, as discussed in recent knife threads, are obviously a later addition. Since the empty hand principles are not the same as the knife principles, they are at heart different things. Treating knives as an extension of empty hand is a recipe for failure with the knives in a blade combat situation. Personally I don't find the knives to be very important in terms of wing chun, especially compared to the pole.



> And I've always found it odd when I've heard WSL lineage people say that there is no Tan Sau and that it is only a shape for training.  From what I've seen, this idea is unique to WSL lineage...which makes it a bit "odd" as well.



How would you use the Tan sau shape? How would it be applied? In my experience the tan trained elbow is directly applicable, just not the whole shape. Much like fook.

I have found most things in wing chun are training the elbow energy and the structure above all else, tan no different.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 13, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I haven't seen it in wing chun,



I think Duncan Leung teaches some sort of dynamic tension in his applied wing chun video....


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 13, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I would disagree. The pole principles are exactly the same as the empty hands, and in terms of methods the pole is essentially one handed empty hand wing chun. The body methods are the same, although the stance is not.
> 
> The fact that the pole methods existed (and still do exist) independently of wing chun, coupled with the identical nature of some pole and hand methods, points to the pole coming before the hands.



Just my .02 but to me, embedded in the pole (among other things) are the ideas of "the hand that hits also cancels" (or whatever); long-bridge WC ideas; kicking ideas; etc. Whether these were seeded in the pole form "from" WC empty hand; or vice versa...who knows.


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 13, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> I think Duncan Leung teaches some sort of dynamic tension in his applied wing chun video....



yea from a video iv seen he teaches a bit of tension ( dynamic tension ) for building tendon strength. Its the same principle as tendon changing exercises im pretty sure


----------



## KPM (Dec 13, 2015)

I would disagree. The pole principles are exactly the same as the empty hands, and in terms of methods the pole is essentially one handed empty hand wing chun. The body methods are the same, although the stance is not.

----The Pole shares just as many principles with modern Olympic fencing, and actually more actual techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty hands.  Does that mean that Pole and Olympic fencing are the same system? 


The fact that the pole methods existed (and still do exist) independently of wing chun, coupled with the identical nature of some pole and hand methods, points to the pole coming before the hands.

---No it doesn't.  It only points to the Pole being an independent system from the empty hands.  And there are no Pole techniques that are "identical" to the hand methods.  Standing sideways and using only one side makes them quite different.  The deeper stances and use of different stances makes the body dynamic different.  Where is your "back up" Wu Sau hand with the Pole?  Where is your trap with one hand while hitting  with the other with the Pole?  Where is your Chi Sau with the Pole?  The Pole shares a lot more with modern fencing's foil and epee techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty-hands.  


The knives, as discussed in recent knife threads, are obviously a later addition. Since the empty hand principles are not the same as the knife principles, they are at heart different things.

---The knives share more with empty-hands than the Pole.  You DO have a back-up Wu Sau hand with knives.  You DO have a trap with one knife while hitting with the other.  You have the equivalent of Tan Sau, Pak Sau, Gan Sau, Kwan Sau, etc with the knives.  Sure, you have to adapt things to the knives to avoid cutting your own arms.  But the knives are essentially an extension of the hand techniques.   This is not true of the Pole.  


How would you use the Tan sau shape? How would it be applied? In my experience the tan trained elbow is directly applicable, just not the whole shape. Much like fook.

---In contact with an opponent and he presses forward on my bridge I can pivot and deflect his force with a Tan while striking with my other hand.  I flank the opponent and step into him and press with a Tan and a Palm to turn him and disrupt his base/balance (right out of the dummy form).  I can think of lots of applications for the Tan shape.  There is more to Wing Chun than chain punching! 

I have found most things in wing chun are training the elbow energy and the structure above all else, tan no different.

----And that whole idea is unique to WSL lineage.  Which makes it a bit different and therefore odd in the world of Wing Chun!  ;-)   Because I have learned Tan and applications for Tan from 3 different versions of Wing Chun as well as from one version of Weng Chun.   The idea that it is ONLY for training the elbow energy is simply....odd!


----------



## Danny T (Dec 13, 2015)

guy b. said:


> How would you use the Tan sau shape? How would it be applied? In my experience the tan trained elbow is directly applicable, just not the whole shape. Much like fook.
> 
> I have found most things in wing chun are training the elbow energy and the structure above all else, tan no different.


I agree with your assertion that most of the postures train the elbow and the structures.
The tan shape is used to redirect or disperse force on the thumb side of the arm. Jum structure cannot be used for pressure on the thumb side but the elbow is used the same. As well the Jum structure redirects force on the little finger side of the arm and the tan structure doesn't but again the elbow is used the same. Elbow is extremely important and so too are the different arm structures.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 13, 2015)

KPM said:


> And there are no Pole techniques that are "identical" to the hand methods.
> 
> Ummm...WTF?!??!
> 
> ...


----------



## KPM (Dec 13, 2015)

Ok.   Rather than just being contrary, actually taking part in the discussion would be nice!  

Name one pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands.   And keep in mind the definition of "identical"!!!

Name one other lineage that talks about the Tan as being used only to train the elbow and not being used in application itself.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 13, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ok.   Rather than just being contrary, actually taking part in the discussion would be nice!  .



Just FYI...you don't either. You rarely use the multi-quote function, which sometimes makes your replies ambiguous. But, whatever... you are WC aristocracy...(apparently) 






KPM said:


> Name one pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands.



Ummm...how's about the Pole punch... (sometimes referred to as a bow and arrow punch). *typically used in long bridge situations where longer ranges are present.



KPM said:


> Name one other lineage that talks about the Tan as being used only to train the elbow and not being used in application itself.



Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety.


----------



## KPM (Dec 13, 2015)

Just FYI...you don't either. You rarely use the multi-quote function, which sometimes makes your replies ambiguous. But, whatever... you are WC aristocracy...(apparently) 

----I use this handy little thing where I preface my answer to the comment just above it by using little dashes.  But maybe you missed that??   


Ummm...how's about the Pole punch... (sometimes referred to as a bow and arrow punch). *typically used in long bridge situations where longer ranges are present.

---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is!  I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application.  Is that the only example you can come up with? 

Stay calm...there are other lineages other than the 3 or 4 you've apparently learned in their entirety.  

----Ok.  I'm waiting.  The idea was to take part in the discussion by actually responding to questions.  Did you miss that as well?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 13, 2015)

Tan Gwan,
Biu Gwan
Huen Gwan
All are essentially the same as empty hand.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is!  I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application.  Is that the only example you can come up with?



Well, you did post: "_Name *one* pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands_." ....did you not(?).

So, I named one...guess it didn't live up to your expectations.


----------



## KPM (Dec 14, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Tan Gwan,
> Biu Gwan
> Huen Gwan
> All are essentially the same as empty hand.


 
"Essentially the same" is not the same thing as "identical."   Those are all essentially the same thing as standard Olympic fencing moves as well.


----------



## KPM (Dec 14, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Well, you did post: "_Name *one* pole technique that is "identical" to the empty hands_." ....did you not(?).
> 
> So, I named one...guess it didn't live up to your expectations.


 
Look, guy's premise was that the Wing Chun empty hand methods came from the Pole, in fact he said the Pole and the empty hands were "identical."   Naming one technique from empty hands that nobody really uses or applies doesn't really support his case.  Is that all you can come up with?   Are you actually participating in this discussion or just being catty?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> "Essentially the same" is not the same thing as "identical."   Those are all essentially the same thing as standard Olympic fencing moves as well.








* Full Definition of identical *

_1_ :  being the same  


_2_ :  to be essentially the same


_3_ _a_ :  having the same cause or origin _<identical infections>_ _b_ : monozygotic 

The WC system has evolved with weapons being added and as to the pole I agree it was added and kept. Not because it was different but because of what it expanded as to skill and abilities of the WC person. Use of the hip structure, use of the body as a unit vs just the arms, use of body rotation as well as body displacement for power generation, expanded understanding of controlling and use of the central line vs the centerline for attacking and defending. I also of the opinion that it WC wasn't a just an empty hand vs empty hand system. There are too many bladed weapon defensive movements, positions, and postures that are essentially the same in other edged weapon oriented systems that are not seen in other non edged weapon systems or styles.


----------



## KPM (Dec 14, 2015)

The WC system has evolved with weapons being added and as to the pole I agree it was added and kept.

---I agree.  I had never heard anyone say that the empty-hand methods were derived from the Pole until Guy said it.

Not because it was different but because of what it expanded as to skill and abilities of the WC person.

---This I agree with as well. 

Use of the hip structure, use of the body as a unit vs just the arms, use of body rotation as well as body displacement for power generation, expanded understanding of controlling and use of the central line vs the centerline for attacking and defending.

---I agree with that as well!  Those can certainly add to the Wing Chun skills without being "identical."  Other things could train this, and arguably more efficiently, but traditional Wing Chun has chosen to keep the Pole for this.

 I also of the opinion that it WC wasn't a just an empty hand vs empty hand system. There are too many bladed weapon defensive movements, positions, and postures that are essentially the same in other edged weapon oriented systems that are not seen in other non edged weapon systems or styles.

---That is an interesting premise, which I think we have touched upon before.


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> Just FYI...you don't either. You rarely use the multi-quote function, which sometimes makes your replies ambiguous. But, whatever... you are WC aristocracy...(apparently)
> 
> ----I use this handy little thing where I preface my answer to the comment just above it by using little dashes.  But maybe you missed that??
> 
> ...



Im pretty sure Duncan Leungs Wing chun use that punch quite a bit. Seems effective the way the do it. Iv just seen all of Larry saccoias videos and 2 of Duncan Leungs so im no expert just aware of how they do a few things.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 14, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Just my .02 but to me, embedded in the pole (among other things) are the ideas of "the hand that hits also cancels" (or whatever); long-bridge WC ideas; kicking ideas; etc. Whether these were seeded in the pole form "from" WC empty hand; or vice versa...who knows.



I would strongly agree about the idea of simultaneous hit and block being pole related, whichever way the exchange flowed.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> The Pole shares just as many principles with modern Olympic fencing, and actually more actual techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty hands.  Does that mean that Pole and Olympic fencing are the same system?



I agree that there are similarities between luk dim boon gwan in wing chun and western fencing. This is because both are attempting to hit an opponent with the end of a long thin object while also trying not to be hit. However there are exactly analogous techniques using the same principles in empty hand and LDBG which is not the case with either wing chun and fencing or LDBG and fencing. I will quote from a well known article rather than repeating the usual WSL teaching on this matter:



> The version of the Luk Dim Boon Gwan form as taught by the late Wong Shun Leung:
> 
> Fong Lung Cheung - "releasing the dragon spearing-action" - the thrusting/ striking movement in the form which is its major attacking action, comparable to the basic Wing Chun punch.
> Ping Cheung - "level spearing-action" - the pushing & pulling action of the form, similar to the Lan Sau in the empty-hand forms.
> ...


You continue:



> No it doesn't.  It only points to the Pole being an independent system from the empty hands.  And there are no Pole techniques that are "identical" to the hand methods.



See above



> Standing sideways and using only one side makes them quite different.  The deeper stances and use of different stances makes the body dynamic different.



The body dynamic is the same from the back foot for one side. This is why training both sides makes sense. Standing sideways is a very superficial difference.



> Where is your "back up" Wu Sau hand with the Pole?  Where is your trap with one hand while hitting  with the other with the Pole?



When you only have one hand there is no backup hand. Pole is one handed wing chun.



> Where is your Chi Sau with the Pole?



Don't you drill with the pole?



> The Pole shares a lot more with modern fencing's foil and epee techniques than it does with the Wing Chun empty-hands.



Only on the most superficial level. If you understand the principles of wing chun then you will see that the empty hands and the pole are the same. 



> The knives share more with empty-hands than the Pole.  You DO have a back-up Wu Sau hand with knives.  You DO have a trap with one knife while hitting with the other.  You have the equivalent of Tan Sau, Pak Sau, Gan Sau, Kwan Sau, etc with the knives.  Sure, you have to adapt things to the knives to avoid cutting your own arms.  But the knives are essentially an extension of the hand techniques.   This is not true of the Pole.



Again on a superficial level the knives look similar to hands because, well, there are two of them and they are a bit more hand like than a great big pole. But the principles required for knife usage are contradictory to those used in empty hand and pole, and so cannot be said to be analogous or even very similar. The heart of the knives is very different to the empty hand system. I assume this is why it comes last- it is a graft on and is at odds with the rest of the system.



> In contact with an opponent and he presses forward on my bridge I can pivot and deflect his force with a Tan while striking with my other hand.  I flank the opponent and step into him and press with a Tan and a Palm to turn him and disrupt his base/balance (right out of the dummy form).  I can think of lots of applications for the Tan shape.



You seem to be confusing the training wheels with riding the bike. 



> There is more to Wing Chun than chain punching!



I don't know what chain punching is. Wing chun is certainly not a grappling system.



> And that whole idea is unique to WSL lineage.  Which makes it a bit different and therefore odd in the world of Wing Chun!  ;-)   Because I have learned Tan and applications for Tan from 3 different versions of Wing Chun as well as from one version of Weng Chun.   The idea that it is ONLY for training the elbow energy is simply....odd!



Some people on this very thread appear not to agree with you.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 14, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I agree with your assertion that most of the postures train the elbow and the structures.
> The tan shape is used to redirect or disperse force on the thumb side of the arm. Jum structure cannot be used for pressure on the thumb side but the elbow is used the same. As well the Jum structure redirects force on the little finger side of the arm and the tan structure doesn't but again the elbow is used the same. Elbow is extremely important and so too are the different arm structures.



I wouldn't say the elbow use is the same in tan and jum... also while forearm shape will tend to be different for a tanning action than for a jumming one, but it doesn't have to be. For me, training the energy of the elbow is the most important part of these shapes. The hands and forearms show explicitly how the elbow should work, and aid it in doing so. But they are training shapes.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---The "Pole punch" is about the most worthless Wing Chun technique there is!  I have never used, nor seen anyone ever use that as an actual technique in application.  Is that the only example you can come up with?



The pole punch is about the most explicit neon lit road sign in the entire wing chun system on how the power production mechanics works. You then build it with the pole.



> Ok.  I'm waiting.  The idea was to take part in the discussion by actually responding to questions.  Did you miss that as well?



Sorry I have been busy


----------



## KPM (Dec 14, 2015)

I will quote from a well known article rather than repeating the usual WSL teaching on this matter:

---The way you inserted that list it didn't come out in the quotes.  But let me just say that the majority of what you described also has analogous techniques in Olympic Fencing.


See above

----Your "above" list did nothing to prove that the Pole came before the empty-hand and the empty-hand was derived from it.  It only shows that there are analogous techniques between the Pole and empty-hand.



The body dynamic is the same from the back foot for one side. This is why training both sides makes sense. Standing sideways is a very superficial difference.

---No it is not.  It completely changes how you use the Kwa and how you coordinate power from the legs.  Is Hung Ga fighting from a horse stance the same body dynamic as Wing Chun?



When you only have one hand there is no backup hand. Pole is one handed wing chun.

---Which makes it somewhat different than two handed Wing Chun.



Don't you drill with the pole?

---Drilling with the pole is not Chi Sau.



Only on the most superficial level. If you understand the principles of wing chun then you will see that the empty hands and the pole are the same.

---I understand the principles of Wing Chun just fine.   And I say that while they share a lot of the principles, the body dynamic is different and the techniques are not identical.  While the Pole goes with Wing Chun, the empty-hand methods were not derived from the pole as you seem to think.  While Pole training complements the empty-hand training, it can also easily be a "stand alone" system, and the empty-hand methods can also be developed just fine without training the Pole.  So while they complement each other well, the Pole and the Empty-hands are not exactly the same.



Again on a superficial level the knives look similar to hands because, well, there are two of them and they are a bit more hand like than a great big pole. But the principles required for knife usage are contradictory to those used in empty hand and pole, and so cannot be said to be analogous or even very similar.

---Please explain how Kwan Sau and Kwan Do are not analgous or similar.  Or how Tan Da and Tan Do are not analogous and similar.  Or how Gan Sau and Gan Do are not analogous and similar.  Or how any of the things in your list above for the Pole aren't also found with the knives.  Other than making allowances so you are not cutting yourself with the knives, and using tactics for weapon vs. weapon, please explain why you think the knives and empty-hands are so very different, while at the same time thinking that the Pole and the empty-hands are exactly the same.  That really makes not sense at all.




You seem to be confusing the training wheels with riding the bike.

---And you seem to rejecting a whole class of technique that the rest of the Wing Chun world freely makes use of.


Sorry I have been busy

---It is wtx I have been waiting for to answer my question.  The question was which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application.  But please feel free to answer for him.  Because I've only seen that from WSL lineage.  If others teach that I would truly like to know.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 15, 2015)

Not sure how we got to a pole discussion from dynamic tension, but in the HFY line at least we credit the pole for being the genesis of gate theory (live side/dead side). Our long pole is different than YM's though... I personally see more of the 13 spear technique influence in it. The double ended short pole (Dragon Tiger Red Gate Killing Pole if I'm translating it right) is in our system as well, I've heard Yeun Kay Saan lines also had a short pole that they referred to 3 and 1/2 point?


----------



## KPM (Dec 15, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> Not sure how we got to a pole discussion from dynamic tension, but in the HFY line at least we credit the pole for being the genesis of gate theory (live side/dead side). Our long pole is different than YM's though... I personally see more of the 13 spear technique influence in it. The double ended short pole (Dragon Tiger Red Gate Killing Pole if I'm translating it right) is in our system as well, I've heard Yeun Kay Saan lines also had a short pole that they referred to 3 and 1/2 point?


 
Not unusual for discussions to cross-over several threads.  ;-)   It is Pin Sun that has the "3 1/2 point" Pole method.  The Pole is only as long as "eyebrow height."  The form is very short.  But it is not really considered a "double end" Pole method.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 16, 2015)

KPM said:


> Not unusual for discussions to cross-over several threads.  ;-)   It is Pin Sun that has the "3 1/2 point" Pole method.  The Pole is only as long as "eyebrow height."  The form is very short.  But it is not really considered a "double end" Pole method.



Ah, Ok. Is there a vid of this anywhere you know? The HFY short pole is also eyebrow height, hoping to compare and contrast the usage of it.


----------



## KPM (Dec 16, 2015)

No video that I know of.  The Pin Sun pole is one of those "closely guarded secrets" for some reason.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 16, 2015)

Found the Sum Nung one I was thinking of:


----------



## KPM (Dec 16, 2015)

^^^^Thanks for sharing!  I hadn't seen that before.  That is nothing like the Pin Sun "3 1/2 Pole form" that I have seen.  The Pin Sun version is more like the Ip Man pole form but with narrower and higher stances, and of course even more abbreviated!  It is not a "double end" method as in the video.

Is this video anything like the short pole in Hung Fa Yi?


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 17, 2015)

Not really, a few mechanics are similar but I think that's more just how you have to use the weapon. The spacial usage in the Sum Nung style video is very much a 4-front-4-corner style of facing as I've learned in a few different KF styles, but not WC. In Hung Fa Yi, we operate on HFY's 6-gate, 4-gate, 3-gate Tien Yan Dei style of thinking which doesn't always jive with 4-front-4-corners.

We only have the first section available on video, and probably won't release more. But check it out if you haven't, form starts at 0:29


----------



## guy b. (Dec 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> The way you inserted that list it didn't come out in the quotes.  But let me just say that the majority of what you described also has analogous techniques in Olympic Fencing.



Can you see the list?

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



> Your "above" list did nothing to prove that the Pole came before the empty-hand and the empty-hand was derived from it.  It only shows that there are analogous techniques between the Pole and empty-hand.



When applied using the principles of pole and empty hand these analogous techniques are exactly the same (allowing of course for 1 pole and 2 hands). Since this pole system is not specific to wing chun, and since those principles are contained within it, it can be deduced that much or all of the wing chun system derived from the ideas, techniques and principles of the older generic pole system, wherever that may originally have come from.

Another MA deriving from a different form of pole or spear usage is Hsing Yi, which coincidentally shares some ideas, shapes and principles with wing chun.



> No it is not.  It completely changes how you use the Kwa and how you coordinate power from the legs.  Is Hung Ga fighting from a horse stance the same body dynamic as Wing Chun?



How do you "use the Kwa and coordinate power from the legs" in a different way to that trained by the pole? I don't know about Hung Ga, but I believe you are getting confused between shape and power chain, as your earlier answer about the SNT training stance showed.



> Which makes it somewhat different than two handed Wing Chun.



Two armed wing chun is like 2 poles. Each arm operates like a single pole.



> Drilling with the pole is not Chi Sau.



There are pole drills building exactly the same attributes



> I say that while they share a lot of the principles, the body dynamic is different and the techniques are not identical.



The power chain is exactly the same. The principles are exactly the same, and the techniques are analogous, i.e. identical when applied under the same set of principles. The difference is that pole is one arm and one body side, whereas wing chun empty hand is two. This is why it is nonsensical to introduce pole at a late stage; it is more simple than empty hand because there is only one pole, and the power production mechanics is much more explicit- you can't cheat with a pole. It also builds body connections and ground power much more effectively in a beginner than anything you can do empty handed.



> While the Pole goes with Wing Chun, the empty-hand methods were not derived from the pole as you seem to think.  While Pole training complements the empty-hand training, it can also easily be a "stand alone" system, and the empty-hand methods can also be developed just fine without training the Pole.  So while they complement each other well, the Pole and the Empty-hands are not exactly the same.



Never mind "can be", pole _is_ a stand alone system found outside of wing chun. It is most likely a military pole or spear system taught to militias or otherwise spread widely in southern China. Wing chun empty hand, deriving at least major parts from that pre-existing military pole/spear system, does not function very well without learning pole in the early stages, or at least working very hard on pole if you learn it later. Pole is one arm wing chun and teaches the power production mechanic and principles very explicitly, leaving little room for confusion. 



> Please explain how Kwan Sau and Kwan Do are not analgous or similar. Or how Tan Da and Tan Do are not analogous and similar.  Or how Gan Sau and Gan Do are not analogous and similar.  Or how any of the things in your list above for the Pole aren't also found with the knives.  Other than making allowances so you are not cutting yourself with the knives, and using tactics for weapon vs. weapon, please explain why you think the knives and empty-hands are so very different, while at the same time thinking that the Pole and the empty-hands are exactly the same.  That really makes not sense at all.



The principles of the hands and pole are the same. The principles of the hands and knives are very different. You don't use (for example) Kwan in the same way with hands and knives because usage is based on the underpinning principles. Some basic differences include focus on the hands in knives (body for empty hand and pole), different principles of movement and entering (same for pole and empty hand), lack of lat sau jik chung in knives (present in empty hand and pole). Knives are a specialised modification of the empty hand system which focus on the avoidance of death during bladed combat. It is probable that Yip Man made this set up himself given the kind of knife used and the time in history that such knives were common. It is possible that some other systems without knives copied what YM did.



> And you seem to rejecting a whole class of technique that the rest of the Wing Chun world freely makes use of.



I have certainly seen a lot of misunderstanding in wing chun. It isn't a system where you block and respond. It is a system where you pressure and attack while protecting. All is attack. Using Tan to block isn't a wing chun techniques because it doesn't accord with the principles of wing chun.



> The question was which lineages other than Wong Shun Leung lineage teach the idea that Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and has no practical application.  But please feel free to answer for him.  Because I've only seen that from WSL lineage.  If others teach that I would truly like to know.



Being correct is not a matter of consensus. While WSL was a wing chun genius, some others were not. The Tan elbow has practical application. The Tan hand is for training the Tan elbow, like a child learns to ride a bike with stabilisers.


----------



## KPM (Dec 18, 2015)

The version of the Luk Dim Boon Gwan form as taught by the late Wong Shun Leung:

Fong Lung Cheung - "releasing the dragon spearing-action" - the thrusting/ striking movement in the form which is its major attacking action, comparable to the basic Wing Chun punch.
---Also comparable to the basic thrust in fencing or a basic thrust with the knives for that matter.


Ping Cheung - "level spearing-action" - the pushing & pulling action of the form, similar to the Lan Sau in the empty-hand forms.
---No counterpart in fencing.   But analogous to the double Lan motion with the knives.


Leung Yi - "two moves" - the action that resembles the Jaat Sau and Jaam Sau techniques in the empty-hand forms. It is referred to as Leung Yi because it enables us to both defend and be in a position of attack within one action.
--Also the same as a parry into the lower inside gate from fencing that sets one up for an immediate riposte with a thrust..  Also the same as a Jaat Do or Jaam Do with the knives.


Lau Soi - "moving/stirring the water" - the movement that is the pole form's equivalent of the Bong Sau and Gaan Sau actions.
--Also the same as a "Hanging Guard" from Olympic saber fencing or the parry into lower outside gate in fencing.  Also the same as the Bong Do or Gan Do with the knives.


Kam Gwan - "covering pole" - the action that follows Lau Soi where the pole covers the opponent's weapon, knocking it downwards. It is akin to an exaggerated Jaat Sau action.
--Sounds much like a "beat attack" from fencing.  You can do the same with the knives.


Dang Gwan - "ascending pole" - this is the arcing/lifting action done at the start of the pole form, and again towards the end, a Laan Sau-type motion that can be applied offensively or defensively.
--This one is relatively unique to the pole.  It is called "choat" in Tang Yik Pole and is one of the "points."  But no good analogous empty-hand technique either. 


Che Cheung - "descending spearing-action" - the backward/downward action at the very end of the pole form, used to intercept the opponent's weapon (or the opponent's legs) when the attack comes in on a low line from the rear. It is something of an "emergency" action, used to recover from being poorly positioned due to over-commitment of motion. It can be likened to the Suen Kuen ("chord punch") in the Cham Kiu form.
--Also relatively unique to the pole.  But again, no good empty-hand counterpart.  I disagree with the comparison to the Chum Kiu punch.

---So let's see, out of 7 points, only 2 don't really apply to the knives (but don't really apply to the empty-hand either), and only 3 don't have a counterpart from modern Olympic fencing.


----------



## KPM (Dec 18, 2015)

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

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



How do you "use the Kwa and coordinate power from the legs" in a different way to that trained by the pole? I don't know about Hung Ga, but I believe you are getting confused between shape and power chain, as your earlier answer about the SNT training stance showed.

---I'm not getting confused about anything.  I suspect you don't have a good understanding of biomechanics.



Two armed wing chun is like 2 poles. Each arm operates like a single pole.

---With all due respect, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in awhile!  ;-)



The principles of the hands and pole are the same. The principles of the hands and knives are very different. You don't use (for example) Kwan in the same way with hands and knives because usage is based on the underpinning principles.

---Let's see...if someone were thrusting the pole at the center of my chest, an empty-hand Kwan Sau to deflect is going to be pretty much the same motion as a Kwan Do to deflect it.   So I think your premise is pretty far off.


 Some basic differences include focus on the hands in knives (body for empty hand and pole), different principles of movement and entering (same for pole and empty hand),

---Given that most lineages of Ip Man Wing Chun I have seen attribute the more advanced footwork used empty-hand to the footwork from the Bart Jam Do form, again...your idea that the knives and empty hands have "different principles of movement" again seems pretty far off.   I don't think any further discussion along these lines will be fruitful, because you haven't provided anything yet that backs up what you are saying.




Being correct is not a matter of consensus. While WSL was a wing chun genius, some others were not. The Tan elbow has practical application. The Tan hand is for training the Tan elbow, like a child learns to ride a bike with stabilisers.

---Have you considered that WSL came up with his own unique understanding of Wing Chun and that you are trying to generalize it to all Wing Chun inappropriately?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> So let's see, out of 7 points, only 2 don't really apply to the knives (but don't really apply to the empty-hand either), and only 3 don't have a counterpart from modern Olympic fencing.



Western fencing does not function using the same concepts and principles as wing chun. Superficially analogous shapes are far from being the same thing. Knives do not function under the same principles. While more similar than fencing, knives are a particular modification of empty hand, which derives from pole. 

Pole is the oldest part of wing chun and it contains the seed ideas of the whole system.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> I'm not getting confused about anything.  I suspect you don't have a good understanding of biomechanics.



I have no wish to offend you




> With all due respect, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in awhile!  ;-)



Ok



> Let's see...if someone were thrusting the pole at the center of my chest, an empty-hand Kwan Sau to deflect is going to be pretty much the same motion as a Kwan Do to deflect it.   So I think your premise is pretty far off.



Kwan not used the same in knives and hands. Principles differ, leading to different usage.



> Given that most lineages of Ip Man Wing Chun I have seen attribute the more advanced footwork used empty-hand to the footwork from the Bart Jam Do form, again...your idea that the knives and empty hands have "different principles of movement" again seems pretty far off.   I don't think any further discussion along these lines will be fruitful, because you haven't provided anything yet that backs up what you are saying.



I have provided some examples of differences in basic principles between hands and knives.



> Have you considered that WSL came up with his own unique understanding of Wing Chun and that you are trying to generalize it to all Wing Chun inappropriately?



I will take the version that is coherent, non-contradictory, and that works. Popularity is irrelevant. Source is irrelevant. I have not encountered other methods beside WSL VT that do this. I do not rule out the possibility that they could exist or that you and others could have experienced them. I can only work on my own experience.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 22, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I will take the version that is coherent, non-contradictory, and that works. Popularity is irrelevant. Source is irrelevant. I have not encountered other methods beside WSL VT that do this. I do not rule out the possibility that they could exist or that you and others could have experienced them. I can only work on my own experience.



Do you have full  experience in any other than the WSL lineage? I mean more than just visiting, seen a youtube clip or training for a month or two in the early stages of your martial arts career.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 22, 2015)

My first experience of was Samuel Kwok wing chun (Ip Chun/Ching).


----------



## LFJ (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---Given that most lineages of Ip Man Wing Chun I have seen attribute the more advanced footwork used empty-hand to the footwork from the Bart Jam Do form, again... your idea that the knives and empty hands have "different principles of movement" again seems pretty far off.



If you are faced with an enemy wielding a bladed weapon and attempt to engage them with the same strategy/principles of movement as empty-hand fighting, even with "more advanced footwork" (whatever), you will die. 

You cannot simply chase center and go in for the kill without regard for their hands. Their hands instead become the opponent and must be dealt with in order to get to the body, requiring much more evasive tactics, as a blade can easily maim or kill you. Knives are _Biu-ji_ thinking which diverges quite far from the core VT fighting strategy.

Most lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun have made up their own BJD form and are suicidal nonsense...


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

LFJ said:


> If you are faced with an enemy wielding a bladed weapon and attempt to engage them with the same strategy/principles of movement as empty-hand fighting, even with "more advanced footwork" (whatever), you will die.
> 
> You cannot simply chase center and go in for the kill without regard for their hands. Their hands instead become the opponent and must be dealt with in order to get to the body, requiring much more evasive tactics, as a blade can easily maim or kill you. Knives are _Biu-ji_ thinking which diverges quite far from the core VT fighting strategy.
> 
> Most lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun have made up their own BJD form and are suicidal nonsense...


 
I agree with you LFJ, and previously I even commented that the knives had to be adapted in both use and tactics.  But that is still a far cry from saying that the knives and the empty hands are completely different.   A Kwan Do and a Kwan Sau are still essentially the same.   A Gan Do and a Gan Sau are still essentially the same.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> A Kwan Do and a Kwan Sau are still essentially the same.



Entirely different in WSLVT.



> A Gan Do and a Gan Sau are still essentially the same.



Both are _biu-ji_ tactics. Knives are _biu-ji_ thinking, as I said, and differ from the core empty-hand VT strategy.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

LFJ said:


> If you are faced with an enemy wielding a bladed weapon and attempt to engage them with the same strategy/principles of movement as empty-hand fighting, even with "more advanced footwork" (whatever), you will die.
> 
> You cannot simply chase center and go in for the kill without regard for their hands. Their hands instead become the opponent and must be dealt with in order to get to the body, requiring much more evasive tactics, as a blade can easily maim or kill you. Knives are _Biu-ji_ thinking which diverges quite far from the core VT fighting strategy.
> 
> Most lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun have made up their own BJD form and are suicidal nonsense...



Absolutely. No Lat Sau Jik Chung in knives, as I already said to KPM, who ignored it.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> I agree with you LFJ, and previously I even commented that the knives had to be adapted in both use and tactics.  But that is still a far cry from saying that the knives and the empty hands are completely different.   A Kwan Do and a Kwan Sau are still essentially the same.   A Gan Do and a Gan Sau are still essentially the same.



You don't agree at all because you are saying the opposite thing. You are merely trying to win an internet argument by underhandedly appearing to agree, while learning nothing. Kwan and Kwan are different hands and blades because they need to be.


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You don't agree at all because you are saying the opposite thing. You are merely trying to win an internet argument by underhandedly appearing to agree, while learning nothing. Kwan and Kwan are different hands and blades because they need to be.



You are full of sh!t Guy!  Putting words in my mouth now?  You are losing the logical arguments so you resort to accusing others of being "underhanded"?   And you say I am the one that is learning nothing?  You are already so set in your understanding that you can't see what others are even saying.

LFJ said you are in trouble if you try to use the  same tactics and strategies with the knives as you do empty hand.  I had already said you had to use different tactics and change things to avoid cutting yourself. So yeah. I agree with him.

I've done a lot of training with tactical folders, so I know a little bit about dealing with knives.   Absolutely you have to focus on the hand wielding the weapon and not just go straight in.  The same is true when defending empty hand against someone with a knife.  So yeah.  I agree with LFJ.

LFJ said the BJD are advanced level and deviate from the core empty hand strategies.  Again, I said that already.  So yeah.  I agree with him.

Now I don't know how WSL Wing Chun does a Kwan Do.  But the way I learned it, it was pretty much the equivalent of Kwan Sau.  I never disagreed with the idea that changes in technique and strategy have to be made when using the knives.  What I disagreed with was your idea that the knives and empty hands are completely different while the pole and empty hands are the same thing.  Saying such opposite things about the 2 main weapons of Wing Chun just doesn't make sense.  But then logic doesn't seem to be your strong point!  ;-)


----------



## KPM (Dec 23, 2015)

Did you know that you can perform Traditional Wing Chun's (William Cheung's) Chum Kiu form with the knives in hand and it works just fine?  That it can be used as an introduction to their actual knife form?   You are making Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun out to be so completely different than everyone else's Wing Chun.   Are you sure WSL would do that?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 23, 2015)

Folks, maybe it would be a good idea to dial back the rhetoric and the emotions a little bit. Strongly held beliefs are good, and we all have them.
But this is a reminder that the TOS require that you attack the IDEA, not the poster.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> You are full of sh!t Guy!  Putting words in my mouth now?  You are losing the logical arguments so you resort to accusing others of being "underhanded"?   And you say I am the one that is learning nothing?  You are already so set in your understanding that you can't see what others are even saying.
> 
> LFJ said you are in trouble if you try to use the  same tactics and strategies with the knives as you do empty hand.  I had already said you had to use different tactics and change things to avoid cutting yourself. So yeah. I agree with him.
> 
> ...



Knife principles and empty hand principles are different. For this reason knives is not merely a continuation of the system, it is a radical departure.

Again you are using disingenuous argument above- LFJ mentioned the impossibility of continuing "strategy/principles" from empty hands into knives and later mentioned the requirement to use "evasive tactics". You paraphrase him as "you are in trouble if you try to use the  same tactics and strategies with the knives as you do empty hand", and later conclude that "I had already said you had to use different tactics and change things to avoid cutting yourself. So yeah. I agree with him."

You don't agree with him at all. You fundamentally disagree. 

And why would you try so hard to agree with someone you don't agree with? I guess so that you can appear to be the victor in an internet argument


----------



## guy b. (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Did you know that you can perform Traditional Wing Chun's (William Cheung's) Chum Kiu form with the knives in hand and it works just fine?  That it can be used as an introduction to their actual knife form?   You are making Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun out to be so completely different than everyone else's Wing Chun.   Are you sure WSL would do that?



As I said, I think that YM didn't teach many people wing chun. I don't know if he taught WSL all that he knew, but I think that WSL was a particularly honest and intelligent person, with a genius for understanding and systematizing wing chun. 

WSL VT, compared to other wing chun I have seen, is completely different and light years ahead in terms of usability. Of course I have not seen all wing chun and there may be good stuff I have not seen. But I have seen a lot of bad.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 23, 2015)

guy b. said:


> As I said, I think that YM didn't teach many people wing chun. I don't know if he taught WSL all that he knew, but I think that WSL was a particularly honest and intelligent person, with a genius for understanding and systematizing wing chun.
> 
> WSL VT, compared to other wing chun I have seen, is completely different and light years ahead in terms of usability. Of course I have not seen all wing chun and there may be good stuff I have not seen. But I have seen a lot of bad.



Perhaps you should be cautious as your statements are creeping closer to a "WSL VT is the one true wing chun" or "WSL VT is the supreme way of doing wing chun".

My belief is that it does not matter what YM taught as every generation since the invention of YouTube and/or even internet and blogs has lead to an acceleration of the development of the art. We all help evolve WC to something new and better. Evolution should not stop either, that is what I believe YM managed to teach so many of his students.

WSL VT has some cool stuff and some crazy stuff like any other art out there. Why is that so you may ask? Well I am a tall guy, being tall I have a different view on fight and movement. Not because any style is better or worse than another, only a fight can decide that for the people involved. And sometimes not even that.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Now I don't know how WSL Wing Chun does a Kwan Do.  But the way I learned it, it was pretty much the equivalent of Kwan Sau.



Because you have a different interpretation of _kwan-sau_ as well. You're likely using it as a double block and then doing the same thing with knives. Yeah?

They are entirely different in WSLVT. 
_
Kwan-sau_ displaces.
_Kwon-do_ wards off.
_
Kwan-sau_ enters. 
_Kwan-do_ evades.

_Kwan-sau_ attacks the person.
_Kwan-do_ attacks the wrists.



> I never disagreed with the idea that changes in technique and strategy have to be made when using the knives.  What I disagreed with was your idea that the knives and empty hands are completely different while the pole and empty hands are the same thing.  Saying such opposite things about the 2 main weapons of Wing Chun just doesn't make sense.



Why doesn't it make sense? A long pole and double knives are very different weapons. 

Long pole strategy is analogous to our core empty-hand strategy.
Knives are analogous to _Biu-ji_ strategy, which for us is a sharp departure from the core and they generally cannot mix.

It may be (is) the case that in other YM lineages, people made up their own BJD form and not knowing anything about knife strategy or even _Biu-ji _made it simply as a continuation of empty-hand, which is pretty suicidal, but they never had to put it to the test or even do knife sparring, so what do they know?


----------



## LFJ (Dec 23, 2015)

Phobius said:


> WSL VT has some cool stuff and some crazy stuff like any other art out there. Why is that so you may ask? Well I am a tall guy, being tall I have a different view on fight and movement.



Crazy for a tall person? How tall are you? I'm 6'2 and find WSLVT fits my body type better than any other style I've done. We also have guys much taller than me that do fine, so I wonder what specifically you mean.


----------



## KPM (Dec 24, 2015)

_Kwan-sau_ displaces.
_Kwon-do_ wards off.
_
Kwan-sau_ enters.
_Kwan-do_ evades.

_Kwan-sau_ attacks the person.
_Kwan-do_ attacks the wrists.

---Like we both have said....differing tactics or strategies.  But if you know how to do a Kwan Sau with empty hands and decide to pick of the knives and do the closest thing....you have Kwan Do.  Both essentially are  a Bong shape combined with a Tan Shape.  Both have a "rolling" dynamic...hence "Kwan." 


Why doesn't it make sense? A long pole and double knives are very different weapons.

---The way I see it, both weapons were added to the existing Wing Chun empty hand system.  Pole likely earlier than the knives.  Both likely influenced the empty hand method and vice versa, but likely to different extents.  So to me, it makes no since to but them in such different categories and to see them at such opposite ends of the spectrum.


Long pole strategy is analogous to our core empty-hand strategy.
Knives are analogous to _Biu-ji_ strategy, which for us is a sharp departure from the core and they generally cannot mix.

---So you also are of the opinion that the empty hands are based on an derived from the Pole methods?  Is this a standard WSL lineage teaching?

It may be (is) the case that in other YM lineages, people made up their own BJD form and not knowing anything about knife strategy or even _Biu-ji _made it simply as a continuation of empty-hand, which is pretty suicidal, but they never had to put it to the test or even do knife sparring, so what do they know?

---That could very well be true.  Did WSL put the knives to the test?  I've never heard of anyone using knives in actual serious confrontations other than Sum Nung. 

--Here's what I see.  In comparing knives vs. empty hands.....they share a lot of the technique shape, body structure, and mechanics but differ in the tactics and strategies in the way they are used.  In comparing the Pole vs. empty hands.... they differ in technique shape, body structure and mechanics but share a lot in the tactics and strategies in the way they are  used.  So again, to me it makes no sense to categorize them so differently.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 24, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---Like we both have said....differing tactics or strategies.



Which is enough to say they are not analogous. They don't function in the same way at all. 

Where the knives share similarities to empty-hand, in our lineage, it is _Biu-ji_ thinking, not core strategy.



> ---So you also are of the opinion that the empty hands are based on an derived from the Pole methods?  Is this a standard WSL lineage teaching?



To me, the chicken and the egg both taste good and are great sources of protein. I don't care which came first. But I think guy b. has put forth a reasonable argument considering time periods and other styles with almost identical pole methods but very different empty-hand, and it is apparent to anyone studying WSLVT that the pole and empty-hand fighting of VT are analogous, without reference to history.



> Did WSL put the knives to the test?



If you believe stories, yes. If not, we at least gear up and do hard sparring with the knives which reveals a lot about what will work and what is just theory, as serious sparring tends to do.



> --Here's what I see.  In comparing knives vs. empty hands.....they share a lot of the technique shape, body structure, and mechanics but differ in the tactics and strategies in the way they are used.  In comparing the Pole vs. empty hands.... they differ in technique shape, body structure and mechanics but share a lot in the tactics and strategies in the way they are  used.  So again, to me it makes no sense to categorize them so differently.



So you agree that knives and empty-hand differ in tactics and strategies, and that pole and empty-hand share a lot in tactics and strategies... but you don't see why they are categorized differently? I don't get you.

Pole and empty-hand are analogous.
Knives and empty-hand are contradictory.

How does it not make sense to categorize them so differently based on how they function??


----------



## KPM (Dec 24, 2015)

So you agree that knives and empty-hand differ in tactics and strategies, and that pole and empty-hand share a lot in tactics and strategies... but you don't see why they are categorized differently? I don't get you.

---Guy has said that the Pole and empty hands are the same thing, while the Knives and empty hands are completely different.  That is what I objected to.   He used this to say that the empty hands are based upon and derived from the Pole and that the knives are a much later addition.   I see the Pole and the knives as both being additions to a pre-existing empty hand method and both having commonalities with the empty hands.  Like I said...the knives share structure, mechanics and techniques, while the Pole shares concepts and strategies. I see no need to conclude that the empty hands are all based on one and completely different from the other!  That is what doesn't make logical sense to me.


----------



## geezer (Dec 24, 2015)

KPM ...from my perspective, your view is pretty much the mainstream view among well informed folk who don't have a political axe to grind. Guy has a very unique and contrarian view. I find that refreshing, but not convincing. Especially since he has no new evidence other than his opinions. But at least the discussion has been lively.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---Guy has said that the Pole and empty hands are the same thing, while the Knives and empty hands are completely different.  That is what I objected to.



In our system, _Cham-kiu_ and _Biu-ji_ are completely different thinking. Core empty-hand is CK is pole. Knives are BJ. Hence, empty-hand and pole are the same, while empty-hand and knives are completely different in function. Makes sense?



> He used this to say that the empty hands are based upon and derived from the Pole and that the knives are a much later addition.   I see the Pole and the knives as both being additions to a pre-existing empty hand method and both having commonalities with the empty hands.



Other Southern styles share almost identical pole methods while their empty-hand is very different. You think VT empty-hand already existed and these pole methods just happened to map closely to it? Amazing coincidence!

I think it stands to reason that they are more closely related than that. After all, pre-training methods for pole work are embedded in SNT, the foundational set for the entire system. Other lineages try hard to match some empty-hand applications to it, for lack of knowing though.



> Like I said...the knives share structure, mechanics and techniques, while the Pole shares concepts and strategies. I see no need to conclude that the empty hands are all based on one and completely different from the other!  That is what doesn't make logical sense to me.



CK and BJ also share some structure and whatnot but differ greatly in concepts and strategies. In our system, they don't mix. One does not use BJ ideas unless forced to. They are later additions for when things go wrong; completely separate thinking from the core empty-hand strategy.

If that makes sense to you, you should understand how knives, being BJ thinking, are also completely different from the core empty-hand strategy. You are only disagreeing because they share some superficial similarities, which means nothing overall except that it is obviously VT knives.


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

----Just pay attention to your own wording LFJ!


In our system, _Cham-kiu_ and _Biu-ji_ are completely different thinking.

----Yet share almost the same body structure and techniques.  You still punch in BJ don't you?  You still pivot in BJ don't you?  You said..."completely different thinking".....as in different strategies and tactics.  That doesn't make them "completely different" as a whole. 


Core empty-hand is CK is pole. Knives are BJ. Hence, empty-hand and pole are the same, while empty-hand and knives are completely different in function. Makes sense?

---No.  It doesn't make sense.  Because the corollary of what you are saying is that CK and BJ are completely different.  Again, they may differ in strategies and tactics, but they are still intricate parts of Wing Chun and share a lot of dynamics.  I've already said, the Pole  shares many strategies and tactics with the empty hands while not sharing many actual techniques, while the knives share very similar techniques without sharing many of the strategies and tactics. So why should they be  treated so differently?  Doesn't that make sense?  You call CK and Pole the "core" and seem to think knives a BJ are something separate and completely different.  But I think you will find that is a very minority viewpoint.



Other Southern styles share almost identical pole methods while their empty-hand is very different. You think VT empty-hand already existed and these pole methods just happened to map closely to it? Amazing coincidence!

---I already addressed that.  That is flawed logic.  You say because the strategies and tactics of Wing Chun empty hand match the pole so closely that they must have been entirely derived from the pole.  I pointed out that the pole could have been added to an existing Wing Chun empty hand system and the developers from then on CHOSE to map the empty hand tactics closely to the pole.  That is what our legendary histories suggest.  There is often a kernel of truth to such legends and I think this theory makes just as much sense as Guy's.  I see no reason to doubt that legendary history.  You haven't made your argument any more convincing that Guy's.

---But a good start on making this theory more convincing would be to line out just how the empty hand core tracks so closely to the Pole.  Because I see common strategies and tactics for use, but I don't see so nearly the "close correspondence" that you and Guy seem to see.  That is the key part of your theory, which hasn't yet been demonstrated.


CK and BJ also share some structure and whatnot but differ greatly in concepts and strategies. In our system, they don't mix.

---Again.  Just examine your own wording.   You said they share structure and "whatnot" but differ in concepts and strategies.  So they do mix.  They mix on the level of structure and body dynamics and many techniques.  You are drawing much to "final" of a separation between them.   Do you not use physical Wing Chun techniques when applying your concepts and strategies from BJ?   And yet, when applying the concepts and strategies with the Pole...there is only a superficial correspondence to the empty hand techniques.  The structure, body dynamic, and techniques differ between Pole and empty hand.  Yet you are willing to say they are the same thing, but knive and empty hand are not, and even CK and BJ are not!  Again, that makes no sense!!!



You are only disagreeing because they share some superficial similarities, which means nothing overall except that it is obviously VT knives.

---Again, examine your own wording...."it is obviously VT knives."  So how can it be "completely different"???  If it was, it wouldn't be so "obvious", would it??   I am disagreeing because neither you nor Guy have made good logical sense.  And if this is all "party-line" teaching from WSL, then I'll go on the record as saying I don't think WSL was making good logical sense.  It may have been a good teaching point to drive home a particular emphasis.  But putting it forth as a  foundational idea to be defended with such fervor does not make sense.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> You said..."completely different thinking".....as in different strategies and tactics.  That doesn't make them "completely different" as a whole.



My argument is that CK and BJ are like water and oil; they have different functions and don't mix. So I say they are completely different. You are hanging onto the superficial commonality of water and oil both being liquids, which is quite meaningless when discussing function. If I need to drive a screw and you give me a hammer saying "_well, they aren't completely different, they are both tools with handles and heads_"... that doesn't help me get the job done. So it's really meaningless, isn't it? Give me the goddamn screwdriver!

We never use BJ tactics when CK strategy can be used. But there are times when we need to use oil instead of water, hence BJ being a part of the VT system. But for all intents and purposes, they are completely different. Saying "_oh, but they both pivot and punch_" is meaningless. It's because we are still human. Any mechanical similarity just means we intend to recover and use our core strategy as efficiently as possible.



> I've already said, the Pole  shares many strategies and tactics with the empty hands while not sharing many actual techniques, while the knives share very similar techniques without sharing many of the strategies and tactics.



That's according to the stuff you've learned, not true of WSLVT.



> You call CK and Pole the "core" and seem to think knives a BJ are something separate and completely different.  But I think you will find that is a very minority viewpoint.



Other viewpoints are in consideration of what other lineages contain. We aren't even doing the same thing in most cases. So other viewpoints that aren't looking at WSLVT are irrelevant to what I'm talking about. As if holding the minority viewpoint means anything...



> You say because the strategies and tactics of Wing Chun empty hand match the pole so closely that they must have been entirely derived from the pole.  I pointed out that the pole could have been added to an existing Wing Chun empty hand system and the developers from then on CHOSE to map the empty hand tactics closely to the pole.  That is what our legendary histories suggest.



I didn't say "entirely". I said it stands to reason that they must be more closely related, and didn't just come together being so similar by chance. The close correspondence is very apparent in WSLVT. Perhaps less so in other lineages? But regardless, what you are saying here is essentially the same thing; that the empty-hand system is modelled on the pole. Whether originally or by evolution is beside the point.



> ---But a good start on making this theory more convincing would be to line out just how the empty hand core tracks so closely to the Pole.  Because I see common strategies and tactics for use, but I don't see so nearly the "close correspondence" that you and Guy seem to see.  That is the key part of your theory, which hasn't yet been demonstrated.



It will be more difficult to explain to you if you're coming from the understanding of a different lineage. We are talking about very different things even when we say _taan-sau_, aren't we?



> And yet, when applying the concepts and strategies with the Pole...there is only a superficial correspondence to the empty hand techniques.  The structure, body dynamic, and techniques differ between Pole and empty hand.



It's not superficial. The function is identical in most cases. It is side-body because there is only one pole and we are holding it with both hands at one end. But the "techniques" are completely analogous, meaning corresponding in function. Not true with knives and empty-hand, other than BJ.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> Again, they may differ in strategies and tactics, but they are still intricate parts of Wing Chun and share a lot of dynamics.



Differences in core principles, strategies and tactics, in a principle based MA like wing chun, amount to complete differences.


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

LFJ said:


> That's according to the stuff you've learned, not true of WSLVT.
> 
> 
> \....



So then, you are saying that the empty hands of WSLVT is completely derived from the Pole method, but this is not true of all other Wing Chun?  Hmmmmmm........


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> So then, you are saying that the empty hands of WSLVT is completely derived from the Pole method, but this is not true of all other Wing Chun?  Hmmmmmm........



As previously mentioned, it is pretty clear that YM didn't teach a lot of people wing chun. 

The argument is that there is a very close correspondence between the principles of pole and those of hands in WSL VT. Hands deriving from pole is a theory which explains this fact in a simple way, especially when contrasted with the many other systems with the same pole, from the same place, and the same time, which do not show any such close correspondence.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> So then, you are saying that the empty hands of WSLVT is completely derived from the Pole method, but this is not true of all other Wing Chun?  Hmmmmmm........



You disagree that differences in core principles, strategies and tactics, in a principle based MA like wing chun, amount to complete differences..can you explain why?


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

The argument is that there is a very close correspondence between the principles of pole and those of hands in WSL VT. Hands deriving from pole is a theory which explains this fact in a simple way, especially when contrasted with the many other systems with the same pole, from the same place, and the same time, which do not show any such close correspondence.


----Did you ever stop to think maybe it was Wong Shun Leung himself that adjusted his Wing Chun empty hands so that it corresponds so closely to the Pole????


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You disagree that differences in core principles, strategies and tactics, in a principle based MA like wing chun, amount to complete differences..can you explain why?



---To take a lesson from your posting habits.....I already have!  ;-)


----------



## Phobius (Dec 25, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Crazy for a tall person? How tall are you? I'm 6'2 and find WSLVT fits my body type better than any other style I've done. We also have guys much taller than me that do fine, so I wonder what specifically you mean.



Sorry but I was being a bit unclear. I wasnt saying WSLVT or any specific lineage was bad for my size, just that I see crazy parts and good parts in most if not all lineages I have seen. This is something I expect from all lineages and arts. Same went for karate when I studied that for some years as well.

My belief, one ingrained in me by my sifu as well, is that we take what works for us, the rest we put to test and keep testing until we are good enough to say that it just simply wont work for us. Simply put, keep the good and throw away the rest.

In my view this is what makes WSLVT such a great lineage, WSL knew what he was doing very well. What I am afraid however is that some people forget that very same essence and believe that WSLVT is a finished package for them, but in truth they must capture the spirit of WSLVT and throw away what does not work and integrate what does in best way possible. Each person should have his/her own style but share the very same foundation in principles. WSLVT should just be a quicker path to understanding the value of trying out what works and questioning movements. Not a bible that describes things for you so you dont need to think of it yourself.

For me WT is the lineage I train, in truth what I train is the area which I am the worst in. All in a way to become better at it thus finding a new area to become my worst. It is a neverending cycle.

As for my height, I am 6' 5''-6'6'' (is that how you write it? 6 feet 5 inches)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> The argument is that there is a very close correspondence between the principles of pole and those of hands in WSL VT. Hands deriving from pole is a theory which explains this fact in a simple way, especially when contrasted with the many other systems with the same pole, from the same place, and the same time, which do not show any such close correspondence.
> 
> 
> ----Did you ever stop to think maybe it was Wong Shun Leung himself that adjusted his Wing Chun empty hands so that it corresponds so closely to the Pole????



I don't think that WSL adjusted the whole system because it is seamless, consistent, and almost awe inspiring in both its deep simplicity and its connectivity. If he did that himself and transformed wing chun from what some other lineages are into what WSL VT is, then he is a godlike genius. 

It seems beyond what one person could do alone though, and it makes sense of many things that make no sense viewed through the lens of other WC approaches, acting like the key to a previously undecipherable mess. So no, on balance I don't think he made all of it up himself. 

If he did though, it is better than any other wing chun I have seen and I don't really mind. I will accept WSL's creation in that case.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---To take a lesson from your posting habits.....I already have!  ;-)



Please don't troll. You disagreed with the post, please explain why? It seems an odd thing to disagree with


----------



## KPM (Dec 25, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Please don't troll. You disagreed with the post, please explain why? It seems an odd thing to disagree with



Not trolling.  I simply said what you said on other threads when you were asked a question!


----------



## LFJ (Dec 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> So then, you are saying that the empty hands of WSLVT is completely derived from the Pole method, but this is not true of all other Wing Chun?  Hmmmmmm........



That's not what I said at all, but I do believe a lot of other Wing Chun methods are derived from their backsides, rather than the pole method or anything else.

You gave 3 categories in the quote I was responding to: strategies, tactics, and techniques. You said the pole and empty-hands, and the knives and empty-hands are the same in some and different in others. That's true for what you've learned, but not so in WSLVT.

Firstly, I'm not sure how you're differentiating tactics and techniques, but in WSLVT, pole and empty-hand are the same or analogous (corresponding in function) in each category. Knives and empty-hand are different in each category, except for BJ ideas.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Not trolling.  I simply said what you said on other threads when you were asked a question!



In those instances I pointed to a previous answer. You have not answered this question.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

LFJ said:
			
		

> Other Southern styles share almost identical pole methods while their empty-hand is very different. You think VT empty-hand already existed and these pole methods just happened to map closely to it? Amazing coincidence!





			
				KPM said:
			
		

> ---I already addressed that. That is flawed logic. You say because the strategies and tactics of Wing Chun empty hand match the pole so closely that they must have been entirely derived from the pole. I pointed out that the pole could have been added to an existing Wing Chun empty hand system and the developers from then on CHOSE to map the empty hand tactics closely to the pole. That is what our legendary histories suggest.



As LFJ pointed out, if the people that created wing chun decided to map the already existing system to the concepts and principles of the pole (thus changing it in a fundamental way from the ground up), then you are arguing the same thing as LFJ and I. There is no argument in this case.

If you are not arguing this, then what are you arguing exactly? I can't really see the point you are trying to make. Can you also highlight where the logic in the statement about other Southern Styles is flawed. As far as I can see, LFJ is making an inference. Can you show how the conclusion he reaches in not derivable from the information he starts with?

i.e. 
many Southern styles contain similar pole methods,
wing chun is the only Southern style where the pole method maps closely (or identically) to the hand method,
this close correspondence is not coincidental and hands were mapped to pole intentionally



If you are arguing something different then how do you explain the other Southern styles with the same pole but no close correspondence to hand techniques compared to wing chun? Why does wing chun have this while these others do not?

I am sorry but it appears that when you run into a difficult argument you merely start a different one rather than following it through?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> In those instances I pointed to a previous answer. You have not answered this question.



Oh but I did!  The same way you had already answered when you said that.  Did you miss it?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

LFJ said:


> That's not what I said at all, but I do believe a lot of other Wing Chun methods are derived from their backsides, rather than the pole method or anything else.
> 
> You gave 3 categories in the quote I was responding to: strategies, tactics, and techniques. You said the pole and empty-hands, and the knives and empty-hands are the same in some and different in others. That's true for what you've learned, but not so in WSLVT.
> 
> Firstly, I'm not sure how you're differentiating tactics and techniques, but in WSLVT, pole and empty-hand are the same or analogous (corresponding in function) in each category. Knives and empty-hand are different in each category, except for BJ ideas.



Which is different than most other Wing Chun, including other versions of Ip Man Wing Chun.  So, if WSLVT is so different, your argument for Pole being the entire source of the empty hand methods applies only to WSLVT.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Oh but I did!  The same way you had already answered when you said that.  Did you miss it?



Yes I did. If you point me to the right place I will read your previous answer.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Which is different than most other Wing Chun, including other versions of Ip Man Wing Chun.  So, if WSLVT is so different, your argument for Pole being the entire source of the empty hand methods applies only to WSLVT.



You need to quit saying my argument is for the pole being the entire source of the empty hand methods. I have not once said that at any time, anywhere.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You need to quit saying my argument is for the pole being the entire source of the empty hand methods. I have not once said that at any time, anywhere.



But you keep posting to back up Guy, and that is what he has said.  Do you support Guy's theory or not?


----------



## LFJ (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> But you keep posting to back up Guy, and that is what he has said.  Do you support Guy's theory or not?



Not true. I'm only posting my own thoughts. I'm not a historian, but the correspondence between pole and core empty-hand methods is very apparent to us in WSLVT. We train them together very early on as we are learning the theory and developing the basics. They are clearly one system.

Who, what, when, where, why, and how is for a historian to figure out, but I doubt there are m/any historians researching this topic who have such a clear understanding of the VT system to be looking into the question to begin with. All I can say is that it stands to reason that the core empty-hand method of VT was modeled on the pole fighting method.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> But you keep posting to back up Guy, and that is what he has said.  Do you support Guy's theory or not?



I don't think I have said that the pole is the entire source of the empty hand? I think I have said that it is conceptually identical and that pole and empty hands are the same system?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I don't think I have said that the pole is the entire source of the empty hand? I think I have said that it is conceptually identical and that pole and empty hands are the same system?



Oh geez, I give up!  Whatever you want to believe is Ok by me.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Same to you, obviously.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Oh geez, I give up!  Whatever you want to believe is Ok by me.



You mean you give up stating others' position for them just so you have something to argue against?

I've only made a few posts on this topic, but the feeling I got soon after the first was that you will go out of your way to craft opposing viewpoints for the sake of arguing– why you created a new thread stating our position for us and challenging it– when you have in essence already agreed with me about the possibility of empty-hand being based largely on the pole.

I think you just like to disagree and argue. I guess a forum wouldn't be fun if everyone already agreed?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You mean you give up stating others' position for them just so you have something to argue against?
> 
> I've only made a few posts on this topic, but the feeling I got soon after the first was that you will go out of your way to craft opposing viewpoints for the sake of arguing– why you created a new thread stating our position for us and challenging it– when you have in essence already agreed with me about the possibility of empty-hand being based largely on the pole.
> 
> I think you just like to disagree and argue. I guess a forum wouldn't be fun if everyone already agreed?



I also feel this way KPM, although I think I am probably prepared to go on a bit more with a pointless argument than LFJ

.From my point of view I am happy to discuss with you, even if you have no intention of ever agreeing, but find the fact that you get offended a bit confusing. If you want to argue then why are you offended when someone argues back? I don't mind if you characterise me as a poor arguer, WSL as someone who made up his own version of wing chun, and YM as someone who stole Tang Yik's pole form. It is kind of what I would expect on a discussion forum. Why get offended about it?


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I also feel this way KPM, although I think I am probably prepared to go on a bit more with a pointless argument than LFJ
> 
> .From my point of view I am happy to discuss with you, even if you have no intention of ever agreeing, but find the fact that you get offended a bit confusing. If you want to argue then why are you offended when someone argues back? I don't mind if you characterise me as a poor arguer, WSL as someone who made up his own version of wing chun, and YM as someone who stole Tang Yik's pole form. It is kind of what I would expect on a discussion forum. Why get offended about it?



All I can say to all that, again, is "geez!!!"


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Ok, lets continue then


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Ok, lets continue then



No. Let's not.  I started a whole thread on a positive note to give you a chance to continue and you shot it down.  You didn't even really try to step up and keep the conversation on a pleasant tone and answer the basic question asked.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> No. Let's not.  I started a whole thread on a positive note to give you a chance to continue and you shot it down.  You didn't even really try to step up and keep the conversation on a pleasant tone and answer the basic question asked.



I wouldn't call referring to another thread shooting down. The new thread start seemed unnecessary to me, that is all. Again please accept my most sincere apologies for any offence I have caused, it was not intentional.


----------

