Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

I've only been talking about YMVT.

OK, that makes much more sense from my perspective. I can better see where you are coming from now. I think you definitely have a legitimate argument for your claim, good luck persuading other YM branches though. Thanks for the reply, safe travels.

 

[DALE80]

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.

Which WC do you mean? There are many differences between YM derived lines, mostly caused by YM teaching the system to very few people. The existence of the pole form as it exists in WSL VT in another older system only highlights one of many potential problems in other YM derived wing chun lines. Weaponary is certainly one of the main areas that YM failed to pass on to many people.

I have been following this thread with interest and I fully support the argument of LFJ that YM's system is based on the pole usage- that much is obvious to anyone with experience of the system.

 

[DALE80]

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.

When presented with the facts we have, then inserting the existence of another base style for the boxing method is irrelevant since the current boxing method maps completely to the weapons usage. Also since the existence of a base style for the boxing method introduces extra complication, it requires extra evidence. The most simple explanation given the facts is the one presented by LFJ.

 

[DALE80]

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.

There is everything required for the idea of empty hand method coming from the weapons. The weapons pre-date empty hand and still exist in another system.

Extra evidence is required for the idea that the weapons were added to a pre-existing empty hand method (no such method exists and no record of it ever having existed is available).

The second conclusion is more complicated, requires extra evidence which doesn't exist, and therefore the explanation of LFJ is the better one, given the evidence we have.

For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.

Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.

Which explanation is the more reasonable?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is everything required for the idea of empty hand method coming from the weapons. The weapons pre-date empty hand and still exist in another system.

Extra evidence is required for the idea that the weapons were added to a pre-existing empty hand method (no such method exists and no record of it ever having existed is available).

The second conclusion is more complicated, requires extra evidence which doesn't exist, and therefore the explanation of LFJ is the better one, given the evidence we have.

For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.

Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.

Which explanation is the more reasonable?

From the evidence presented, that's not a solid conclusion. Now, since I'm not a WSLVT practitioner, it's entirely possible that the missing piece of information - the part that cannot be presented in a debate like this - is the experience in the system. My whole point in this debate has been the misapplication of rules of evidence in debate. Just because the evidence provided supports a position, that doesn't mean it makes that position stronger, if another position is equally supported. I disagree that the concept of empty hands gaining weapons adds any complexity. It's a natural flow that has happened in many arts. It would be unusual to find a perfect fit of weapons to add, but not entirely without precedent. Unlikelihood doesn't remove something from the debate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For example if I return late home smelling of cigarettes and alcohol, and I was seen at the bar by several people, it is reasonable to assume that I was there smoking and drinking until late.

Also consistent with the facts is the theory that I stopped by the bar for a few minutes where people saw me, before leaving and being abducted by aliens who used me for fiendish experiments involving cigarettes and alcohol until late, before releasing me alive near my home.

Not even close to an analogous argument.

 

[KPM]

.

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.

This is it in a nutshell! If you or Steve or Gerry or Troy, etc. had proposed that Wing Chun had originated from the pole as an interesting theory and laid out why you thought so.....this would have been a very different discussion! But when a dogmatic "true believer" is involved it always becomes a huge argument. Because a "true believer" is entirely unwilling to listen to what the other side of the discussion has to say or to acknowledge any points that make. Its always...they are right and everyone else must be wrong! How many times have we seen that here now?....on various topics!!!

 

[KPM]

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.

.

Tang Yik Weng Chun oral history says that Chi Sim taught the pole on the Red Boats as well as at Fei Lo. It also says that at some point the pole form was expanded by methods from a spear form. Who Chi Sim actually was is debatable. But the oral history certainly supports the theory that someone (later identified as Chi Sim...whether he was abbot of a temple or not) who knew the 5th brother pole was teaching on the Red Boats. He taught this to Red Boat members who later went on to establish both the Wing Chun system and the Weng Chun system (whatever names you want to give to them). He later taught a more extensive pole form at Fei Lo than what he taught on the Red Boats. Either he added methods from 13 spear himself, or someone in Tang Village added them. This person (Chi Sim) also taught what was actually a fairly simple and rudimentary empty hand method by today's standards. Tang Yik Weng Chun history acknowledges that this empty hand method was expanded upon over time. So here the oral history supports the idea of a single person teaching a pole method alongside a rather simple empty hand method that was also said to derive from a similar source. There is no reason to think that as that empty hand method was developed further that it would not have developed with concepts and tactics from the pole heavily influencing it. Why anyone would just dismiss this version of the theory of Wing Chun origins....which is supported by the oral history as well as the FACTS that YOU have observed is simply beyond me!

 

[KPM]

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.

Wow! That's rich! You are implying that WE are the ones in denial?

If your theory on Wing Chun's origins cannot be easily generalized to Wing Chun as a whole (since all Wing Chun would share a common origin) then there is obviously something wrong with the theory. The alternate theory CAN be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole. So by simple deduction it is the more plausible theory.

You don't have any evidence other than oral history that Ip Man himself or even Wong Shun Leung actually taught this theory to people. And you yourself dismiss oral history as irrelevant. So that's the second problem with your theory.

The two facts you have established (and I'm being generous in calling the idea that pole and empty hands track so very closely in WSLVT as a "fact") can support either your theory or the alternative theory. It doesn't matter how often you deny that. Everyone else here can see it. So that's the third problem with your theory.

What actually frustrates me (and likely others) is your dogmatic believe that you are right and everyone else must be wrong! Your refusal to answer or often even acknowledge points that others have made. Your refusal to answer direct questions at times. The way you often give vague and evasive responses when you do answer. That's the fourth problem with your theory....and the one that often accompanies any discussion you become involved in.

But Ok. You are right and all the rest of us are wrong! You win!

 

[KPM]

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.

He has no intention of addressing anyone else's concerns and you know it! He has repeatedly ignored our points through-out this entire discussion. He has already decided he is right, regardless of what anyone else might point out to him. That's the problem with "true believers."

 

[KPM]

I've only been talking about YMVT.

Another reason why your theory has a problem. If it can only be applied to YMVT, that's a problem! Unless you believe that YMVT developed and originated completely separate from all other Wing Chun!

 

[KPM]

Which WC do you mean? There are many differences between YM derived lines, mostly caused by YM teaching the system to very few people. The existence of the pole form as it exists in WSL VT in another older system only highlights one of many potential problems in other YM derived wing chun lines. Weaponary is certainly one of the main areas that YM failed to pass on to many people.

I have been following this thread with interest and I fully support the argument of LFJ that YM's system is based on the pole usage- that much is obvious to anyone with experience of the system.

Please introduce yourself and tell us your background. Thanks!

 

[KPM]

When presented with the facts we have, then inserting the existence of another base style for the boxing method is irrelevant since the current boxing method maps completely to the weapons usage. Also since the existence of a base style for the boxing method introduces extra complication, it requires extra evidence. The most simple explanation given the facts is the one presented by LFJ.

I disagree. Like LFJ you are dismissing over 100 years of oral history from multiple branches of Wing Chun. LIke LFJ you are dismissing the fact that the theory only really applies to WLSVT and cannot be generalized to ALL Wing Chun. When talking about an origin theory, that in itself is a huge problem. It is in no way the "most simple explanation."

 

[LFJ]

If you or Steve or Gerry or Troy, etc. had proposed that Wing Chun had originated from the pole as an interesting theory and laid out why you thought so.....this would have been a very different discussion!

Because of your obvious bias.

Because a "true believer" is entirely unwilling to listen to what the other side of the discussion has to say or to acknowledge any points that make. Its always...they are right and everyone else must be wrong!

I have not made a truth claim beyond the facts that you conceded! So

Like LFJ you are dismissing over 100 years of oral history from multiple branches of Wing Chun. LIke LFJ you are dismissing the fact that the theory only really applies to WLSVT and cannot be generalized to ALL Wing Chun.

Already explained.

Many systems moved on without the weapons. So, no wonder they would evolve into something very different when not directed by weapon theory.

That or they don't share exact origins, started at different times from different sources.

Not a big mystery.

In either case, mainland lineages are drastically different from YMVT and irrelevant to the origins of YMVT.

 

[wckf92]

This has been and is a fascinating discussion. I can see BOTH sides of the equation actually.

However, I'd like to point out that IF it is true that a Master of their respective art/system/style ONLY passes on the ENTIRE inheritance to a CHOSEN FEW then this might be why this discussion is so...ummm...vibrant to some.

Since day 1 in my WC experience and travels I've always heard that 'gatekeepers' or 'lineage holders' are required to pass down the entire art to at least two people. If true, then there would be huge numbers of 'regular' practitioners who would not be in the loop and therefore would not know or understand the inner workings (whether verbal history, written history, tactics, strategy, weapons, etc).
I think everyone can agree that in majority of WC/VT schools or families that the formal weapons training is reserved for last.

NOTE: I would be an interesting thread topic to figure out how certain aspects of knife/pole map to other things like MYJ, 3rd form, etc.

Knowing how the WSL VT guys map their VT from weapons...it does help explain a thing or two on all their previous stances regarding the how/why their VT doesn't have chin na, grappling, etc.

I'm not advocating one way or the other though...but just saying it is a great discussion. You guys are way more knowledgeable than I am with all these various families' pole forms and such so I've learned a lot just by following the discussion. I.E. never even heard of HSHK, never had heard of 5th Brother, 3.5 pole, etc etc. Quite interesting!!!

Now...carry on!

 

[KPM]

Because of your obvious bias.

---Yes. I admit that. I have an obvious bias against anyone that presents something as an indisputable fact when there are obviously problems with what they are saying! I have an obvious bias against anyone in a discussion that just dismisses out of hand or ignores someone else's points.



I have not made a truth claim beyond the facts that you conceded! So

---Wow! I'm not going to take the time to do it, but someone should go back through this thread and count the number of times you used the word "proves" in this discussion!



Already explained.

---Not very well and not satisfactorily.

Many systems moved on without the weapons. So, no wonder they would evolve into something very different when not directed by weapon theory.

---Apparently EVERY system other than WSLVT!!!!???? I will bring up that word I used before.....plausibility. Look it up!

In either case, mainland lineages are drastically different from YMVT and irrelevant to the origins of YMVT.

---Uh, you do realize that YMVT started out on mainland China, don't you?

 

[LFJ]

I disagree that the concept of empty hands gaining weapons adds any complexity.

Of course it does, because you're suggesting the existence of a whole other system prior to the introduction of the weapons, a system there's 0 evidence for the existence of whatsoever.

Since the entirety of the VT boxing system maps to the weapons, there aren't even any discernible remnants of a possible preexisting base system separate from the weapon method.

But if you're suggesting one, you have a lot more work to do.

The application of Occam's Razor, plus technical analysis of the system, shows the simplest explanation to be the weapons having served as the basis for the entire conceptualization and development of the boxing method.

Pole + Knives = VT boxing.

Pole + Knives + (unknown & unestablished variable) = VT boxing.

The latter is obviously the more complicated. The former is at least based on methods proven to exist.

Note, I'm only putting this forward as the most viable theory based on the observable facts as they stand. I'm not making a truth claim, as I said, because VT lacks historical records to officially confirm it.

 

[LFJ]

I have an obvious bias against anyone that presents something as an indisputable fact

Strawman.

See my last sentence in the post above. I have repeated this numerous times now, so you can stop with the false "true believer" insult.

someone should go back through this thread and count the number of times you used the word "proves" in this discussion!

Yes. Proves the facts that you conceded.

---Not very well and not satisfactorily.

Says you. You were one of the people saying your lineage didn't receive the weapons, or at least the knives, from LJ. Other lineages that trace through him did.

Obvious how they'd differ with or without guidance from the weapon theory, or a completely different one.

---Apparently EVERY system other than WSLVT!!!!???? I will bring up that word I used before.....plausibility. Look it up!

It is entirely possible that this method only came through the YM lineage. His system is drastically different from others, and we know he only taught a few people his whole system, so... not all that implausible at all.

The weapons were obviously taught very rarely throughout history, to some and not others in every generation, including from LJ.

---Uh, you do realize that YMVT started out on mainland China, don't you?

Irrelevant. YMVT and mainland lineages are so drastically different that they are irrelevant to the origin of YMVT. They obviously took very different courses through history, over 100 years apart.

 

[LFJ]

NOTE: I would be an interesting thread topic to figure out how certain aspects of knife/pole map to other things like MYJ, 3rd form, etc.

It is an interesting topic, but possibly too sensitive to other common YM lineages as the history is not on their side here.

Knowing how the WSL VT guys map their VT from weapons...it does help explain a thing or two on all their previous stances regarding the how/why their VT doesn't have chin na, grappling, etc.

Yup. No gripping and grappling with a pole or knives!

 

[KPM]

Ok LFJ. You go on believing whatever you want. You win. You are right and everyone else is wrong.