Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

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



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.



That would make a full circle.

I understand that you presented more than the form, I get it, but to be honest the exact same parameters you used to make your deduction can be applied to the 13 Pole form, I also see it in Choy Mak's Poisonous Snake Blocks the Road. It's not enough to say that because something has similarity it must be relation. There is no evidence that hand came from pole or pole from hand. I respect that you based your methodology on this, but it is not applicable to all Wing Chun methods.

I never made any statements alluding that Yip Man made up his pole form. As evidenced by LDBG in Hung Kuen, it's apparent that the form Yip Man passed on is legitimate. On this we can agree.

It would make a full circle, it would also make things very interesting.

 

[KPM]

I said VT. That means YMVT. Other systems are very different in every part.

---Then your theory is invalid. Unless you are suggesting that YMVT developed and originated totally separate from all the other versions of Wing Chun?



Highly unlikely. If you want to propose such a theory, you need additional evidence to support it.

---You really don't get it do you??? The evidence you have provided supports EITHER theory! I've been telling you that. Gerry has been telling you that. Surely you can't really be that dense???


Did I say the theory was proven, or did I say there is no record to officially verify it?

---You have used the word "proves" multiple times in this discussion! Have you forgotten that??? Really man, its time to give it up. You have a presented an interesting theory. Thanks.

 

[KPM]

There is no more evidence to draw the alternative conclusion, or enough to even suggest it, and all the evidence needed for the original conclusion to be a valid theory. Recorded history would officially confirm it. Without that, and without any evidence to go in any other direction, we are left with one valid theory.

---Wrong, wrong, wrong. As Gerry and I have both gone to great efforts to try and show you....your evidence supports either theory. In the absence of "recorded history" we have to resort oral history. Oral history is not definitive but can lend support to a theory. And the oral history from multiple Wing Chun lineages says that the pole was an add on to an existing empty hand system. So until you can produce an actual "recorded history" that contradicts that, this is the more valid of the two theories. It is as simple as that!!! So you can go on repeating things over and over. But that won't make them any more true! Again, I think we have beat this drum enough! Time to move on!

 

[lklawson]

No, but Yip Man Ving Tsun and Old School Boxing styles don't work the same way at all. There are a few superficial similarities, like with other TCMAs, that don't really amount to anything.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't.

To be honest, frankly, I don't care.

If I'm with friends or people are being generally friendly, I'll throw it out there and we'll all have a bit of fun discussing the pros and cons of his argument.

If someone is being a douche about it, I'll throw it out and then play Devils Advocate.

In any case, you should read the article. You might find it interesting, or at least entertaining.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is no more evidence to draw the alternative conclusion, or enough to even suggest it, and all the evidence needed for the original conclusion to be a valid theory. Recorded history would officially confirm it. Without that, and without any evidence to go in any other direction, we are left with one valid theory.

You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.

[quoted]There is no evidence of anything those needs could have been added to, no preexisting boxing style compatible with that theory and application. All neighboring styles from the time and area are in direct conflict with VT.[/quote]
Covered at least three times.

It doesn't, and that conclusion requires additional evidence to be a valid theory. Otherwise there is a huge gap that makes this conclusion not even plausible.

You've yet to show where you see a flaw in my argument. I demonstrated how each piece of evidence is not contradictory with either direction. You just keep saying "wrong", which is not an argument.

There were no alterations.

Whatever. You're not rational on this one, so I'll leave it be.

 

[LFJ]

I understand that you presented more than the form, I get it, but to be honest the exact same parameters you used to make your deduction can be applied to the 13 Pole form, I also see it in Choy Mak's Poisonous Snake Blocks the Road.

Those pole methods differ in many ways. LDBG in HSHK is LDBG in YMVT, identical in theory and function, practically identical in form.

I respect that you based your methodology on this, but it is not applicable to all Wing Chun methods.

I never spoke for all Wing Chun methods. Many have changed drastically over the years to something entirely different.

I never made any statements alluding that Yip Man made up his pole form. As evidenced by LDBG in Hung Kuen, it's apparent that the form Yip Man passed on is legitimate. On this we can agree.

I know you didn't. Just saying, it's in the OP of this thread and some other posts, and is what prompted this discussion.

It would make a full circle, it would also make things very interesting.

Agreed.

 

[LFJ]

I said VT. That means YMVT. Other systems are very different in every part.

---Then your theory is invalid. Unless you are suggesting that YMVT developed and originated totally separate from all the other versions of Wing Chun?

No, but some of those version went on without the weapons for a long time. Easy to no longer follow weapon theory then.

The evidence you have provided supports EITHER theory! I've been telling you that. Gerry has been telling you that. Surely you can't really be that dense???

Wrong, and no need to keep being insulting.

Did I say the theory was proven, or did I say there is no record to officially verify it?

---You have used the word "proves" multiple times in this discussion! Have you forgotten that???

I said the observable facts prove other facts which you ended up conceding.

I never said the theory based on those facts has been definitively proven.

As Gerry and I have both gone to great efforts to try and show you....your evidence supports either theory.

But you're wrong and guessing.

In the absence of "recorded history" we have to resort oral history. Oral history is not definitive but can lend support to a theory. And the oral history from multiple Wing Chun lineages says that the pole was an add on to an existing empty hand system. So until you can produce an actual "recorded history" that contradicts that, this is the more valid of the two theories.

Fairytales are not more valid than technical analysis of observable facts!

There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons!

 

[LFJ]

In any case, you should read the article. You might find it interesting, or at least entertaining.

His points are either inconsequential, can be explained by the theory presented in this thread, or are just flat out wrong. Boxing uses lin-siu-daai-da? Not at all. The author doesn't even know what that is.

OSB and VT ready stance are not the same at all, much less what happens from there. They are in fact just as contradictory as other TCMAs are to VT.

 

[LFJ]

You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.

The entirety of the system, every step of the way, renders the alternative theory highly unlikely. It will need additional evidence to be a viable theory. Right now, it is guessing and an Argument From Ignorance.

Whatever. You're not rational on this one, so I'll leave it be.

It doesn't matter what you think is "rational" in the case of PB's personal experience. The truth is known and has been told to you. If you don't take it from me, ask him yourself. Your rationale has no bearing on the truth. To continue that line after being informed is insulting.

 

[Juany118]

The theory, that VT boxing is based on this pole is therefore rooted in fact.

---No, as I stated those facts seem to only apply to WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general. And THAT should be a huge red flag as far as origin theories go! But if we wanted to generalize it, then the theory that VT boxing at some point added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole is just as consistent with those 2 facts.

This is actually the crux of the argument, the extension of WSLVT to all of VT. VT wasn't a term WSL came up with. It was used first, and still by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association. Who is on the board of directors? Well since his father's death, in one way or another, that has been Ip Ching's baby. Off and on until 2004 he was the chairman and when he wasn't chairman, to this day, he has been on the board of directors. I don't know if he still teaches out of the HQ but both he and IP Chun have done so into the 21st century. Students of both brothers have spoken of their theories here and they have been called "broken" or "incoherent." So it is the height of arrogance to use WSLVT as a synonym for YMVT.

And before the response happens I remember all the "blah blah blah, they only studied with their father for so long" stuff. Communists revolutions tend to split up families BUT YM still left HIS Association in the hands of his sons. So WSLVT can be VT BUT there is clearly other VT out there. Unless someone wants to call YM's association illegitimate. So saying "this is WSLVT" fine. Saying "this is YMVT," not true.

You're ignoring all of my supporting statements. There has been exactly no evidence presented which supports your theory any more than it supports the idea of the weapons being added to the empty hands. That we don't have evidence of a prior empty-hand method does not conflict with the theory, assuming that addition happened early in the development of the art.

Covered at least three times.


You've yet to show where you see a flaw in my argument. I demonstrated how each piece of evidence is not contradictory with either direction. You just keep saying "wrong", which is not an argument.


Whatever. You're not rational on this one, so I'll leave it be.

And this sums up the argument when you get past the dogma driven drek. Without historical manuals or accurate written histories there is no definitive way to tell 100%. You can't even tell how a edged weapon was used archaeologically, you can say "here's a tool" and then make some guesses based on the weapon's design but that's about it. Add in the complication that biomechanics are in large part, fundamental, regardless of the strategy you use to launch them. This means you can see an effective punch or kick and say "hey what if I use it with this strategy. Similar to how the German's took a tank in 1939 and instead of using it simply for infantry support gave us Blitzkrieg. Same tool VERY different strategies. As such there is really no way, beyond word of mouth legend to say, "Yes!!!! This is the truth!!!!" and while we can see such a thing as a "truth" in our dogma that truth is not fact.

Some of us tried to spitball and have a free exchange of ideas, some give and take. Some "hey that's a cool idea but what about this?" That to me is the fun of forums like these. When dogma gets through in and spit balling gets derailed by a "truther". That's where the fun ends.

 

[Nobody Important]

Those pole methods differ in many ways. LDBG in HSHK is LDBG in YMVT, identical in theory and function, practically identical in form.



I never spoke for all Wing Chun methods. Many have changed drastically over the years to something entirely different.



I know you didn't. Just saying, it's in the OP of this thread and some other posts, and is what prompted this discussion.



Agreed.

Concerning pole methods, yes the HSHK pole is identical to YMVT as well as Kulo 3 1/2 point, probably others too. But it's important to remember that it may not be all of the HSHK pole set or that Lam Sai Wing may have actually choreographed the segment inserted into 8 Diagram pole. That would raise more questions about legitimacy of others who then have the same pattern.

I'm simply stating, knowing both 5th Brother pole & 13 Spear pole , as well as, 6 1/2 Point that they all contain the same method. 5th Brother pole is the mother. Yes other techniques are included, aside from a 180 spin in 5th Brother & twirling in 13, nothing else violates Wing Chun theory. It's not much different than comparing Tang Yik pole & Yip Man pole. Difference is in organization & repetition mostly, there are other techniques but they are cohesive. It's like comparing SNT to a version of SNT performed out of order. The order makes no difference conceptually and not justified to say it's not the same because the choreography is different.

It also has to be taken into consideration that Choy Fung Lung was a disciple of Wong Fei Hung that also learned from Chan Wah Shun. He could be the real source of Lam Guei Chung's pole method.

All of this still doesn't validate Wing Chun empty hand being based on the pole, it's interesting but not verifiable. We can clearly see the evolution of the pole from 5th Brother to 6 1/2 Point. Valid consideration has also to be given to how the empty hand method & theory could have been the reason that 5th Brother pole evolved into 6 1/2 Point and would account for mutual methodology of hand & pole.

Your premise can be applied to White Crane, in specific, 12 Branch Power Fist, being the base for SNT, as one section of that form is identical to SNT & contains the same theory. It could easily be adjusted to play exactly like Wing Chun, it's a chicken or egg thing. Very hard to prove one way or the other without raising more questions. It's a rabbit hole in my opinion, especially when oral legends are discounted because they lack verification. Buddha & Jesus can't be authenticated, they didn't leave any writings, those that came after them wrote about them, much like the Wing Chun ancestors, except their tales are far less fantastic. How could anyone dismiss plausible stories of some common opera performers, yet believe the fantastical feats of philosophers worshipped as deities? Neither case can be proven, and when it can't be, I'm more apt to believe possible vs impossible.

Just some things to consider as you move forward with this theory.

 

[Juany118]

nvm wrong thread

 

[LFJ]

This is actually the crux of the argument, the extension of WSLVT to all of VT. VT wasn't a term WSL came up with. It was used first, and still by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association. Who is on the board of directors? Well since his father's death, in one way or another, that has been Ip Ching's baby. Off and on until 2004 he was the chairman and when he wasn't chairman, to this day, he has been on the board of directors. I don't know if he still teaches out of the HQ but both he and IP Chun have done so into the 21st century. Students of both brothers have spoken of their theories here and they have been called "broken" or "incoherent." So it is the height of arrogance to use WSLVT as a synonym for YMVT.

And before the response happens I remember all the "blah blah blah, they only studied with their father for so long" stuff. Communists revolutions tend to split up families BUT YM still left HIS Association in the hands of his sons. So WSLVT can be VT BUT there is clearly other VT out there. Unless someone wants to call YM's association illegitimate. So saying "this is WSLVT" fine. Saying "this is YMVT," not true.

Pretty clear you and KPM are resisting the conclusion because you would absolutely hate it that WSLVT has historical evidence of being correct, while most other versions of YMVT do not.

Most YM lineage pole work is a complete mess and unlike HSHK's LDBG, and the empty hand methods don't match. We know YM only ever taught the weapons to a few people, so the reason for this mess is obvious.

It doesn't look good for the others' legitimacy and that frustrates you to no end.

 

[LFJ]

Yes other techniques are included, aside from a 180 spin in 5th Brother & twirling in 13, nothing else violates Wing Chun theory.

Actually, I wasn't even considering choreography. The method of performing the actions they have "in common" is in fact very different, while HSHK and YMVT are identical.

 

[Nobody Important]

Actually, I wasn't even considering choreography. The method of performing the actions they have "in common" is in fact very different, while HSHK and YMVT are identical.

Depending on branch this could very well be true, speaking for myself, the common movements in my 5th Bother, 13 & 6 1/2 Point are performed identically and learned from 2 different people.

You have an intriguing theory, I would simply advise putting definitive X's through plausible questions before making any sweeping statements. Good luck with it, I look forward to how you address people's concerns.

 

[Juany118]

Bingo!

That's the one.

Quick google search yielded:
Black Belt

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

It was actually an interesting read, thanks for the link!!! The only thing I think is amiss, and it is understandable, is the lack of knowledge of some arts that also have the upright stance. Why is Wing Chun Popular outside of China? Bruce Lee. The same can be said for the other CMA's that "made it out" of China, that movies popularized them. At the time Bruce Lee himself made it work for Western Audiences even though, for the time, his stylization was flamboyant it didn't come close to the "low stance" arts the author speaks to. This doesn't even take into account how a lot of the Hong Kong Film makers of the time were Cantonese. Without the movies as a kind of free advertisement, in pre-internet days, it's hard to "get the word out" so to speak. As such schools don't move across a continent or ocean.

Some may argue I am putting to much stock in the film industry's impact on the spread, and perception, of CMA's in the west but I think lack of high stance CMA's in films may have hidden arts with upright stances and more "direct" offense, thus clouding the issue. Because other such arts do exist (though they are indeed less common.)

 

[LFJ]

Good luck with it, I look forward to how you address people's concerns.

Thanks.

The connection between VT boxing and the pole method has been established.

The pole method has been shown to predate VT and to have not been adjusted to fit VT, yet does seamlessly.

People's only concern is that VT boxing may have come from a preexisting base style that later aligned with the pole.

That theory is not established and inconsequential to VT boxing being based on the pole even if possible or true.

There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons, and no style that functions similarly to VT. So, it's meaningless to speak of a base style without further evidence.

All we know for fact is that VT boxing is based on the preexisting pole method, whether there was an original base style that got adapted or not.

That's it. Thanks to everyone for reading and participating in the discussion.

I'm traveling for the next month from Wednesday and probably won't be on.

 

[Nobody Important]

Thanks.

The connection between VT boxing and the pole method has been established.

The pole method has been shown to predate VT and to have not been adjusted to fit VT, yet does seamlessly.

People's only concern is that VT boxing may have come from a preexisting base style that later aligned with the pole.

That theory is not established and inconsequential to VT boxing being based on the pole even if possible or true.

There is nothing but fairytale prior to the weapons, and no style that functions similarly to VT. So, it's meaningless to speak of a base style without further evidence.

All we know for fact is that VT boxing is based on the preexisting pole method, whether there was an original base style that got adapted or not.

That's it. Thanks to everyone for reading and participating in the discussion.

I'm traveling for the next month from Wednesday and probably won't be on.

One question, when you speak of the 6 1/2 point pole method being verified as pre-dating VT, are you speaking of YMVT or all Wing Chun collectively?

 

[LFJ]

One question, when you speak of the 6 1/2 point pole method being verified as pre-dating VT, are you speaking of YMVT or all Wing Chun collectively?

I've only been talking about YMVT.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The entirety of the system, every step of the way, renders the alternative theory highly unlikely. It will need additional evidence to be a viable theory. Right now, it is guessing and an Argument From Ignorance.

Except that folks with experience in WC don't agree. Perhaps it is crystal clear within WSLVT. I'll concede that is a realistic possibility. However, if folks elsewhere in WC/VT don't see the same thing, that may be a property of that arm of the art. It may have been more tightly integrated than other arms, which makes it less likely it's an effect of origin.