Which came first?

[guy b.]

It wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect that if you were out and about and the **** was about to hit the fan, that you would be able to search the surrounding area and come up with something to use as a pole.

Absolutely. The pole is the weapon of wing chun.

But people weren't strolling around routinely carrying swords...even relatively short ones like the Wing Chun knives! Maybe you could find a big knife to substitute for your Wing Chun weapon laying around in the area....but TWO such knives? Unlikely! I certainly can't picture Ip Man or Yuen Kay Shan routinely strolling around in public in Foshan with two big knives/short swords on their person. Can you?

Militia members did use double dao in the 19th C. and there are pictures showing these. Sailors also used them. Of course usually it is the leader with the dao and everyone else with spears. And these fighting dao are very different from what we see in WC today. Much longer, point biased.

 

[KPM]

They were not contemporaries and so in many ways what Fung Chun said about Leung Jan is similar to what you or I might say.
.

I disagree. Fung Chun studied with Wong Wah Sam, who studied with Leung Jan. It could very well be that Fung Chun pointedly asked Wong Wah Sam about why there were no knives in their system and Wong Wah Sam said he was told by Leung Jan that Wing Chun had no knives in his generation. That would carry a lot more weight than anything you or I could say. There are a number of written documents left by Leung Jan in the museum in Ku Lo village. Fung Chun has read them. I'm guessing they document most of the system and say nothing about knives. So Fung Chun's word would carry a lot more weight than anything your or I might say. Other than have a recording of Leung Jan himself saying "I never learned the knives!!!"...what more could you want?

 

[KPM]

Good to have another well thought out opinion. Especially ...since I agree completely! --So where the heck have you been lately, Keith?

BTW the BCD could become more popular if they were taught earlier and more widely, trained widely using the kinds of safely precautions used commonly in HEMA and FMA, and with greater emphasis placed on translating the techniques, including footwork, etc. to smaller blades (such as a Bowie) and empty hand applications. And can you imagine the fun people would have regularly trying to pit their BCD skills against escrima baston or short stick, staff, long pole, and Dao or Chinese Saber, etc?

I've been around Steve! ;-) Yeah, it could be fun! But not likely to happen.

 

[guy b.]

I disagree. Fung Chun studied with Wong Wah Sam, who studied with Leung Jan. It could very well be that Fung Chun pointedly asked Wong Wah Sam about why there were no knives in their system and Wong Wah Sam said he was told by Leung Jan that Wing Chun had no knives in his generation. That would carry a lot more weight than anything you or I could say. There are a number of written documents left by Leung Jan in the museum in Ku Lo village. Fung Chun has read them. I'm guessing they document most of the system and say nothing about knives. So Fung Chun's word would carry a lot more weight than anything your or I might say. Other than have a recording of Leung Jan himself saying "I never learned the knives!!!"...what more could you want?

Could very well be? Guessing? Not enough info

 

[wckf92]

Absolutely. The pole is the weapon of wing chun.

Guy, is the pole form in the WSL lineage a relatively short form vs a long form? I.E. long as in that Tang Yik long form or is it a simplified shorter version that just spells out or emphasizes the "points"? Thx.

 

[KPM]

Could very well be? Guessing? Not enough info

And so goes most historical research.

 

[KPM]

Guy, is the pole form in the WSL lineage a relatively short form vs a long form? I.E. long as in that Tang Yik long form or is it a simplified shorter version that just spells out or emphasizes the "points"? Thx.

So one in the Ip Man lineages does any pole that even comes close to the length or comprehensiveness of the Tang Yik version. ;-)

 

[guy b.]

So one in the Ip Man lineages does any pole that even comes close to the length or comprehensiveness of the Tang Yik version. ;-)

Don't think I have seen Tang Yik pole. As I have experienced it there are some introductory exercises, the form (which is concise), the pole drills, and the pole sparring.

 

[JPinAZ]

In HFY, we have knives as well as long & short pole forms. Knives have been in our system since before the 1850's and we do not trace our roots thru Leung Jan - so they were surely a part of some WC lineages at and before his time. And there are other lines that do not trace directly thru LJ that still have the knives, and some that claim to have kinves that do trace thru LJ. So it's not so cut and dry. LJ, while obviously well known for helping spread the art in Red Boat WC, he was not the only one passing on the art at this time.

There are a few reasons we might see the knives either existing/not existing in certain branches is. Some might simply be a fact of them being taught or not by a Sifu to a given student. Maybe the student didn't stick around long enough to learn, or it just wasn't a focus of the Sifu's at that time. We also know LJ taught 3 distinctly different ways throughout his teaching career, so he clearly didn't always do things the same with every student.

Another factor could be the split we see around the 1850's where WC was being taught in 2 separate paths simultaneously (one being the Red Boats, the other being the Boxer Society). We see the result of this where many things started to change between the various branches - knife and/or weapons training could be one of them. It is even possible some lines simply did not have direct access to knives, so they elected not to teach them (or weren't even able to).

 

[KPM]

Don't think I have seen Tang Yik pole. As I have experienced it there are some introductory exercises, the form (which is concise), the pole drills, and the pole sparring.

This is not the entire form, but gives a good idea of it:

 

[KPM]

In HFY, we have knives as well as long & short pole forms. Knives have been in our system since before the 1850's and we do not trace our roots thru Leung Jan - so they were surely a part of some WC lineages at and before his time..

Now, I'm not trying to start a fight here. And I say this with some reluctance because I can anticipate the response. But I feel that I have to be honest and say this.....I don't factor HFY into anything historically when it comes to Wing Chun. Until there is something...anything...that backs up the history according to Garrett Gee, I just don't feel HFY is a viable factor from an historical perspective.

We have historical mention of the primary people in Leung Jan lineage and other Wing Chun lineages. We have multiple lines form different teachers in the lineage supporting many of the historical factors.

We don't have that from HFY. What seems to be the case is that we have info that someone researched about the secret societies and then overlaid a history for HFY onto this. But nothing in these histories of the secret societies directly support the existence of HFY. HFY is not mentioned. We don't have ANYONE with knowledge of the specifics of HFY other than Garrett Gee and his students. No parallel lineages, no branches, no Si Hings, nothing.

Now, I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong if new information has come to light that I am unaware of. But there needs to be something other than "Sifu Garrett Gee said so" to back up the history according to HFY.

Please, JP, don't launch a venomous response. If you can post historical facts that support the existence of Garrett Gee's HFY back in 1850 I would love to see it!

 

[JPinAZ]

Really Keith? The reason I post here more is you don't typically see this negative-type nonsense here vs. the 'other forum'. I would hope for a lot better from someone like you than dragging this old dead horse here as well. And, if you're really 'not trying to start a fight' or attacking me, why would you expect me to 'launch a venomous' response? Just the fact that you even say that is insulting.

I'll only address this once on this forum. You don't have to accept my lineage's historical background or family tree (which we've given). It's your right and makes little difference to me. But I don't have to 'prove' anything to you to when I share my views here either. And, I didn't say 'secret' anything. I think what you are mainly referring to is the VTM's findings. I am not concerned with what they say or do, nor their ever-evolving 'conclusions'. But if you don't want to 'start a fight', then it would be a good first step to stop putting words into my mouth.

To repeat what I did say:
- There was an obvious split in WC around the mid 1800's. This is pretty well known/provable if one cares
- We do see many changes in WC after this time (for good or bad - not my call).
- LJ did teach many different methods thru-ought his lifetime.
- Some lines from his teaching claim to have the knives in their system, some don't (and/or claim to have added them later). My theory was that this could be do to differing focuses in his teaching.
- My system, which if you've seen our forms clearly does not come from LJ, also has knives. Unless you can prove otherwise, I'll stick with this
These are no 'secrets'. And neither was the boxer society & rebellion. My lineage has just been very private about our background until the last 20 years or so. No big deal. And we are not the only lineage that does not trace it's roots thru the Red Boats after the split that has knives in their system. Again, it's really not the big deal you are making it out to be here.

 

[KPM]

I'll only address this once on this forum. You don't have to accept my lineage's historical background.

---I don't. And I was simply pointing out why I don't.


But I don't have to 'prove' anything to you to share my views here either.

---You do if you want to put HFY's history out there as a factor supporting a particular historical theory.

then it would be a good first step to stop putting words into my mouth.

---This is what I was referring to, something which you DID write: "Knives have been in our system since before 1850." I was simply pointing that there is little evidence to support the idea that HFY was around in the 1850's to have knives. So to use HFY as an historical data point to support what you were saying is a little iffy. That was my point.

Again, it's really not the big deal you are making it out to be here.

---I'm not making it out to be a big deal. I was simply being honest and saying that I can't include HFY's history in the consideration of who had what and when if there is not more to support the actual history of HFY. Does that makes sense? I didn't mean to "beat a dead horse." The "horse" is not yet dead. This is still a problem for HFY. And will continue to pop up in discussions. That's just the way it is. You can't hold HFY history up as supportive of various things when there is nothing to actually support HFY's version of history. Its that simple. Again, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong if there is good historical evidence that I don't know about. Has a related lineage been found in China? Has one of Garrett Gee's Si Hings stepped into the light? Has mention of HFY's lineage ancestors been found mentioned in other lineages writings?

 

[geezer]

I'll only address this once on this forum.

I was simply pointing that there is little evidence to support the idea that HFY was around in the 1850's to have knives. So to use HFY as an historical data point to support what you were saying is a little iffy. That was my point.

Let it go guys. Keith has a right to that opinion, JP, as you have a right to dismiss it. End of story. I personally think that most if not all of these "histories" we learn are, shall we say, "embellished"? Enough said. That's no reflection on the functionality and value of our branches today. That's all that matters, really.

As far as the knives go, if it is true that Leung Jan's family had a bodyguard/caravan escort business as I've heard told, then it is highly probable that he had experience with well known weapons of the time, such as the BCD, pole spear, etc. Same for other branches, whether their lineages were entirely separate from Leung Jan or not.

This still doesn't address guy b's question about the age of the current BCD form and methods. Still, I think it highly likely that some form of BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th C. or before.

 

[guy b.]

In HFY, we have knives as well as long & short pole forms. Knives have been in our system since before the 1850's and we do not trace our roots thru Leung Jan - so they were surely a part of some WC lineages at and before his time. And there are other lines that do not trace directly thru LJ that still have the knives, and some that claim to have kinves that do trace thru LJ. So it's not so cut and dry.

What do the knives of your wing chun look like?

 

[guy b.]

I personally think that most if not all of these "histories" we learn are, shall we say, "embellished"?

Lol, to say the least. And most if not all are probably much more recent in their present forms than anyone likes to admit.

As far as the knives go, if it is true that Leung Jan's family had a bodyguard/caravan escort business as I've heard told, then it is highly probable that he had experience with well known weapons of the time, such as the BCD, pole spear, etc. Same for other branches, whether their lineages were entirely separate from Leung Jan or not.

The fighting knives of LJ time (long stabbers) were completely different in terms of design and usage than the knives of the 20th C. (short heavy choppers) which to me says a lot about the likelihood of most present knife forms coming from LJ or anyone else of that period.

Taking WSL VT as an example, YM showed WSL a lot of different things, some of which were more coherent than others. WSL then made a knife form based on his own ideas and those of YM. The WSL form is more dynamic and more attacking than the YM form. Of course neither tested their ideas with the knives in real knife fights with death as a possibility. And this is one of the few people that YM showed the knives to in their entirety.

I think that YM probably either made up the knives, or tried to remember a little bit that he had seen a long time ago when it came to making the form. The knives he chose to use were the chopping not stabbing knives around at the time he made it up; i.e. early 20th C. knives, not real mid 19th C. fighting knives. Hence the predominance of chopping over stabbing in the form.

Simply google some pics of mid 19th C. dao to see that current BJD forms are not designed for these knives.

 

[KPM]

This still doesn't address guy b's question about the age of the current BCD form and methods. Still, I think it highly likely that some form of BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th C. or before.

Exactly. This is a thread on historical connections. What is likely and what is not. So, personally, I would not throw in HFY as a data point to support what is "likely" when the entire history of HFY is in question. That was my point. I still think it is a valid point and there is nothing to "let go" as you say Steve. That's simply the way it is. Would you consider information from "Black Flag Eng Chun" as worthy of historical consideration? So yeah, I'm going to continue to dismiss HFY (and Black Flag) as contributing to the historical understanding of Wing Chun until some kind of evidence is shown that HFY's history should be taken seriously. And anyone else that is being an honest researcher should do the same. Because, again, there is nothing to back up HFY's history other than "sifu sez." But that's all that needs to be said on the subject. Let's proceed with some actual discussion. ;-)

Most certainly BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th Century. Again, one of the secret societies was called the "Small Knife Society." And yes, they were "secret" at the time because they were rebel groups hiding from the Imperial Government officials!! As we've said, the knives seem to have been fairly common in southern Chinese martial systems. So it would make sense that some Wing Chun people would pick them up as well. What is unclear is how common they actual were amongst Wing Chun practitioners.

I think Guy B. is likely correct here:

I think that YM probably either made up the knives, or tried to remember a little bit that he had seen a long time ago when it came to making the form. The knives he chose to use were the chopping not stabbing knives around at the time he made it up; i.e. early 20th C. knives, not real mid 19th C. fighting knives. Hence the predominance of chopping over stabbing in the form.

The much longer style of knives seen in historical pictures from the mid 19th C simply wouldn't work as well when adapted to Wing Chun hand techniques as the much shorter "modern" Wing Chun knives.

 

[geezer]

Most certainly BCD practice dates back to the period of the uprisings in the mid 19th Century. Again, one of the secret societies was called the "Small Knife Society." And yes, they were "secret" at the time because they were rebel groups hiding from the Imperial Government officials!! As we've said, the knives seem to have been fairly common in southern Chinese martial systems. So it would make sense that some Wing Chun people would pick them up as well. What is unclear is how common they actual were amongst Wing Chun practitioners.

I think Guy B. is likely correct here:

I think that YM probably either made up the knives, or tried to remember a little bit that he had seen a long time ago when it came to making the form. The knives he chose to use were the chopping not stabbing knives around at the time he made it up; i.e. early 20th C. knives, not real mid 19th C. fighting knives. Hence the predominance of chopping over stabbing in the form.

The much longer style of knives seen in historical pictures from the mid 19th C simply wouldn't work as well when adapted to Wing Chun hand techniques as the much shorter "modern" Wing Chun knives.

What you say makes sense. Longer knives would have been an appropriate weapon for the period of the uprisings.

Here's a pair of 19th Century Hudiedao:
http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/images/s011b.jpg

Here's a 19th Century British saber for comparison.
http://c0728562.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/MI14204_HR.jpg

A century later when GM Yip began teaching members of the restaurant workers union in hong Kong, learning how to defend yourself with (and from) a "chopper" would have made more sense:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7106/7700223166_b1da350a36.jpg

 

[JPinAZ]

What do the knives of your wing chun look like?

An article about WC butterfly swords per my lineage's history.
Article #6

Article in video form with some accompanying pics of what the article is referring to:

 

[JPinAZ]

Keith, your continued attachment to my lineage is boring now. If you aren't trying to start a fight, you surely aren't doing a good job by repeating the same thing post after post (3 in a row now). Now you're tolling
Drop it and stick to the topic.