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.
