Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

Your conclusion still doesn't follow from that.

That we can verify earlier ancestors does not mean the earliest guy we can find was the founder or that he was involved in created VT boxing based on the pole method he trained.



So, once again, based on currently observable facts, it is practically indistinguishable from YMVT pole in form, and identical in theory and application.

I was being sarcastic, but I guess it went over your head.

Yes the form is similar, this doesn't mean that it is proof that WC was derived from it. It simply shows that Yip Man's form is legitimate & not made up as evidence from a possibly unrelated lineage. Who did Lam Guei Chung study under? Choy Fung Long was a student of both Wong Fei Hung & Chan Wah Shun, who's to say Lam Sai Wing didn't get the form from him & attribute it to his "grandfather". Lam family has made lots of changes to original Hung Kuen as taught by WFH and attributed to "ancestors". I have a good friend that studies Hung Kuen from WFH who's sidaigung was a training brother of LSW. Outside of flavor the arts aren't even similar.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

LDBG from HSHK is solid supporting evidence. It is not proof that VT boxing came from it, but that is supporting evidence in that direction, and is in fact proof that it wasn't adapted to VT.

Actually, it isn't solid supporting evidence, because it is at least as likely to have been added (without modification) as to have been the source of a new style (without modification). Since others see some differences you don't, and you see similarities they don't, it's hard to even say whether this is unmodified. All of this even ignores other possibilities, and that is the weakest point of your certainty in your argument. It's possible you are right. I see nothing to disprove your theory. However, the evidence you put forth seems to fit at least two other possibilities about as well. Thus, you may be correct, but there's no certainty to be had from the available evidence.

 

[Juany118]

You can't just make things up. That is the definition of a strawman.

So you acknowledge the circumstantial evidence that would indicate you do study PB' school then say I made something up? That is illogical, murder convictions happen on said evidence.

I wasn't calling PB "crippled" either. That accusation actually annoyed me. That said part of the topic at hand was that other WC forms did things PB's doesn't. Prime among them was standing grappling and takedowns. Biomechanics being what they are that could be a valid reason. The reason why it annoyed me is that I study with a fellow student with physical issues that force him to adapt. I shouldn't even had to have pointed that out because using such a condition as a "weapon" is reprehensible.

Because you don't know how either VT or SPM function, yet are attempting a comparison from ignorance.

Well here is the thing, without explaining the strategy you can't make such a statement. The only way your statement would hold water is if the techniques and principles are completely incompatible, akin to going on a sniper mission with a pistol or a 12 that's shotgun loaded with shot and not rifled slug. You can make techniques and foundational principles fit many a strategy.

In our little community, and he can correct me if I am wrong @gpseymour is the instructor of one. We have had many conversations and in his art you see that somehow Aikido and Karate (shotokan?) have been combined into an art not based on the old strategies but rather because biomechanically, and in terms of some basic fundamental principles, they work harmoniously under the new strategy. The idea that there is some sort of ideological purity in a particular martial arts strategy that precludes outside influence is rarely born out.

So again what is this strategy? Without that we can't tell if it is as you say, a pistol on a sniper mission, or something else. You have avoided this question time and again, at least to the perception of most of the rest of us. If it is the pistol on the sniper mission I at least have no issue moving on to a new theory because, Ultimately, everyone here is trying to build a circumstantial case and once those cases start getting "Shakey" I know from rl experience it's time to move on before your case falls apart completely.

 

[LFJ]

Can you outline some of those differences briefly? I've picked up a few bits of VT strategy/tactics in discussions, but I'm entirely unfamiliar with SPM.

The major difference;

SPM is a reactive style. VT is a proactive style.

The methods are directly contradictory.

It has been discussed many times, but I don't recall ever seeing an answer to requests for clarification.

I spelled it out in a wall of text when KPM asked. It is general, because it's impractical for me to explain the entire system on here, but explains the strategy and tactics between LDBG and VT boxing.

Actually, it isn't solid supporting evidence, because it is at least as likely to have been added (without modification) as to have been the source of a new style (without modification).

Only, there is no evidence for a "proto-style" it could have been added to. It only makes sense as a source of a new style, if you know anything about Hakka styles at all.

Thus, you may be correct, but there's no certainty to be had from the available evidence.

I don't speak in terms of absolute certainty when we have no historical records to officially verify. But the available evidence supports the theory I've presented, and no evidence supports an alternative or disproves this theory. So..., that's what we have to go on right now. Anything else is an unjustified leap.

 

[LFJ]

Yes the form is similar, this doesn't mean that it is proof that WC was derived from it.

Similarity to the form was not all I presented. That's the least important.

It simply shows that Yip Man's form is legitimate & not made up as evidence from a possibly unrelated lineage.

Well, then at least we've put that to bed then.

It was the claim that YM created his own form in the OP of this thread, and the claim that he simplified something longer from YKS, that prompted this entire discussion.

We should be able to agree that these claims are untrue.

Who did Lam Guei Chung study under? Choy Fung Long was a student of both Wong Fei Hung & Chan Wah Shun, who's to say Lam Sai Wing didn't get the form from him & attribute it to his "grandfather".

That would make a full circle.

 

[LFJ]

So you acknowledge the circumstantial evidence that would indicate you do study PB' school then say I made something up? That is illogical, murder convictions happen on said evidence.

?

I acknowledge none of the nonsense in your strawman arguments.

I wasn't calling PB "crippled" either. That accusation actually annoyed me. That said part of the topic at hand was that other WC forms did things PB's doesn't. Prime among them was standing grappling and takedowns. Biomechanics being what they are that could be a valid reason. The reason why it annoyed me is that I study with a fellow student with physical issues that force him to adapt. You demonstration of falsehood btw amount to "because."

The demonstration was that others share exactly PB's understanding of YMVT and do not have a handicap.

You continue to ignore this every time you bring his name back up in your "the only one who" anything strawman.

Your offensive implication is that PB is unable to do the full system due to his condition, and that all who share his understanding train a handicapped version of VT if they don't do grappling.

To continue saying this is a lie and extremely insulting.

Well here is the thing, without explaining the strategy you can't make such a statement. The only way your statement would hold water is if the techniques and principles are completely incompatible,

They are.

So again what is this strategy?...
...You have avoided this question time and again,

Explained 1,000 times.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The major difference;

SPM is a reactive style. VT is a proactive style.

The methods are directly contradictory.

I'll assume you and I mean the same thing by those terms (not a given - I've heard NGA described as both at different times). I would assert that the same techniques and physical principles can be applied to both strategies/approaches. So, someone well-versed in a reactive style may decide a proactive approach is preferable and adapt the style to be used that way. I don't think even this fundamental difference precludes one being the source of the physical principles and techniques of the other.

A good analog is something @Juany118 referred to about NGA. Our strikes are mostly sourced from Shotokan. I have a student with a heavy Shotokan background, and our approach to striking is quite different (we were working on this just last night), though the mechanics are nearly the same.

I spelled it out in a wall of text when KPM asked. It is general, because it's impractical for me to explain the entire system on here, but explains the strategy and tactics between LDBG and VT boxing.

Do you recall which thread it was in? I'd like to go back and read it.

Only, there is no evidence for a "proto-style" it could have been added to. It only makes sense as a source of a new style, if you know anything about Hakka styles at all.

There may be no evidence simply because the proto-style never branched (so only the final style remains). As you have pointed out, historical records beyond a brief period are crappy, so it's unsurprising some information we could use to settle this one way or the other is missing. Frustrating, but true.

I don't speak in terms of absolute certainty when we have no historical records to officially verify. But the available evidence supports the theory I've presented, and no evidence supports an alternative or disproves this theory. So..., that's what we have to go on right now. Anything else is an unjustified leap.

My point is that others see other evidence as equally compelling, and much of the evidence supports conflicting theories equally. There's really no solid basis for preferring one possible origin over another. I've seen three theories here that have merit. Two seem stronger than the other, though the evidence against the third has alternative interpretations, too.

In the end, I'm not sure it matters, except as an intellectual pursuit (my favorite kind, BTW).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Your offensive implication is that PB is unable to do the full system due to his condition, and that all who share his understanding train a handicapped version of VT if they don't do grappling.

To continue saying this is a lie and extremely insulting.

Neither insulting nor offensive, IMO. If someone with the same disability came to me, I could teach the. NGA. It would not be precisely the same NGA, because they can't grip on one side. They might (like any other student), turn out to be an exemplar of the principles of NGA. I Mir make adjustments to my NGA based upon what I see as improvements that derived from the adjustments I make for them. I might then go on to teach that version to others, because it works and is simpler, more concise, maybe even more effective.

Nothing "handicapped" about the result if it happens to be effective. Even if I chose to omit some techniques, it might be because I see the student being just as effective without them.

 

[LFJ]

I'll assume you and I mean the same thing by those terms (not a given - I've heard NGA described as both at different times). I would assert that the same techniques and physical principles can be applied to both strategies/approaches. So, someone well-versed in a reactive style may decide a proactive approach is preferable and adapt the style to be used that way. I don't think even this fundamental difference precludes one being the source of the physical principles and techniques of the other.

The strategies are fundamentally contradictory and the tactics of each are designed specifically to function in those terms. Flip the script and they no longer function.

Do you recall which thread it was in? I'd like to go back and read it.

This thread!

There may be no evidence simply because the proto-style never branched (so only the final style remains). As you have pointed out, historical records beyond a brief period are crappy, so it's unsurprising some information we could use to settle this one way or the other is missing. Frustrating, but true.

Then it's pointless to talk about a "proto-style". It's indistinguishable from a fully new constructed one.

 

[LFJ]

Neither insulting nor offensive, IMO. If someone with the same disability came to me, I could teach the. NGA. It would not be precisely the same NGA, because they can't grip on one side.

That's not the case with VT. That's why it is insulting, not just to PB, but to the entire WSL lineage.

 

[wingchun100]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relying on gossip
about "history" is pointless. In Ip Man wingchun- logically and practically
one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.

How true.

In the past, Chinese history was passed down by word of mouth.

Have you ever played that game where 5-8 people stand side by side...person #1 whispers something into person #2's ear, and they pass it down the line, and by the time it reaches the last person, the original quote has gotten distorted?

Well, if that can happen between 5-8 people, what do you think would happen when you try passing down the history of such a large country between generations?

 

[Juany118]

I'll assume you and I mean the same thing by those terms (not a given - I've heard NGA described as both at different times). I would assert that the same techniques and physical principles can be applied to both strategies/approaches. So, someone well-versed in a reactive style may decide a proactive approach is preferable and adapt the style to be used that way. I don't think even this fundamental difference precludes one being the source of the physical principles and techniques of the other.

A good analog is something @Juany118 referred to about NGA. Our strikes are mostly sourced from Shotokan. I have a student with a heavy Shotokan background, and our approach to striking is quite different (we were working on this just last night), though the mechanics are nearly the same.



Do you recall which thread it was in? I'd like to go back and read it.




There may be no evidence simply because the proto-style never branched (so only the final style remains). As you have pointed out, historical records beyond a brief period are crappy, so it's unsurprising some information we could use to settle this one way or the other is missing. Frustrating, but true.




My point is that others see other evidence as equally compelling, and much of the evidence supports conflicting theories equally. There's really no solid basis for preferring one possible origin over another. I've seen three theories here that have merit. Two seem stronger than the other, though the evidence against the third has alternative interpretations, too.

In the end, I'm not sure it matters, except as an intellectual pursuit (my favorite kind, BTW).

Your last bit sums this up for me. As a practical matter I actually could care less about how WC/VT came about. I just never got rid of the History bug that made me want to teach it before I became a LEO instead. So I see stuff like this and I see multiple connections. Some are going to be false, dead ends, but you only find that out by looking at all the evidence, considering every possible theory. When alleged evidence is withheld, you can't use it and if you wish to continue can only do so on the tracks you have evidence for.

 

[wckf92]

It would not be surprising. It is conceivable that the two of them developed a boxing method distinct from the various neighboring styles of the time, borrowing simple elements like YJKYM to start from, but ultimately coming up with a very different style that contradicts all the others.

It would take more work to verify the relationship they had, if indeed any. It could well have been generations before them, but since the history is not recorded beyond that point, we can't form a definitive origin story. And I am not making any such claim.



Equally important, yes, but not equally integrated. The strategy between knives and boxing are opposite, for good reason. BJ is pretty much all knife thinking, though.

What is integrated into the core of VT boxing from the knives is the tactical guidelines that make the "two pole" boxing method effective.

The pole method works because it is long range and the opponent only has one pole, too. Ballistically displace their pole and blast into the opening. End of fight. That's the saying, the pole doesn't make a second sound.

But, you can't just run in like that when short range boxing someone also with "two weapons". You may remove one, but the other can still hit you. So, to make the "two pole" boxing method effective, isolation principles from the knives are introduced, greatly increasing our odds as we now have at least twice as many weapons as the opponent.

Thank you. I think I understand.

 

[Juany118]

?


Explained 1,000 times.

The rest was just not worth responding too. It was like reading "alternative facts"

If it you had done this, someone else wouldn't have said this...

My consternation with the voice of WSL/PB on these forums is that they aren't offered as "the conclusions I've reached" as you suggested, but "Only we know the truth and you are ignorant of the facts

And multiple people, including those allegedly told the strategy. Wouldn't have liked said comment. If we were told the strategy, and it made some amount of sense, then other people wouldn't have said this or cared to give a damn enough to hit the agree button.

 

[LFJ]

I just never got rid of the History bug that made me want to teach it before I became a LEO instead.

Thank goodness for that!

 

[DanT]

This is the 22 Point Ku Lo system. It is a spin off of Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun....a "public" version so to speak. And these are specifically the translations used by John Fung, who teaches this system as well as Tai Chi in Australia. There is said to have been some San Sik that Ip Man taught in Foshan and dropped when he got to Hong Kong. But this is not it. And this was never taught as a preliminary to the standard 3 forms in any system. The 22 point system as well as its root the Pin Sun system was a stand alone independent system. Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK has 12 San Sik taught before a student starts the Siu Nim Tao form. But these 12 San Sik were added by Sum Nung based on his training before meeting Yuen Kay Shan.

Yes yes you're right but the 12 San Sik are based entirely on these 22 points. And yeah I got these translations from John's web site. Also I wanted to point out more how the arrow punch and sanchin can be found in this as well. In some lineages San Sik were taught before Sil Lim Tao, but were later removed and now only two remain. If you look at non-Yip Man lineages a lot of them have these San Sik or a variation of them.

 

[Juany118]

Thank goodness for that!

I know because Teaching is my retirement job in a few years. Don't worry though, I caught another an hominem.

 

[Juany118]

That's not the case with VT. That's why it is insulting, not just to PB, but to the entire WSL lineage.

But others in the lineage teach standing grappling, takedowns and trapping, which is limited by the issue in question. As such how is this insulting to anyone?

A talented man kept trying and finally found a Sifu who would figure things out WITH him. They made WC/VT work for him when all the Sifu's he spoke to prior said "good luck kid, WC/VT isn't for you anymore.

That isn't insulting, it's a damn affirming. That I think is why I have been boggled by this most of all. I consider PB a man to admire for having the courage he did to keep going and WSL an incredible teacher due to this sequence of events. I think a similar thing when I see my classmate at work and wonder "would I be that strong?"

I just don't get it.

 

[LFJ]

Don't worry though, I caught another an hominem.

I caught another misspelling and misuse of the term "ad hominem"!

 

[LFJ]

But others in the lineage teach standing grappling, takedowns and trapping, which is limited by the issue in question.

Who?

A talented man kept trying and finally found a Sifu who would figure things out WITH him.

WSL already had VT figured out.

They made WC/VT work for him when all the Sifu's he spoke to prior said "good luck kid, WC/VT isn't for you anymore.

He never encountered the same system prior.

I just don't get it.

Because you don't listen and believe your own false version of their history.