Tension

[LFJ]

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]

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]

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]

---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]

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]

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]

---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]

----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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.]

---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]

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]

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.