Tension

[KPM]

^^^^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]

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.]

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]

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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.]

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

 

[LFJ]

---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]

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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! ;-)

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.]

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]

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.