Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

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"!!!

Regarding point #1, and this is important, the LDBK predates YMVT, not Wing Chun collectively. LFJ clearly stated he was speaking to YMVT only. This is important for a couple reasons.

1. It verifies Yip Man did not create his pole set. The HSHK 6 1/2 Point pole, as evidenced in the 1949 video, clearly shows the exact same form as in YMVT.

2. The principles, concepts & theory match YMVT empty hand method seamlessly.

How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.

This doesn't apply to mainland Wing Chun because they are clearly different in many aspects from YMVT. This by no means lends credence to the pole being the foundation of Wing Chun collectively, but to YMVT specifically. I see it as the pole being the constant that was the inspiration to consolidate and organize the methodology, theory & principles of YMVT into what it is today.

LFJ is correct when he states that YMVT is unique in the world of Wing Chun. I perceive this to be due to the pole work, it makes sense. Now this is how I see it, LFJ may not agree & view it differently, in that case, others have a valid argument to the validity of the theory/claim. I don't want to speak for LFJ, so I'll let him validate my assumption or outright dismiss.

 

[Juany118]

Regarding point #1, and this is important, the LDBK predates YMVT, not Wing Chun collectively. LFJ clearly stated he was speaking to YMVT only. This is important for a couple reasons.

1. It verifies Yip Man did not create his pole set. The HSHK 6 1/2 Point pole, as evidenced in the 1949 video, clearly shows the exact same form as in YMVT.

2. The principles, concepts & theory match YMVT empty hand method seamlessly.

How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.

This doesn't apply to mainland Wing Chun because they are clearly different in many aspects from YMVT. This by no means lends credence to the pole being the foundation of Wing Chun collectively, but to YMVT specifically. I see it as the pole being the constant that was the inspiration to consolidate and organize the methodology, theory & principles of YMVT into what it is today.

LFJ is correct when he states that YMVT is unique in the world of Wing Chun. I perceive this to be due to the pole work, it makes sense. Now this is how I see it, LFJ may not agree & view it differently, in that case, others have a valid argument to the validity of the theory/claim. I don't want to speak for LFJ, so I'll let him validate my assumption or outright dismiss.

But here is the issue. The other YMVT lineages say that the dragon pole serves the empty hand. It is not there to serve as a weapon, rather it severs the purpose of reinforcement of structure and the promotion of structural power due to its weight and length which provides resistance to all of the points on the body that are used to generate power.

So it is equally plausible that the pole techniques included were chosen because it complimented the existing empty hand, which was seen as the focus of the art. In short, correlation (that both mesh so seemlessly) does not = causation (pole came first). Especially since regardless of the difference between Main Land and YMVT, the Main Land Style is the foundation for what YM taught.

Then you still have the hobgoblin of "weapons first" being the initial premise (the focus on the pole came after) where is the origin of the BJD method?

Regardless the question is still, at best when it comes to trying to argue "pole first" chicken and the egg because while WSLVT may say that, to my knowledge the remaining Ips and other first generation students don't say that but rather some form of what I noted above. Those who study under one of the other sub-lineages can correct me if I am wrong however.

 

[Nobody Important]

But here is the issue. The other YMVT lineages say that the dragon pole serves the empty hand. It is not there to serve as a weapon, rather it severs the purpose of reinforcement of structure and the promotion of structural power due to its weight and length which provides resistance to all of the points on the body that are used to generate power.

So it is equally plausible that the pole techniques included were chosen because it complimented the existing empty hand, which was seen as the focus of the art. In short, correlation (that both mesh so seemlessly) does not = causation (pole came first). Especially since regardless of the difference between Main Land and YMVT, the Main Land Style is the foundation for what YM taught.

Then you still have the hobgoblin of "weapons first" being the initial premise (the focus on the pole came after) where is the origin of the BJD method?

Regardless the question is still, at best when it comes to trying to argue "pole first" chicken and the egg because while WSLVT may say that, to my knowledge the remaining Ips and other first generation students don't say that but rather some form of what I noted above. Those who study under one of the other sub-lineages can correct me if I am wrong however.

We also have these facts:

1. The Dragon Pole is relatively new conceptually, the original LDBK was not the albatross it is today. Training was shifted to mimic Bagua Zhang training of heavy weaponry for purposes differing from the original intentions of the weapon.

2. Yip Man did not teach everyone the same, this has been proven. Many filled gaps to augment, misinterpretation of what was taught by him is plausible.

3. The theory does not extend to Wing Chun collectively, nor is it suggesting that the pole existed before Wing Chun empty hand as a collective. It merely suggests that the pole existed prior to the formulation of YMVT.

That a Wing Chun empty hand method wasn't responsible for Yip Man's interpretation of Wing Chun but the pole actually was. The premise is that there are too many different interpretations of the empty hand method for this to be plausible. The pole method is consistent across various branches of Wing Chun and even different styles, like Hung Gar.

Does this make sense?

 

[KPM]

How this occurs is speculative, but this we know, after Yip Man studied under Leung Bik (Fung Wah) his Wing Chun was said to be different than what he learned from Chan Wah Shun & Ng Chung So. It's quite plausible that the hand method was confirmed to fit with the methodology of the pole, as its methodology is a constant as evidenced by intact inclusion in a different system. Hence, hands coming from pole.

.

But you are (correctly) stating that Ip Man had a base empty hand method which he modified. LFJ has said the empty hands derived entirely from the weapons and has discounted the idea of any base empty hand method existing.

The other problem is that Ip Man studying under Leung Bik/Fung Wah is not an "observable fact" and has not been established as true. Oral histories are simply "fairytales" and should be discounted....remember?

The third problem is that it would appear that Ip Man then taught this ONLY to WSL. Which just seems implausible and smacks of William Cheung's past Leung Bik story.

 

[Nobody Important]

But you are (correctly) stating that Ip Man had a base empty hand method which he modified. LFJ has said the empty hands derived entirely from the weapons.

If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved. This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work, which has been shown to have been passed on unmodified, unlike the hand method. Pole work has been a constant where as the hand work has not, hence, if this is the scenario, YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.

That being said, here is another question mark. If above said is true, then there is another issue. When the pole was taught to Wong Wa Bo, it's said he modified it to confirm with Wing Chun empty hand mechanics, principles, theory and methodology. Hence pole being modified to conform to hand. So back to chicken or egg.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We also have these facts:

1. The Dragon Pole is relatively new conceptually, the original LDBK was not the albatross it is today. Training was shifted to mimic Bagua Zhang training of heavy weaponry for purposes differing from the original intentions of the weapon.

2. Yip Man did not teach everyone the same, this has been proven. Many filled gaps to augment, misinterpretation of what was taught by him is plausible.

3. The theory does not extend to Wing Chun collectively, nor is it suggesting that the pole existed before Wing Chun empty hand as a collective. It merely suggests that the pole existed prior to the formulation of YMVT.

That a Wing Chun empty hand method wasn't responsible for Yip Man's interpretation of Wing Chun but the pole actually was. The premise is that there are too many different interpretations of the empty hand method for this to be plausible. The pole method is consistent across various branches of Wing Chun and even different styles, like Hung Gar.

Does this make sense?

So, in this line of logic, mainland WC essentially becomes the "proto-WC" that LFJ has been referring to? I hadn't considered that, though now that I think of it, there were posts early in the thread that would lead that way.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved. This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work, which has been shown to have been passed on unmodified, unlike the hand method. Pole work has been a constant where as the hand work has not, hence, if this is the scenario, YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.

That being said, here is another question mark. If above said is true, then there is another issue. When the pole was taught to Wong Wa Bo, it's said he modified it to confirm with Wing Chun mechanics, principles, theory and methodology. Hence pole being modified to conform to hand. So back to chicken or egg.

Okay, being new to the world of WC discussions, I'm getting lost in the names here. If Yip Man learned a new empty-hand method (as well as pole) from Leung Bik, would that still be WC (as recognized by WC folks at the time)? Or are we talking about an entirely different genesis that took on the WC name?

 

[Nobody Important]

I can't speak for others concerning the validity of oral legends. I take them with a grain of salt & if they offer plausible information I won't discount it as a fairy tale. I believe my assessment offers plausible reasoning as to how YMVT hand work is based upon the pole while still maintaining the integrity of older Wing Chun methods. It's the only scenario that makes sense to me and validates both arguments for and against the theory. How LFJ feels about this IDK, he may agree he may not, but with everything presented from both sides this is the conclusion I have come to & makes the most logical sense to me.

 

[Nobody Important]

Okay, being new to the world of WC discussions, I'm getting lost in the names here. If Yip Man learned a new empty-hand method (as well as pole) from Leung Bik, would that still be WC (as recognized by WC folks at the time)? Or are we talking about an entirely different genesis that took on the WC name?

It would simply be one variation of the many that exist. Wing Chun is not standardized and many valid versions of it exist, each rooted in a prototypical ancestral method, yet each also has evolved to emphasize aspects unique from each other.

Some may say that YMVT is the only real Wing Chun while all others branches are in reality something different and being only linked via a long removed common ancestry.

I do not feel this way.

It's because of this reasoning we have all this discontent within Wing Chun.

 

[Juany118]

We also have these facts:

1. The Dragon Pole is relatively new conceptually, the original LDBK was not the albatross it is today. Training was shifted to mimic Bagua Zhang training of heavy weaponry for purposes differing from the original intentions of the weapon.

2. Yip Man did not teach everyone the same, this has been proven. Many filled gaps to augment, misinterpretation of what was taught by him is plausible.

3. The theory does not extend to Wing Chun collectively, nor is it suggesting that the pole existed before Wing Chun empty hand as a collective. It merely suggests that the pole existed prior to the formulation of YMVT.

That a Wing Chun empty hand method wasn't responsible for Yip Man's interpretation of Wing Chun but the pole actually was. The premise is that there are too many different interpretations of the empty hand method for this to be plausible. The pole method is consistent across various branches of Wing Chun and even different styles, like Hung Gar.

Does this make sense?

Yes but I don't think that it says "weapons first." Admittedly I base it partly on this video I found, which you may have missed since you first came back...
An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong

So, apparently, WSL stated the following. YM never intended on teaching. He did what we all do, learned the art and then made it his own. However on finding himself doing what he never planned, teaching, he had to remember and likely, when he could not remember, fill in gaps and then refining it all, a refinement he never stopped doing until he stopped teaching.

So if he first learned main land WC and YMVT is essentially a product of him having to reinvent his past, it is as likely, at least imo, that the reason why everything meshes so well is not that the pole came first, rather it was a natural consequence of the reinvention. Our brains naturally like consistency and if we are doing what YM did it is at least equally possible that the meshing is a consequence of this reinvention.

 

[Nobody Important]

Yes but I don't think that it says "weapons first." Admittedly I base it partly on this video I found, which you may have missed since you first came back...
An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong

So, apparently, WSL stated the following. YM never intended on teaching. He did what we all do, learned the art and then made it his own. However on finding himself doing what he never planned, teaching, he had to remember and likely, when he could not remember, fill in gaps and then refining it all, a refinement he never stopped doing until he stopped teaching.

So if he first learned main land WC and YMVT is essentially a product of him having to reinvent his past, it is as likely, at least imo, that the reason why everything meshes so well is not that the pole came first, rather it was a natural consequence of the reinvention. Our brains naturally like consistency and if we are doing what YM did it is at least equally possible that the meshing is a consequence of this reinvention.

Not necessarily, I see your point but....

If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.

It doesn't have to do with weapons first. This I explained in my previous posts. The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands. This means that over the course of time the pole has been the only known verifiable method that retained the original principles, theory, mechanics & methodology of the empty hand style passed on by the opera performers.

Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles. The same cannot be said of the hand method, so it cannot be used to validate the original principles, mechanics, theory and methodology of Wing Chun collectively. The pole can.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It would simply be one variation of the many that exist. Wing Chun is not standardized and many valid versions of it exist, each rooted in a prototypical ancestral method, yet each also has evolved to emphasize aspects unique from each other.

Some may say that YMVT is the only real Wing Chun while all others branches are in reality something different and being only linked via a long removed common ancestry.

I do not feel this way.

It's because of this reasoning we have all this discontent within Wing Chun.

Ah! That makes sense. So, correct me if I'm off on this - I'm not very familiar with CMA culture. It sounds like "Wing Chun" (and the linguistic variations) would actually be a related family of arts in the JMA world. They have some common roots, but aren't really all the same thing. Is that a fair understanding?

 

[Nobody Important]

Just for the record my views are based upon my own conclusions and are in no way a reflection on what LFJ may or may not believe. I formulated my opinion from my perspective as extrapolated from the discussion. What LFJ believes I will let him explain. Whether or not there is agreement I cannot say. My explanation is what I found to be the most logical scenario.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ah! That makes sense. So, correct me if I'm off on this - I'm not very familiar with CMA culture. It sounds like "Wing Chun" (and the linguistic variations) would actually be a related family of arts in the JMA world. They have some common roots, but aren't really all the same thing. Is that a fair understanding?

Yes much like the relationship between Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Tang Soo Do & Tae Kwon Do. All have a common ancestor (Okinawa Te of Shuri region), yet were evolved via different influences such as jujitsu, taekyon etc.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes much like the relationship between Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Tang Soo Do & Tae Kwon Do. All have a common ancestor (Okinawa Te of Shuri region), yet were evolved via different influences such as jujitsu, taekyon etc.

Thanks! That clears up a bit how I view these discussions.

 

[Juany118]

Not necessarily, I see your point but....

If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.

It doesn't have to do with weapons first. This I explained in my previous posts. The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands. This means that over the course of time the pole has been the only known verifiable method that retained the original principles, theory, mechanics & methodology of the empty hand style passed on by the opera performers.

Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles. The same cannot be said of the hand method, so it cannot be used to validate the original principles, mechanics, theory and methodology of Wing Chun collectively. The pole can.

Okay I see that as a possibility, but then again at best, the art doesn't start with the pole or weapons, the pole is the test that allows you to say "this is still WC" because there is another reason why the pole may remain and the hand change.

History teacher incoming!!!!!

Look at the time frames. WC, where and when we can prove it historically existed was during a period when using a pole, even swords, was not really "a thing." If you fought, without gunpowder, regularly you fought empty hand. So does it not make sense people keep tweeking the empty hand portions, since that is what would be put in practice (even in Hong Kong Challenge fights) and the pole, which doesn't see real use remains static, but the changes in the empty hand still rotate around it to maintain consistency. When evolution happens it is in regards to outside forces. So if you don't fight, your art doesn't change.

Make sense?

 

[Nobody Important]

How I've come to my conclusion is based on the following factors:

1. Lam Guei Chung of HSHK style passed on the LDBK and is a verifiable source independent of main stream Wing Chun lineages. Since his method is exactly the same as found in YMVT, YKSWC & Kulo we can ascertain that the pole method is pure and unchanged, therefore a good representation of what theory, principles, mechanics & methodology were present in "original" Wing Chun.

2. Since the pole method can be verified as being passed on by separate systems and lineages predating and unconnected to Lam Guei Chung, we can surmise he did not develop it. Since he pre-date Yip Man it's safe to assume Yip Man did not develop it.

3. We know that the empty hand method varies greatly across various lineages so it cannot be used to verify what constitutes "original" Wing Chun. The pole remaining unchanged can lend credence to those "original" concepts.

4. The LDBK was based upon the 5th Brother pole method. Since they are not exactly the same, it is fair to assume that the LDBK method was altered.

5. Legend states that the empty hand method existed prior to introduction of the pole. We know it was passed on prior to the emergence of Lam Guei Chung, even he passed on a related empty hand method. Even though Lam Guei Chung is verified as knowing the pole method, this by no means disproves that the empty hand movement came first. Because, according to tradition, Wong Wa Bo upon learning 5th Brother pole from Leung Lan Kwai altered the pole to conform to the empty hand method. This cannot be discounted simply because it cannot be definitively proven, it also cannot be disproved.

6. That leaves us with the pole being the one constant of Wing Chun principles, mechanics, methodology & theory known to be passed on unaltered.

7. Since YMVT has a seamless interconnection with the pole, it's safe to assume that it was, at least re-engineered at some point, prior to Yip Man learning Wing Chun. It doesn't discount that Yip Man could be the one responsible for this, but if we are to believe the stories of him learning from Leung Bik (Fung Wah), it's plausible that he was actually taught this. This is based on his word that he studied under someone other than Chan Wah Shun that had a profound impact on his understanding of Wing Chun. This has also been verified by those that knew him and stated that his Wing Chun changed after learning from Leung Bik (Fung Wah).

8. Thus we can conclude the probability of YMVT empty hand being based upon the pole. Who is responsible for this is conjecture and doesn't discount the empty hand method existing prior to the emergence of the pole. If anything it strengthens the argument that the empty hand method did indeed exist prior to the pole based on verification of the pole not being formally documented until the 1940s. We know conclusively that the Wing Chun empty hand art art is older than the 1940s.

 

[Nobody Important]

Okay I see that as a possibility, but then again at best, the art doesn't start with the pole or weapons

I never said it did, and yes, when testing the empty hand method evolution will occur, thus deviating from the "original" as innovations are instituted. Over time those innovations can replace the "original" methods resulting in "broken" methods (good god, I'm sounding like Guy & LFJ). This is were reverting back to the theory, mechanics, methodology and principles of the pole form can keep your Wing Chun honest. It appears to me this was instilled in YMVT as a stop check by either Yip Man himself or one of his teachers. This doesn't mean that the YMVT method is superior, just consistent. Can others say that their method of Wing Chun has maintained consistency equally through empty hands & weapons as they evolved? I see many that aren't, this doesn't mean I believe them to be ineffective or broken, just not consistent in methodology, mechanics, principle and theory throughout all their material.

 

[KPM]

If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved.

---Yes. But nothing there says that Wing Chun developed entirely based upon the pole and knives. Leung Jan, Fung Wah, they had an empty hand method as well. Leung Jan learned from Wong Wah Bo. Fung Wah learned from Leung Jan. So then who would have created the empty hands entirely from the pole??? You are still stating the theory of the pole being an add on to the system and then the empty hands developing under that influence. We don't know what Ip Man learned from Fung Wah. There is no "observable fact" there to be used in our analysis.


This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work,

---But configured by who? There is no way to know. So just speculation. All we know as a fact is that WSLVT empty hand tracks closely with the pole. No other version of Wing Chun does the same. That is the "observable fact." So, using Occams' Razor, the simplest explanation is that WSL is the one that "configured" the empty hands to match the pole as I stated previously.


YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.

----Based on the "observable facts", all we can really say is that WSLVT was based upon the pole. Anything else is just speculation.


If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.

---Except that the only student he produced to support this idea is Wong Shun Leung. None of his other close long-term students seem to have this "cohesive and superior method based on the pole." So if Ip Man was the one developing it over his teaching career, why would only one of his students have it? Again, the simplest explanation based upon the "observable facts" that we have is that WSL was the one that developed this "cohesive and superior" version of VT that was based on the pole. Given that NO other Wing Chun teacher taught this. That is the only sensible conclusion based on the facts as we have them.


The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands.

---But now you are saying the pole was based on the empty hand! What happened to the idea of that LDBK form being older than the empty hands?? That was logged as one of our "observable facts"!



Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles.

---But how is the pole going to identify "proto-Wing Chun"? The only Wing Chun system that is consistent across the board with the pole is WSLVT. That was another of our "identifiable facts." No other system of Wing Chun correlates closely with the pole.

---I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just resorting to exactly the same kind of reasoning that LFJ has been using. We have to go only by the "observable facts" to reach our conclusions, otherwise we are just speculating. Oral histories are just "fairytales." And as I laid it out above, from the "observable facts" that we have, the most rational and simple conclusion is that it was Wong Shun Leung that refined and configured what he learned from Ip Man to match so closely with the pole method. If there was ANY other system of Wing Chun that had the same LDBK form and also matched so closely in empty hands and weapons then we could broaden the conclusion somewhat. But the fact is that no one knows of such a system other than WSLVT. We can't attribute it to Ip Man himself, because we don't have a record of exactly what Ip Man taught or believed other than looking at his direct students. And none of his direct students teach what WSL taught. Therefore, based solidly on the "observable facts", the only real conclusion we can reach is that it originated with WSL himself!!!

 

[Nobody Important]

If the empty hand method was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik (Fung Wah) as being based upon the pole, it holds true. It means Yip Man didn't modify ( this also leaves room for personal refinement), but actually learned a method someone else, perhaps Leung Bik or Leung Jan evolved.

---Yes. But nothing there says that Wing Chun developed entirely based upon the pole and knives. Leung Jan, Fung Wah, they had an empty hand method as well. Leung Jan learned from Wong Wah Bo. Fung Wah learned from Leung Jan. So then who would have created the empty hands entirely from the pole??? You are still stating the theory of the pole being an add on to the system and then the empty hands developing under that influence. We don't know what Ip Man learned from Fung Wah. There is no "observable fact" there to be used in our analysis.


This doesn't mean that the hands came from the pole necessarily where ancestral Wing Chun is concerned, it means the method Yip Man was taught and passed on was configured from the pole work,

---But configured by who? There is no way to know. So just speculation. All we know as a fact is that WSLVT empty hand tracks closely with the pole. No other version of Wing Chun does the same. That is the "observable fact." So, using Occams' Razor, the simplest explanation is that WSL is the one that "configured" the empty hands to match the pole as I stated previously.


YMVT could have been based upon the pole to maintain purity of Wing Chun principles, theory & methodology.

----Based on the "observable facts", all we can really say is that WSLVT was based upon the pole. Anything else is just speculation.


If we go under the premise that Yip Man did actually study under 2 different masters of the same system it's only logical to assume he would combine like elements during his refinement period instead of outright creating. This would account for variations in his teaching as he tried to consolidate the material. Any good teacher will tell you that in the course of teaching others self discovery and connections are made, students pose questions that require analysis, A-ha! moments occur also when teaching that help make connections. If this was done using the method he felt more cohesive and superior (method based on pole) I don't see the conflict, and it actually makes sense.

---Except that the only student he produced to support this idea is Wong Shun Leung. None of his other close long-term students seem to have this "cohesive and superior method based on the pole." So if Ip Man was the one developing it over his teaching career, why would only one of his students have it? Again, the simplest explanation based upon the "observable facts" that we have is that WSL was the one that developed this "cohesive and superior" version of VT that was based on the pole. Given that NO other Wing Chun teacher taught this. That is the only sensible conclusion based on the facts as we have them.


The LDBK since its creation has remained consistent across lines where as the hands have not. Because of this the pole method was used as a litmus to ensure the hand method remained pure (prototypically speaking), because the pole as developed by Wong Wa Bo was based on the methodology of the hands.

---But now you are saying the pole was based on the empty hand! What happened to the idea of that LDBK form being older than the empty hands?? That was logged as one of our "observable facts"!



Is it making sense now? Proto-Wing Chun can at this point can only be verified via the pole, because it is the only aspect of the art to remain unchanged across lines & styles.

---But how is the pole going to identify "proto-Wing Chun"? The only Wing Chun system that is consistent across the board with the pole is WSLVT. That was another of our "identifiable facts." No other system of Wing Chun correlates closely with the pole.

---I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just resorting to exactly the same kind of reasoning that LFJ has been using. We have to go only by the "observable facts" to reach our conclusions, otherwise we are just speculating. Oral histories are just "fairytales." And as I laid it out above, from the "observable facts" that we have, the most rational and simple conclusion is that it was Wong Shun Leung that refined and configured what he learned from Ip Man to match so closely with the pole method. If there was ANY other system of Wing Chun that had the same LDBK form and also matched so closely in empty hands and weapons then we could broaden the conclusion somewhat. But the fact is that no one knows of such a system other than WSLVT. We can't attribute it to Ip Man himself, because we don't have a record of exactly what Ip Man taught or believed other than looking at his direct students. And none of his direct students teach what WSL taught. Therefore, based solidly on the "observable facts", the only real conclusion we can reach is that it originated with WSL himself!!!

I'm not basing my assessment on LFJs reasoning. Concerning the theory of YMVT being based on the pole, I have stated multiple times that the hands came first. That LDBK was based on 5th Brother pole, a method that predates Wing Chun. I have stated numerous times that the creation of LDBK was the result of distillation of the 5th Brother pole as based on Wing Chun hand movements. We also have to take into account that LFJ believes YMVT is a separate art loosely related to other Wing Chun styles by ancestry only, so the verdict isn't applicable to the Wing Chun community collectively. As I stated previously, some believe that the only true Wing Chun method is YMVT. See my response to gpseymour concerning Shotokan, Wado etc. for clarification. We have concluded that Yip Man did not create the pole form, so the methodology existed prior to him. It's true that its speculation as to who merged the two methods, it could be Yip Man, his teacher or Wong Shun Leung. But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic. Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen. Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole. To me it makes sense and personally I don't see the aversion to it, simply because other YM students don't agree with it. It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM. This doesn't mean that what they learned is illegitimate, it could simply mean what he taught most students came from Chan Wah Shun & he only taught a few what he learned from Leung Bik. It's not my lineage so I don't know, I'm just calling it as I see it from my perspective. To boil it all down it goes like this:

Hands influence pole, pole influences hands.

I believe at some point someone thought this to be significant in keeping the "original" methods, principles, theory and mechanics of Wing Chun pure by incorporating a method into the art as a means to self regulate. In this case the pole was used because it has not been altered over time like the hands.

In a round about way it's a symbiotic relationship, hand - weapon, weapon - hand. Neither is mutually exclusive of the other. The weapon is nothing more than an extension of the hand. If we want to argue semantics, the real root of Wing Chun is the thought that led to its creation. An intangible idea given life to make it tangible. So the hands & weapons of Wing Chun were actually born of thought. So the brain of a Chinese man or woman long dead is actually what it's all based on