Yip Man's curriculum changes

[DALE80]

Just because the evidence provided supports a position, that doesn't mean it makes that position stronger, if another position is equally supported.

The other position is not equally supported- it requires extra evidence which is not available. The conclusion presented by LFJ does not require extra evidence.

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

It is a more complex explanation for the facts available, requiring an additional empty hand system of which there is no longer any trace in the system or elsewhere.

 

[DALE80]

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.

This is just legend. Chi Sim, Red boats, Fei Lo all legend. Reasoning from legend is not worth the time, especially since a lot of it was probably added at a later date as a form of advertising (i.e. in HK). Reality probably much more mundane.

 

[DALE80]

I disagree. Like LFJ you are dismissing over 100 years of oral history from multiple branches of Wing Chun.

I don't think much point in giving consideration to legends.

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 applies to YM VT. Other wing chun is very different and looks like it has been diverging for a long time.

It is in no way the "most simple explanation."

It is a simpler explanation than the other one that has been offered

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The other position is not equally supported- it requires extra evidence which is not available. The conclusion presented by LFJ does not require extra evidence.



It is a more complex explanation for the facts available, requiring an additional empty hand system of which there is no longer any trace in the system or elsewhere.

What you have missed, apparently (and LFJ seems determined to ignore) is that I'm not making a claim. I'm simply arguing the strength of evidence. I've pointed out that the evidence presented is no more supportive of one claim than another. The only counter-argument I've heard is that the obvious alternative is more complex and unlikely, in spite of the fact that it has been seen in other arts, so cannot be dismissed as improbable.

I don't really care which is the origin. I like the idea of an effective empty-hand method based on weapons. Most I have seen were weak because of attempts to follow weapons principles, but some have managed it, and it's an interesting theory. I just haven't seen any evidence that uniquely supports it. What LFJ has claimed to have proven, he has only provided some support for. Again, the strongest support may be within the teaching of WSL's lineage of VT. I'm not privy to that, so I'm just examining the strength of the arguments made here. They're reasonable, until they are claimed as proof. They are evidence, not proof.

 

[Juany118]

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.

The problem you run into is a few fold. Let's start with those issues not related to techniques. First, not every YM WC/VT Lineage Teaches said theory, even if they also teach the weapons. If this was true it would be taught as such. Second, while even I agree YM's Legend of the creation of WC/VT is just that, a legend, the legend is largely consistent across not only YMWC but mainland as well. For legends to be so similar and to start with the empty hand creation, then to have the weapons be the start? Illogical.

Also to perpetuate a legend, as YM did, that is contradictory to the actual curriculum is illogical because you invalidate the very Legend you are using to give prestige to your art.

When we get to the actual techniques in the art it is a "chicken and egg" scenario. For a "complete" martial arts system to exist, read one with both empty hand and weapons, the weapons use and the empty hand need to "mesh". If they don't feel related, it creates issues in teaching. Because of this, barring independently verifiable evidence, arguments for the art having starting with weapons or empty hand essentially stand on even ground. The only thing that may give substantially more weight to the "weapons" side is "because that is what my specific sub Lineage teaches" but that isn't evidence in this case, it's dogma, because it is inconsistent with other sub lineages and is not independently verifiable.

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?

First your analogy isn't good due to the fact just being in a smoky bar will make you smell like smoke. That said I see where you are going (the "rain" analogy for circumstantial evidence came to mind) but it still isn't a good one for the following reason.

You can't say "well the pole technique looks the same" and then ignore that there are other empty hand arts that not only have similar techniques and methodologies. I know I know "well my lineages strategy" but that misses the point that most biomechanical techniques can be adopted to a multitude of strategies. To simply use convenient constructs to dismiss the similarities with other arts is illogical.

Additionally we have the issue of the BJD. I am still waiting to see an example of an art that predates WC and also uses them in a similar manner. For the "weapons came first" to work that needs to be addressed as well.

No one here is categorically saying it is one way or there other btw, except LFJ and apparently you. What we are saying is that if you are going to make such a categorical statement you need to have enough circumtantial evidence that it outweighs all other possible conclusions. The thing is though, the evidence that tips the scales towards weapons first, vs the scales just pivoting back and forth, is "because my Sifu told me so" essentially.

 

[LFJ]

The only counter-argument I've heard is that the obvious alternative is more complex and unlikely,

That is a lie.

You were just told again in Post #281 that there is absolutely 0 evidence for a preexisting base style.

That's a fatal problem for the theory. The theory I have presented is based on things that exist.

What LFJ has claimed to have proven, he has only provided some support for.

Wrong.

What I have claimed to have proven are observable facts that have already been conceded.

I have never claimed the conclusion based on those proven facts has been proven.

I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?

 

[LFJ]

First, not every YM WC/VT Lineage Teaches said theory, even if they also teach the weapons. If this was true it would be taught as such.

Wrong.

It is a fact that most didn't learn the whole system from him.

the legend is largely consistent across not only YMWC but mainland as well. For legends to be so similar and to start with the empty hand creation, then to have the weapons be the start?

Because the folktale was copied. The same story is used in other styles besides Wing Chun that are obviously different MAs.

When we get to the actual techniques in the art it is a "chicken and egg" scenario.

Weapons predate VT. This has already been proven.

arguments for the art having starting with weapons or empty hand essentially stand on even ground.

Wrong.

Former based on existing elements. Latter a guess about an undemonstrated mystery style.

You can't say "well the pole technique looks the same"

That's not the argument. They are the identical method in theory and application.

and then ignore that there are other empty hand arts that not only have similar techniques and methodologies.

There aren't any.

No one here is categorically saying it is one way or there other btw, except LFJ and apparently you.

Strawman.

The thing is though, the evidence that tips the scales towards weapons first, vs the scales just pivoting back and forth, is "because my Sifu told me so" essentially.

That's a lie.

An Appeal to Authority has never been made.

Nothing but technical analysis and observable and proven historical facts have been presented.

 

[LFJ]

The only counter-argument I've heard is that the obvious alternative is more complex and unlikely,

Plus, what you're saying is "possible" is essentially on the same grounds as "aliens did it".

You can't even say that's possible until you prove aliens exist.

You haven't demonstrated a possible base art it could have come from. So, you can't even say that's a possibility. We can't look into it, because there is nothing to look into.

They're reasonable, until they are claimed as proof. They are evidence, not proof.

The proven facts have only been presented as proof of other observable facts.

These proven facts have been presented as evidence for but not proof of the conclusion.

There is not even any evidence for a preexisting base style. Until some can be presented, that theory is unviable. It cannot even be looked into.

 

[geezer]

The other position is not equally supported- it requires extra evidence which is not available. The conclusion presented by LFJ does not require extra evidence.
...It is a more complex explanation for the facts available, requiring an additional empty hand system of which there is no longer any trace in the system or elsewhere.

No, Dale, what KPM and GP Seymour propose is well supported by the admittedly limited evidence available.

First point: Both empty handed systems and pole systems with outward similarities to the WC/VT/WT hands and pole existed long before WC/VT/WT be historically documented (in the era of Leung Jan or the mid 19th century).

Second point: The oral tradition left by Grandmaster Yip Man and other greats of his generation all agree that the pole system was imported or added to the boxing system.

Third point: Ex nihilo nihil fit. Nothing springs into being from nothing. There is always a precursor. It is highly unlikely that a single or small group of skilled pole fighters sat down and decided to invent an empty-handed boxing system from scratch.

It is far more probable that one or more skilled martial artists with experience in both weapons and southern short-bridge boxing realized that the core principles of their weapons, and especially the long pole correlated with the principles of some of the most effective empty handed strategy.

After all, we have all noted that other boxing systems often exhibit bits and pieces of WC/VT-like movement. The precursors of WC/VT/WT no doubt had some of the seeds of later WC, and it's highly probable that the ancestors of modern WC/VT/WT made the same observations about the relationship of these very effective empty-hand strategies to the pole system. They sought to build upon this base thus initiating the evolutionary process that shaped the WC/VT/WT we practice today.

Only such an evolutionary model can fully explain the diversity of WC/VT/WT that currently exists. In short, the evolution of the martial arts including WC/VT/WT certainly follows the same process as the evolution of human culture, languages and so forth. It is never created out of a void ...even constructed languages like Esperanto draw heavily on known sources. There is always adaptation, borrowing, and in small isolated groups, random drift. And as a product of human culture, MAs follow the same rules. "Occam's razor" will lead you to the same conclusion.

I can further back this up from personal experience as a practitioner of VT/WT and Latosa and DTE Escrima. Many years of practicing both arts has lead me to focus on common principles and strategies to the point that my empty hands and my weapons technique are now almost entirely expressions of the same fighting principles and strategy. My personal VT and my personal Escrima are totally strategically consistent.

Perhaps the real problem here is that LFJ and his opposition (KPM, GPS. Juany, et.al.) mean something very different when they refer to the VT system. I believe that KPM, GPS. Juany, and certainly, yours truly, are referring to WC/VT/WT in the broad sense, including all of the Yip Man branches, as well as mainland branches tracing their roots back to Leung Jan.

LFJ on the other hand seems to be specifically referring to a particular group of WSL-VT folks, and excluding other non WSL WC/VT groups and even some WSL practitioners (David Peterson). In fact, LFJ has pretty much written off all the other WC/VT groups he has any knowledge of as "broken" VT, and essentially not the same system as what he practices.

OK then. If what he practices is not the same system as the systems the rest of us practice (total BS in my opinion) then, logically, we have nothing to discuss.

BTW Dale, are you a WSL-VT practioner with a perspective like LFJ on the art?

 

[LFJ]

First point: Both empty handed systems and pole systems with outward similarities to the WC/VT/WT hands and pole existed long before WC/VT/WT be historically documented (in the era of Leung Jan or the mid 19th century).

Wrong.

Not outward similarities.

The pole systems are the identical method in theory and application.

No other empty handed system is like VT.

Second point: The oral tradition left by Grandmaster Yip Man and other greats of his generation all agree that the pole system was imported or added to the boxing system.

Fairtales.

Third point: Ex nihilo nihil fit. Nothing springs into being from nothing. There is always a precursor. It is highly unlikely that a single or small group of skilled pole fighters sat down and decided to invent an empty-handed boxing system from scratch.

VT boxing didn't come from nothing. Pole and knives are something.

The originators surely had barehand fighting knowledge, but if you want to propose a preexisting base art they used, you must demonstrate one that we can look into.

Only such an evolutionary model can fully explain the diversity of WC/VT/WT that currently exists.

VT came from pole + knives. Other lineages evolved without the weapons or from different sources.

Not inconceivable in the least.

"Occam's razor" will lead you to the same conclusion.

Apply Occam's Razor here;

Pole + Knives = VT boxing.

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

An unknown & wholly unestablished variable is like saying "aliens did it".

Perhaps the real problem here is that LFJ and the others (KPM, GPS. Juany, et.al.) mean something very different when they refer to the VT system. I believe that KPM, GPS. Juany, and certainly, yours truly are referring to WC/VT/WT in the broad sense, including all of the Yip Man branches, as well as mainland branches tracing their roots back to Leung Jan.

I have made it clear I'm not talking about mainland styles. There is no reason to, as they are obviously different MAs at this point.

LFJ on the other hand seems to be specifically referring to a particular group of WSL-VT folks, and excluding other non WSL WC/VT groups and even some WSL practitioners (David Peterson).

No. I'm talking about YMVT. Other lineages under YM are supposed to be the same thing, unlike various mainland styles.

 

[geezer]

Wrong. Not outward similarities.
The pole systems are the identical method in theory and application.
No other empty handed system is like VT.

Yes, and the world is flat, the sun rotates around it, and God created man in his image. We have no similarities with apes!

Seriously LFJ, you are entitled to your opinion, but right now I'm posting for the benefit of those others on this forum who share my universe.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is a lie.

You were just told again in Post #281 that there is absolutely 0 evidence for a preexisting base style.

That's a fatal problem for the theory. The theory I have presented is based on things that exist.

Nothing fatal about it. I never argued there should be a pre-existing base style. It could have been pre-existing, or a hybridization, or a couple of other options. And I'm not sure where you'd expect to find evidence of it if it evolved into the WC we know now. Even if it were borrowed wholly from another style, there's a chance the style either ceased to exist, or has evolved on a different path. This makes it difficult to establish further evidence, but is not fatal. Nobody has asserted that the empty hand was necessarily borrowed without significant alteration (as seems to be the case with the pole form), so I'm not sure what you're expecting to see that would be readily recognizable.

Wrong.

What I have claimed to have proven are observable facts that have already been conceded.

I have never claimed the conclusion based on those proven facts has been proven.

I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?

Wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

An unknown & wholly unestablished variable is like saying "aliens did it".

Only if you don't understand the premise.

 

[KPM]

You were just told again in Post #281 that there is absolutely 0 evidence for a preexisting base style.

That's a fatal problem for the theory. The theory I have presented is based on things that exist.

----Oh now come on! That's just being just plain stupid. That's like saying the theory of evolution is invalid just because the common ancestor of apes and men is no longer around.


What I have claimed to have proven are observable facts that have already been conceded.

----And those observable facts are that WSLVT's pole method is very similar to an older version of the pole also called LDBK and that (according to you) the WSLVT empty hands tracks perfectly with the pole. Those two observable facts do not establish and prove an entire theory for the origin of Wing Chun. That is the bottom line here.



I have repeated this over and over. What is wrong that you can't understand that?

---The above has been repeated over and over to you. What is wrong that you can't understand that???

 

[KPM]

There is not even any evidence for a preexisting base style. Until some can be presented, that theory is unviable. It cannot even be looked into.

And you don't have any evidence that other versions of Wing Chun track so well with the pole method or endorse this theory. Therefore it cannot be viable as an origin theory for Wing Chun in general.

And likewise there is not even any evidence that Ip Man believed or taught this theory. Or even that WSL taught it! For all we know they might have agreed with the rest of us that such close correlations exist between the pole and empty hand because the empty hand method continued to evolve (even in Ip Man's and Wong Shun Leung's time) with the weapons in mind.

In fact, for all we know WSL may have spent a considerable amount of effort and genius to reorganize and reinterpret what Ip Man taught him to such an extent that HE aligned it so well with the weapons and refined it so well that everyone else's Wing Chun looks "broken" in comparison. And you don't have any evidence to the contrary!

So if you want to talk about showing a chain of evidence to make a theory viable....you can't even start that with Ip Man and Wong Shun Leung!!!

 

[geezer]

In fact, for all we know WSL may have spent a considerable amount of effort and genius to reorganize and reinterpret what Ip Man taught him to such an extent that HE aligned it so well with the weapons and refined it so well that everyone else's Wing Chun looks "broken" in comparison.

I have not studied WSL VT, so I cannot speak to this with conviction, but it certainly seems very likely. More so than saying that everybody else got it wrong. Really, LFJ is the one channeling Trump IMO!

 

[geezer]

BTW no politics intended. And as far as WSL VT goes, if someone highly qualified offered an open seminar in my area I'd certainly go. But, I'm not a likely prospect for a convert. I'm not a true-believer type. More of an eternal skeptic. I don't believe the system exists that has all the answers!

 

[KPM]

Ok, so here is an exercise in theory development based upon observable facts:

1. WSL's pole form is very similar to an older pole form also know as LDBK that is said to predate the existence of Wing Chun. (We'll assume age of said older LDBK is indeed older than Wing Chun, but that little tidbit hasn't actually been well established either! The oldest recorded version of this pole form seems to be from about 1945. I believe Wing Chun is older than that! But we proceed anyway!)

2. WSLVT empty hands correlates with and tracks closely with the pole form. (We'll also just have to assume this is true based upon LFJ's testimony since none of the rest of us know the "complete" WSLVT.)

3. Other versions of Wing Chun, both Ip Man VT and Mainland Wing Chun, do not track the empty hands with the pole. Thus fact #2 seems to only apply to WSLVT.

4. Any kind of oral history, legend, or testimony can be disregarded as fairytales or unreliable. (That is a rule applied to this discussion by LFJ)

5. Wong Shun Leung learned his Wing Chun from Ip Man. Ip Man learned his Wing Chun from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So. Chan Wah Shun learned his Wing Chun from Leung Jan.


So based upon the above, the theory of the weapons being the entire source of the empty hand method would apply only to WSLVT. Based upon only the observable facts it cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole.

But there is a problem! Clearly neither Ip Man or WSL started from nothing but the pole and knives. They had an empty hand system as noted in #5 above. So if the theory cannot be generalized further back than WSL, if the theory cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole, then it cannot be valid. Because both WSL and YM had a base empty hand method to start with!

You cannot argue that the other methods have diverged away from the original weapons-based approach, because you would have to prove that they started out with the empty hand tracking closely with the pole. And that can't be proven. Remember....we are going solely by observable facts here!!!! Fact #3 above applies.

So the observable facts do not actually support the theory that Wing Chun empty hands (even WSLVT empty hands) derived entirely from the weapons. Because for this theory to be true based upon observable facts, either WSL would have had to start without a empty hand base system, or ALL versions of Wing Chun would need to be observed to have that same version of LDBK and to have empty hand methods that tracked very closely with the pole!

Now I'm sure LFJ will have plenty of things to repeat over and over again. But I challenge anyone to deny the logic that I have put forth above and tell me where it is wrong! And simply stating "wrong" is not enough!



Now to continue to show how deriving interesting theories from limited observations can lead to fun stuff, I offer a new theory below that also takes into account the observable facts noted above!

This theory is that WSL learned this older version of LDBK from Ip Man or even someone else (it doesn't really matter). He also learned the knives very thoroughly. Based upon his in-depth knowledge of both the pole and the knives he set out to refine and adapt the empty hand VT he had learned from Ip Man. This resulted in a version of VT very focused on the punch and on using each arm as if it was a "pole" to close in as quickly and directly as possible. This theory explains why:

1. WSLVT is different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that are currently in existence.
2. WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun
3. None of Ip Man's other close long-term students do Wing Chun like WSL and have this same understanding of empty hand and pole methods.

All of this matches "observable facts"!!!

 

[Juany118]

Nothing fatal about it. I never argued there should be a pre-existing base style. It could have been pre-existing, or a hybridization, or a couple of other options. And I'm not sure where you'd expect to find evidence of it if it evolved into the WC we know now. Even if it were borrowed wholly from another style, there's a chance the style either ceased to exist, or has evolved on a different path. This makes it difficult to establish further evidence, but is not fatal. Nobody has asserted that the empty hand was necessarily borrowed without significant alteration (as seems to be the case with the pole form), so I'm not sure what you're expecting to see that would be readily recognizable.


Wrong.

I don't think anyone argued there is a pre-existing base style. It seems LFJ did regarding the pole, but not anyone else I can see. I think @geezer has the right of it when he used the Esperanto. I think another analogy is dogs, as odd as that sounds, but hear me out.

Modern "working" dog breeds are not the product of natural evolution. They are the product of purposely breeding, over long periods of time (combining) different canines (styles of Kung Fu) due to specific traits they possessed (techniques) for a specific purpose (underlying strategic concept). Lets look at herding dogs. You have powerful herding dogs like the Norweigian Elk Hound

and then herding dogs like... the Corgi?!?!?!

Yes the Corgi.

The Norwegian Elk Hound herds (fights), using size and strength. The Corgi is actually related to the Elk Hound (it is descended from northern Spitz type dogs, which also includes the Siberian Husky) BUT it is half the size. It herds (fights) using a completely different strategy. Instead of size and strength it uses smaller height to nip at the heels of the animals it herds and the shorter size also allows it to not only avoid being kicked but to run under the animals it herds so it can more quickly get to strays on the other side of the herd.

Now with those different strategies one would assume they are from entirely separate lines but they aren't. Through the breeding process you end up to with two animals, performing the same function, using completely different strategies. At some point someone had to look at a short legged dog that might be good for hunting varmints and said "hey it might sound crazy to use that dog for herding but if we combine that trait with the thick boned and well muscled nature of that big herding dog over there, it will work with this strategy." Two different dogs, with certain shared genetic elements, performing the same function but with very different strategies. Neither is totally unique or Ex nihilo nihil fit as @geezer said.

 

[Juany118]

And you don't have any evidence that other versions of Wing Chun track so well with the pole method or endorse this theory. Therefore it cannot be viable as an origin theory for Wing Chun in general.

And likewise there is not even any evidence that Ip Man believed or taught this theory. Or even that WSL taught it! For all we know they might have agreed with the rest of us that such close correlations exist between the pole and empty hand because the empty hand method continued to evolve (even in Ip Man's and Wong Shun Leung's time) with the weapons in mind.

In fact, for all we know WSL may have spent a considerable amount of effort and genius to reorganize and reinterpret what Ip Man taught him to such an extent that HE aligned it so well with the weapons and refined it so well that everyone else's Wing Chun looks "broken" in comparison. And you don't have any evidence to the contrary!

So if you want to talk about showing a chain of evidence to make a theory viable....you can't even start that with Ip Man and Wong Shun Leung!!!

Well your idea he may have changed it (hard to tell because I do not know it) is not completely unreasonable. There are some differences between WSLVT wooden dummy and the other YM branches. At least according to the video I linked in another thread this was done purposefully by WSL based on his experiences in the many challenge matches he participated in. If he refined one section based on his practical experiences it is not unreasonable to at least suspect he refined other sections for similar reasons.