Tension

[guy b.]

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.]

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

Same to you, obviously.

 

[LFJ]

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.]

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]

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.]

Ok, lets continue then

 

[KPM]

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.]

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.