Pole both sides?

[guy b.]

By changing sides I mean changing lead hand and leg.

I've heard that from multiple people many times. That's the pretty much the "party line." But I've always thought it was a bit off.

Why then would you stand in a training stance doing SNT when you don't stand like that when you are fighting? Why would you perform fook and tan as you do in the forms and chi sau when you wouldn't use them that way in reality? Why any of the drills? Why chi sau at all when you don't do that in fighting?

Wing chun is a martial art with specific training methodologies for particular purposes. Often these drills and training methodologies are somewhat removed from what they are supposed to train. This is because wing chun is a ground up approach which adheres to a predetermined set of ideas which need to build upon each other if they are to work.

In wing chun the pole is there in order to develop powerful force generation, focus, synchronicity and body unity during action, tendon strength, starting speed and leg strength. A heavy pole enforces good spinal and elbow structure. The pole develops sided force production by "splitting" mechanics (like hsing yi, another pole derived MA). Since pole is sided (and wing chun is not) it makes sense to do everything with the pole on both sides when used as an empty hand training methodology rather than as a method of pole fighting.

If you are interested in fighting duels with poles then I guess training one side is the way forward.

If you look at something like Leung Ting's Wing Tsun, they are weighted nearly 0/100 empty hand but nearly 50/50 with the pole

Is Leung Ting's wing chun the standard to which you would hold all other wing chun?

who uses a old fashioned "horse stance" in their empty-hand? The pole has you standing completely "sideways" to the opponent, something you are taught to avoid doing whenever possible empty-hand.

Pole is a training methodology used in order to develop certain qualities, like chi sau. It is not the final destination.

Other than using many of the same tactical concepts, I see the pole as almost a completely separate system from the empty-hands. This is why Ip Man put it at the end of the curriculum and few people actually even learned it. It wasn't considered all that necessary if all you wanted to do was fight with empty-hands.

The pole conceptually identical to the empty hand, only it uses a single pole rather than 2 hands. It is the same system. It is possible that the empty hand is derived from the pole idea, which is not unique to wing chun. The knives are quite different and look to have been added much later. Using unmodified wing chun principles with the knives will lead to death.

 

[guy b.]

Some pole techniques include spear techniques. I have never heard people who train spear on both sides. You don't shoot rifle on both sides.

In wing chun both sides are equal

 

[KPM]

Why then would you stand in a training stance doing SNT when you don't stand like that when you are fighting?

---I've always thought that "conventional wisdom" was a bit off as well. Because I do see YGKYM as a fighting stance as well as a training stance. When you get into "Chi Sau" range, the YGKYM is the base for what you are doing.

Why would you perform fook and tan as you do in the forms and chi sau when you wouldn't use them that way in reality? Why any of the drills? Why chi sau at all when you don't do that in fighting?

---You don't? I practice everything the way I intend for it to work in reality. What Tan Sau do you do that you think doesn't work in reality? I don't do Fook Sau with a "Mantis hand" like a like of people do.


In wing chun the pole is there in order to develop powerful force generation, focus, synchronicity and body unity during action, tendon strength, starting speed and leg strength.

---Again, that's the "party line", but I think if you actually examine what it says....it is a bit off! You do not generate force or focus the same way with the pole as you do empty-hand. If you want to practice synchronicity and body unity during action, train your empty-hand forms more. That will give you a bigger return! If you want to build strength and speed, then do some modern conditioning methods that are going to be more specific to your empty-hand methods. Essentially everything you listed could be trained just as well by learning the Japanese Katana, or the Chinese Spear, or the German Longsword, etc.


Since pole is sided (and wing chun is not) it makes sense to do everything with the pole on both sides when used as an empty hand training methodology rather than as a method of pole fighting.

---Sure. If you have plenty of training time and you view the pole simply as a big weight and not a weapon, that's fine.



If you are interested in fighting duels with poles then I guess training one side is the way forward.

---Are you planning on fighting off attackers a lot with your empty-hand Wing Chun? I like training to use something the way it was intended. That's part of the fun of martial arts training. In Tang Yik Weng Chun the pole is taken seriously and there are two-man training drills. The pole form is quite long, so it doesn't make sense to try and learn it on both sides.



Is Leung Ting's wing chun the standard to which you would hold all other wing chun?

---Are you putting words in my mouth now? I only pointed out LTWT as an example of one version of Wing Chun whose empty-hand mechanics are quite different from its pole mechanics. You didn't catch that?



Pole is a training methodology used in order to develop certain qualities, like chi sau. It is not the final destination.

---And I have only pointed out that if you aren't interested in the pole as a weapon, there are more efficient ways to develop those qualities.


The pole conceptually identical to the empty hand, only it uses a single pole rather than 2 hands. It is the same system. It is possible that the empty hand is derived from the pole idea, which is not unique to wing chun. The knives are quite different and look to have been added much later. Using unmodified wing chun principles with the knives will lead to death.

---If you think that the pole is the "same system" yet the knives are "quite different", well....not sure how to take the conversation from there. Because you and I are on two very different pages here! ;-)

 

[guy b.]

I've always thought that "conventional wisdom" was a bit off as well. Because I do see YGKYM as a fighting stance as well as a training stance. When you get into "Chi Sau" range, the YGKYM is the base for what you are doing.

You stand and punch with square feet? I usually stand with feet staggered.

You don't? I practice everything the way I intend for it to work in reality. What Tan Sau do you do that you think doesn't work in reality? I don't do Fook Sau with a "Mantis hand" like a like of people do.

Tan is training the elbow. I would use the elbow but not the hand shape. How do you use tan and fook?

Again, that's the "party line", but I think if you actually examine what it says....it is a bit off! You do not generate force or focus the same way with the pole as you do empty-hand. If you want to practice synchronicity and body unity during action, train your empty-hand forms more. That will give you a bigger return! If you want to build strength and speed, then do some modern conditioning methods that are going to be more specific to your empty-hand methods. Essentially everything you listed could be trained just as well by learning the Japanese Katana, or the Chinese Spear, or the German Longsword, etc.

Swords are not used as spears and use a different body method. Chinese spear would work fine but probably not heavy enough. Hsing Yi uses spear.

I do generate force with the pole the same way I do empty handed for a particular one sided power chain, which is why I do it both sides. Controlling a large heavy object and projecting force into the striking part is an excellent method of power training which is specific to wing chun and I can't think of a better way using modern methods beyond ways that are already in wing chun (e.g. hitting bags). It is similar to medicine ball traing, but for wing chun it is better because of the structural aspect it enforces on the trainee.

Poon sau and pole develop the same thing in different ways and are complimentary training methods. I don't agree that pole should be left until a late stage of training- it should be one of the earliest trainings introduced.

Are you planning on fighting off attackers a lot with your empty-hand Wing Chun? I like training to use something the way it was intended. That's part of the fun of martial arts training. In Tang Yik Weng Chun the pole is taken seriously and there are two-man training drills. The pole form is quite long, so it doesn't make sense to try and learn it on both sides.

Yes I intend my wing chun to be functional. With pole we do solo drills, form, two man drills, targets/dummy, and sparring. But the ability to fight with a pole is secondary.

Are you putting words in my mouth now? I only pointed out LTWT as an example of one version of Wing Chun whose empty-hand mechanics are quite different from its pole mechanics. You didn't catch that?

I haven't trained LT wing chun so didn't see how it was relevant. I don't know anything about LT wing chun and it doesn't sound anything like any wing chun I have experienced. If LT wing chun has problems with their pole translating into empty hand then that is not my problem.

And I have only pointed out that if you aren't interested in the pole as a weapon, there are more efficient ways to develop those qualities.

There are complimentary ways but I have not encountered something that can replace the pole in the training methodology of wing chun.

--If you think that the pole is the "same system" yet the knives are "quite different", well....not sure how to take the conversation from there. Because you and I are on two very different pages here! ;-)

Absolutely, wing chun is a pole based MA

 

[Danny T]

Running through the moves and positions both sides is beneficial in terms of what the pole develops

It is beneficial in terms of what the form helps develop.
There is more to be developed through the use of the pole than just doing the form.

 

[guy b.]

It is beneficial in terms of what the form helps develop.
There is more to be developed through the use of the pole than just doing the form.

I agree

 

[GiYu - Todd]

I always try training on both sides with all weapons (staff, spear, chained, projectile). The only exception is archery, where I just don't have the combination of strength and stability to safely handle it weak side.

In a real fight, I would obviously tend to favor my dominant side to be most effective. But for training, I'm more focused on increasing the control I have over my body. Training with non-dominant side feels strange, but helps me feel more balanced. I have to think about what I'm doing more, which makes me learn more thoroughly the way the mechanics of the movement are supposed to be.

 

[Punchy]

One side only. Back in the day you wouldn't switch to the other side during a real exchange. Why waste training time working on both sides when you are only planning to use one side in application? Now, most Ip Man forms are very short. So not much training time is actually required to train both sides. But the Tang Yik Pole form is quite long. It doesn't make sense to spend all the time it would take to get good at it on both sides.

Hey KPM, how is the training going on that long pole form? You had stated some time ago that you were learning that, have you given any more thought to the idea of doing a seminar on the pole?

 

[KPM]

Training is going well. I'm planning a trip to Hong Kong in March to learn directly with Sifu Tang. If he gives me permission, I will do some seminars on the pole fundamentals. The form itself is much to long to learn in one sitting at a seminar. But there are sequences that are repeated multiple times that can be trained as fundamental drills. Just getting the body dynamics down is key, because they are a bit different than in the Ip Man pole techniques.

 

[dudewingchun]

Training is going well. I'm planning a trip to Hong Kong in March to learn directly with Sifu Tang. If he gives me permission, I will do some seminars on the pole fundamentals. The form itself is much to long to learn in one sitting at a seminar. But there are sequences that are repeated multiple times that can be trained as fundamental drills. Just getting the body dynamics down is key, because they are a bit different than in the Ip Man pole techniques.

Theres free accomodation here for you in Auckland, New Zealand if you ever decide to do a seminar

 

[guy b.]

Training is going well. I'm planning a trip to Hong Kong in March to learn directly with Sifu Tang. If he gives me permission, I will do some seminars on the pole fundamentals. The form itself is much to long to learn in one sitting at a seminar. But there are sequences that are repeated multiple times that can be trained as fundamental drills. Just getting the body dynamics down is key, because they are a bit different than in the Ip Man pole techniques.

What are the main differences?

 

[guy b.]

What does Tang Yik pole do differently and why do you think these differences exist? I am genuinely keen to know what you think because long pole interests me greatly.

 

[KPM]

What does Tang Yik pole do differently and why do you think these differences exist? I am genuinely keen to know what you think because long pole interests me greatly.

I think one of the main differences is that in Tang Yik Weng Chun the Pole rests on the lead thigh with the arms fully extended and the lead leg is used a lot to guide and power the Pole. In most Ip Man Wing Chun Pole, the Pole is held up a little higher so it doesn't harness the body motion as well. Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole also has lighter and quicker footwork. This is something that Tang Yik was known for. The weight is never back on the heels, but is kept closer to the front of the foot, even when doing the See Ping Ma or "horse stance." Sifu Tang explains the differences by saying that the Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole was "land-based" while the Wing Chun Pole was more "boat-based." Part of the legendary history behind Tang Yik Weng Chun says that Chi Sim didn't just hide out on the Red Boats. He spent a considerable amount of time at the Fei Lo temple on the Pearl River. Various people from the Tang village had the opportunity to study with him then. Since this was all "land-based" what they learned was much more mobile and essentially more "spear-like." When people on the Red Boats learned the Chi Sim Pole, they were more constrained in their training area and so couldn't move around much. They also tended to be the bigger and stronger guys that were responsible for poling the boats along the banks of the rivers. So they would naturally have a tendency to "muscle" the Pole more. So, it really comes down to....more footwork and more use of the body through the lead leg to power the Pole vs. less footwork and the Pole held higher without using the lead leg to power the pole.

Of course, the Tang Yik Pole form is much longer than most Wing Chun versions and has more techniques. There is also a dummy for training the Pole.

One story says that Ip Man visited the Dai Duk Lan on occasion and knew Tang Yik, Chu Chong Man, and the others. He knew Tang Yik's reputation as "King of the Long Pole" and likely saw him demonstrate on more than one occasion. But he was not Tang Yik's student and didn't learn his method. But that doesn't mean he didn't pick up on parts of the form from watching! This might explain why different Ip Man students seemed to get different Pole forms, and why they were so short. It is also noted that Tang Yik's Pole dummy was located on the roof of a nearby apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan warehouse. So Ip Man never saw it. Otherwise, the Pole dummy might be a regular feature of Ip Man WCK just like the wooden dummy!

Of course, all of that is more conjecture than fact!

 

[guy b.]

I think one of the main differences is that in Tang Yik Weng Chun the Pole rests on the lead thigh with the arms fully extended and the lead leg is used a lot to guide and power the Pole. In most Ip Man Wing Chun Pole, the Pole is held up a little higher so it doesn't harness the body motion as well.

I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?

Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole also has lighter and quicker footwork. This is something that Tang Yik was known for. The weight is never back on the heels, but is kept closer to the front of the foot, even when doing the See Ping Ma or "horse stance." Sifu Tang explains the differences by saying that the Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole was "land-based" while the Wing Chun Pole was more "boat-based.". Part of the legendary history behind Tang Yik Weng Chun says that Chi Sim didn't just hide out on the Red Boats. He spent a considerable amount of time at the Fei Lo temple on the Pearl River. Various people from the Tang village had the opportunity to study with him then. Since this was all "land-based" what they learned was much more mobile and essentially more "spear-like." When people on the Red Boats learned the Chi Sim Pole, they were more constrained in their training area and so couldn't move around much. They also tended to be the bigger and stronger guys that were responsible for poling the boats along the banks of the rivers. So they would naturally have a tendency to "muscle" the Pole more. So, it really comes down to....more footwork and more use of the body through the lead leg to power the Pole vs. less footwork and the Pole held higher without using the lead leg to power the pole.

I can't say that I give any credence at all to these legends, but interesting how you perceive the difference. Again makes me wonder which wing chun you learned pole in initially.

Of course, the Tang Yik Pole form is much longer than most Wing Chun versions and has more techniques. There is also a dummy for training the Pole.

What are the extra sequences in Tang Yik pole and what do you feel that they are teaching? Do you think YM wing chun would benefit from having these parts? Do they benefit the empty hand part of wing chun at all?

One story says that Ip Man visited the Dai Duk Lan on occasion and knew Tang Yik, Chu Chong Man, and the others. He knew Tang Yik's reputation as "King of the Long Pole" and likely saw him demonstrate on more than one occasion. But he was not Tang Yik's student and didn't learn his method. But that doesn't mean he didn't pick up on parts of the form from watching! This might explain why different Ip Man students seemed to get different Pole forms, and why they were so short. It is also noted that Tang Yik's Pole dummy was located on the roof of a nearby apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan warehouse. So Ip Man never saw it. Otherwise, the Pole dummy might be a regular feature of Ip Man WCK just like the wooden dummy!

There is a pole dummy in WSL VT. You think that YM made up his pole form by watching Tang Yik?

 

[Danny T]

I think one of the main differences is that in Tang Yik Weng Chun the Pole rests on the lead thigh with the arms fully extended and the lead leg is used a lot to guide and power the Pole. In most Ip Man Wing Chun Pole, the Pole is held up a little higher so it doesn't harness the body motion as well. Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole also has lighter and quicker footwork. This is something that Tang Yik was known for. The weight is never back on the heels, but is kept closer to the front of the foot, even when doing the See Ping Ma or "horse stance." Sifu Tang explains the differences by saying that the Tang Yik Weng Chun Pole was "land-based" while the Wing Chun Pole was more "boat-based." Part of the legendary history behind Tang Yik Weng Chun says that Chi Sim didn't just hide out on the Red Boats. He spent a considerable amount of time at the Fei Lo temple on the Pearl River. Various people from the Tang village had the opportunity to study with him then. Since this was all "land-based" what they learned was much more mobile and essentially more "spear-like." When people on the Red Boats learned the Chi Sim Pole, they were more constrained in their training area and so couldn't move around much. They also tended to be the bigger and stronger guys that were responsible for poling the boats along the banks of the rivers. So they would naturally have a tendency to "muscle" the Pole more. So, it really comes down to....more footwork and more use of the body through the lead leg to power the Pole vs. less footwork and the Pole held higher without using the lead leg to power the pole.

Of course, the Tang Yik Pole form is much longer than most Wing Chun versions and has more techniques. There is also a dummy for training the Pole.

One story says that Ip Man visited the Dai Duk Lan on occasion and knew Tang Yik, Chu Chong Man, and the others. He knew Tang Yik's reputation as "King of the Long Pole" and likely saw him demonstrate on more than one occasion. But he was not Tang Yik's student and didn't learn his method. But that doesn't mean he didn't pick up on parts of the form from watching! This might explain why different Ip Man students seemed to get different Pole forms, and why they were so short. It is also noted that Tang Yik's Pole dummy was located on the roof of a nearby apartment building and not at the Dai Duk Lan warehouse. So Ip Man never saw it. Otherwise, the Pole dummy might be a regular feature of Ip Man WCK just like the wooden dummy!

Of course, all of that is more conjecture than fact!

Don't know much about how others train the pole.
My training has been in the beginning the front forearm is on the thigh with the hand just above the knee. This forces the student to use the legs and body to move the pole from side to side. It also stabilizes the front arm/hand and makes the student use the rear arm to articulate the pole (think of a closed oar lock that is bolted on to a skiff or dingy. The oar cannot be lifted out of the mount or the lock). As the student becomes proficient and their ability to control the front hand we use a slightly more upright stance with just the front hand on the thigh and then just off the thigh. (this is more like an open oar lock that slips into a mounting device. Here the oar can slip up or out of the lock so one must have better ability to control the oar). We have an exercise we do to help strengthen the front hand/arm where the pole is held with just the front hand.

 

[KPM]

I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?

Here is what I could find of WSL. I admit he does use the thigh as a pivot point at times. Unfortunately this is probably not the entire form, so hard to judge. But I see very little lateral footwork.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dATeDTE8zUc

Thigh not used as a pivot in this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fssaDFhrzYw

The Pole hardly ever touches the thigh in any of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhTRZXCvY5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBCNbVICvLk

There is very little lateral footwork in any of the Wing Chun Pole footage that I could find.

Compare these to the classic footage of Tang Yik. The pole held low through-out with a narrow grip. The lead leg/thigh is used to transmit power from the stance to the pole on a large percentage of techniques. There is a wide variety of footwork with lots of lateral movement. The opening sequence with the lateral movement to each side while circling the pole is one of the key techniques. Watch how often he is up on the balls of his feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2crnECuC8



Again makes me wonder which wing chun you learned pole in initially.

And you make me wonder if you have ever been exposed to any Wing Chun other than WSL lineage.



There is a pole dummy in WSL VT.

Does it look like this? And note how Sifu Tang keeps the Pole against his thigh as much as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ivNnauPac



You think that YM made up his pole form by watching Tang Yik?

Personally, I don't think that. But I have seen it suggested. I think he may have gotten some inspiration for exploring different ideas with the Pole from watching Tang Yik. You still have to wonder why so many lineages from Ip Man not only have different pole forms, but even have different definitions of what the "6 1/2 points" actually are!

 

[Vajramusti]

It is beneficial in terms of what the form helps develop.
There is more to be developed through the use of the pole than just doing the form.

============================================
Wing chun and weng chun are different arts.
Few people in regular classes reach the pole usage stage. Even fewer reached the bjd stage.
Watching videos and pictures cane be and is often misleading.,

 

[guy b.]

============================================
Wing chun and weng chun are different arts.
Few people in regular classes reach the pole usage stage. Even fewer reached the bjd stage.
Watching videos and pictures cane be and is often misleading.,

Pole stage is right at the beginning. Most people reach this point.

 

[Vajramusti]

Pole stage is right at the beginning. Most people reach this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculous!

 

[guy b.]

I have only ever seen the pole on the thigh with that point used as a fulcrum in WSL derived wing chun. Where did you see it done differently?

Here is what I could find of WSL. I admit he does use the thigh as a pivot point at times. Unfortunately this is probably not the entire form, so hard to judge. But I see very little lateral footwork.

The form contains very little lateral footwork which is probably why you don't see much. This is a very bad example of WSL doing the form.

Thigh not used as a pivot in this one:

Not sure I would call Gary Lam WSL wing chun. It is something a bit different.

The Pole hardly ever touches the thigh in any of these. There is very little lateral footwork in any of the Wing Chun Pole footage that I could find.

YM wing chun pole form doesn't contain much lateral footwork, assuming these are actual YM pole and not something made up by someone else

Compare these to the classic footage of Tang Yik. The pole held low through-out with a narrow grip. The lead leg/thigh is used to transmit power from the stance to the pole on a large percentage of techniques.

Yes this is good crisp movement, although it looks like a light pole. Also looks more like spear or bayonet fighting than pole fighting. Not sure how relevant it would be to wing chun empty hand.

There is a wide variety of footwork with lots of lateral movement. The opening sequence with the lateral movement to each side while circling the pole is one of the key techniques.

What's the relevance of the emphasis on lateral footwork (apart from in pole duelling)?

Watch how often he is up on the balls of his feet.

Balls of feet are used when making a fulcrum in WSL method.

And you make me wonder if you have ever been exposed to any Wing Chun other than WSL lineage.

Does it look like this? And note how Sifu Tang keeps the Pole against his thigh as much as possible.

Can't get this link to work

Personally, I don't think that. But I have seen it suggested. I think he may have gotten some inspiration for exploring different ideas with the Pole from watching Tang Yik. You still have to wonder why so many lineages from Ip Man not only have different pole forms, but even have different definitions of what the "6 1/2 points" actually are!

The main reason is that Yip man didn't teach many people very much at all