Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I like the chain of logic in this analysis. Isn't it also possible that the "original" wasn't completely integrated with the pole form, and that integration is part of the evolution? Thus, the most integrated need not be the truest to the original - it may simply be the best evolution.

 

[Juany118]

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.

My apologies for misinterpreting your stance then. I will totally accept that via YM's reinvention the pole can be said to have become a "Pole Star" (no pun intended.) I am just trying to explain that a pivot point (which is ultimately what a pole star is) doesn't equal a point of origin.

 

[Nobody Important]

I like the chain of logic in this analysis. Isn't it also possible that the "original" wasn't completely integrated with the pole form, and that integration is part of the evolution? Thus, the most integrated need not be the truest to the original - it may simply be the best evolution.

Absolutely! As I mentioned several pages back the LDBK pole does not contain all the theory, principles, mechanics or methods of Wing Chun. There are only those 7 salient points. Yet, because it has remained unchanged, we know that those 7 points came from the source of all Wing Chun and can be validated as original. Unfortunately, those points outside of the pole found in the hand method cannot be validated.

To me this isn't a big deal. I find the correlation a brilliant means to better understand and correct any contradictions from weapons to hand. So why not use it to better ones understanding and practice.

I would suggest if anyone has issue with the hypothesis that they take it up with LFJ. I'm am not speaking for him or defending his position. He could very well disagree with my conclusions. As previously stated I came to my opinion through deduction, logic, and assumption, to include, oral accounts and verified historical information. LFJ's interpretation could differ wildly and be contradictory, but from what I deduce I can't find good reason to dismiss my conclusion.

 

[Nobody Important]

My apologies for misinterpreting your stance then. I will totally accept that via YM's reinvention the pole can be said to have become a "Pole Star" (no pun intended.) I am just trying to explain that a pivot point (which is ultimately what a pole star is) doesn't equal a point of origin.

No problem, I evaluated both sides of the argument in forming my opinion. There are holes as I pointed out several pages ago. If any one of those "what if" factors is validated it seriously changes the dynamic of the hypothesis.

 

[KPM]

But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic.

---Oh, I agree! A much more "satisfying" theory than LFJ's! But filled with lots of speculation. I don't see a problem with that, and I like your theory. But if we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the evidence doesn't support it. If we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the most rational conclusion is that WSL is the most likely source of WSLVT! Wouldn't you agree?

Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen.

---Oh, it doesn't and I am certain LFJ will take issue with your theory and conclusions! ;-)

Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole.

---I've already pointed out the logic in WSLVT being based upon the pole. Logic...again, based on the actual available evidence...cannot connect YM to the process because WSL is the only YM student in which the product is seen.

It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM.

----No. It is widely STATED that only 2 or 3 learned the entire system from YM, and actually certain people have concluded that on ONE person learned the entire system from YM. But this is oral history and can be dismissed. It has been stated, but not proven since we really don't know what Ip Man actually knew or what his Wing Chun really was like. We can only go by what his direct students are teaching. And since most of them are very similar, and WSLVT seems to be an outlier when looking at all students of Ip Man.....what is the next logical conclusion? It can only be that WSL himself is the source of the differences we see between WSLVT and all other forms of Wing Chun, including other forms of Ip Man Wing Chun!


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.

---But we have no idea what he learned from Leung Bik/Fung Wah. Again, good theory and I like it. But if we leave out speculation and oral history and go only by what we can observe, I think there really is only one reasonable and valid conclusion. Since there is no evidence to disprove that conclusion, and also no evidence to prove an alternate conclusion..........I will have to stubbornly and dogmatically stick to that conclusion just as LFJ has stuck to his! I think it is really the only logical choice when you leave out any speculation or oral history.

 

[Nobody Important]

But I think I've laid out a pretty good argument how it could have occurred based on oral history, verified information and logic.

---Oh, I agree! A much more "satisfying" theory than LFJ's! But filled with lots of speculation. I don't see a problem with that, and I like your theory. But if we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the evidence doesn't support it. If we are going to be as rational as possible (as LFJ seemed to demand), then the most rational conclusion is that WSL is the most likely source of WSLVT! Wouldn't you agree?

Whether this coincides with LFJ's assertions is yet to be seen.

---Oh, it doesn't and I am certain LFJ will take issue with your theory and conclusions! ;-)

Logically I can't see it any other way if YMVT is indeed based upon the pole.

---I've already pointed out the logic in WSLVT being based upon the pole. Logic...again, based on the actual available evidence...cannot connect YM to the process because WSL is the only YM student in which the product is seen.

It is widely known that very few (2-3) individual learned the entirety of the system from YM.

----No. It is widely STATED that only 2 or 3 learned the entire system from YM, and actually certain people have concluded that on ONE person learned the entire system from YM. But this is oral history and can be dismissed. It has been stated, but not proven since we really don't know what Ip Man actually knew or what his Wing Chun really was like. We can only go by what his direct students are teaching. And since most of them are very similar, and WSLVT seems to be an outlier when looking at all students of Ip Man.....what is the next logical conclusion? It can only be that WSL himself is the source of the differences we see between WSLVT and all other forms of Wing Chun, including other forms of Ip Man Wing Chun!


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.

---But we have no idea what he learned from Leung Bik/Fung Wah. Again, good theory and I like it. But if we leave out speculation and oral history and go only by what we can observe, I think there really is only one reasonable and valid conclusion. Since there is no evidence to disprove that conclusion, and also no evidence to prove an alternate conclusion..........I will have to stubbornly and dogmatically stick to that conclusion just as LFJ has stuck to his! I think it is really the only logical choice when you leave out any speculation or oral history.

Absolutely nothing from either side can definitively be verified, it's all speculation & conjecture. It's a matter of possibility & plausibility that led me to my assumptions. As I mentioned in my response to Juany there are holes, and if any of these holes is validated then the entire thing is turned upside down. For instance, if it could be proven than Lam Guei Chung or Lam Sai Wing were responsible for the choreography of their LDBK in Hung Gar, then many Wing Chun people have some serious explaining to do. There is also the matter of Choy Fung Loong who was a disciple of Wong Fei Hung (Hung Gar) & Chan Wah Shun (Wing Chun). He could be the source of the LDBK in Hung Gar or Wing Chun, if true, no matter how you spin it one side loses face and has to explain themselves. Innovations by Wong Shun Leung can't be ruled out, neither can those made by Yip Man, it all is contingent on whether or not you can believe what they say about their training. For this you cannot dismiss oral history that doesn't support your narrative. Possibility & plausibility is really all we have and anyone suggesting that this hypothesis of pole leading to development of hands can be substantiated credibly is misguided. I think I've laid out the best case scenario of plausibility that anyone can get to with the available information. Agree or disagree it is what it is, speculation & conjecture.

This has been a fun discussion, meaningless but fun.

 

[Nobody Important]

Here's an interesting tidbit to contemplate that lends credence to the empty hand method of a system transforming a weapon routine.

The Fu Mei Dan Do sword set. It's a famous set that has many alternate names and can be found in many different systems such as Northern Mantis, Hung Gar, Tibetan White Crane, Jow Gar etc. In each case the weapon has taken on the characteristics of the system it was absorbed into. This can be seen by searching on YouTube to see the differences.

I propose that if this overwriting occurred during the formulation and codification of a system that it's quite possible for it to have become set in stone after alteration. So that if later emphasis was to be placed on empty hands and weapons neglected, the empty hands would evolve quicker than the weapon. Over time this would leave the weapon method holding the original essence of the system that transformed it while the hands became more specialized and the weapon left in a neglected state of update and inconsistent with the empty hand method. For someone wanting to recapture the essence of the empty hand system before it was altered, they would then only have to look to the weapon to see the divergence and eliminate any inconsistencies. In a sense, reverse engineering that would lend credence to the weapon forming the hands.

This wouldn't be all inclusive, but would be a valid starting point if there was a marked difference in consistency between the two and it was verified the the weapon was not altered when the hands were. Probability for this to occur is low but it is plausible.

There are stories of some empty hand Kata of Okinawa actually being based on weapons use, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu as well. The Lin Wan Kou Da San Sik of my lineage is practiced empty handed, with pole & knives without alteration in movement, so it is possible. This doesn't address what came first, weapon or hand, but through it we can see that each has the capability to influence the other. And this still doesn't clear up or validate YMVT being designed on pole work but it is an intriguing hypothesis into how it could have occurred if, in fact, true.

My head hurts now, lol, so I'll let someone else pontificate this conundrum.

 

[Juany118]

Here's an interesting tidbit to contemplate that lends credence to the empty hand method of a system transforming a weapon routine.

The Fu Mei Dan Do sword set. It's a famous set that has many alternate names and can be found in many different systems such as Northern Mantis, Hung Gar, Tibetan White Crane, Jow Gar etc. In each case the weapon has taken on the characteristics of the system it was absorbed into. This can be seen by searching on YouTube to see the differences.

I propose that if this overwriting occurred during the formulation and codification of a system that it's quite possible for it to have become set in stone after alteration. So that if later emphasis was to be placed on empty hands and weapons neglected, the empty hands would evolve quicker than the weapon. Over time this would leave the weapon method holding the original essence of the system that transformed it while the hands became more specialized and the weapon left in a neglected state of update and inconsistent with the empty hand method. For someone wanting to recapture the essence of the empty hand system before it was altered, they would then only have to look to the weapon to see the divergence and eliminate any inconsistencies. In a sense, reverse engineering that would lend credence to the weapon forming the hands.

This wouldn't be all inclusive, but would be a valid starting point if there was a marked difference in consistency between the two and it was verified the the weapon was not altered when the hands were. Probability for this to occur is low but it is plausible.

There are stories of some empty hand Kata of Okinawa actually being based on weapons use, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu as well. The Lin Wan Kou Da San Sik of my lineage is practiced empty handed, with pole & knives without alteration in movement, so it is possible. This doesn't address what came first, weapon or hand, but through it we can see that each has the capability to influence the other. And this still doesn't clear up or validate YMVT being designed on pole work but it is an intriguing hypothesis into how it could have occurred if, in fact, true.

My head hurts now, lol, so I'll let someone else pontificate this conundrum.

This kind of thought is what prompted my thread here...Am I missing historical research?

I will be honest, at heart I love history at least as much (if not more) than I love being a LEO. So the fact I see multiple people using reputable methods to dive into the origins of FMA but not CMA has me frustrated and makes my head hurt. Perhaps only half as much as your's however since I study under both umbrellas and one of them has the serious scholarship happening.

 

[Nobody Important]

This kind of thought is what prompted my thread here...Am I missing historical research?

I will be honest, at heart I love history at least as much (if not more) than I love being a LEO. So the fact I see multiple people using reputable methods to dive into the origins of FMA but not CMA has me frustrated and makes my head hurt. Perhaps only half as much as your's however since I study under both umbrellas and one of them has the serious scholarship happening.

Sometimes the best we can do is accept the most plausible scenario that supports our belief until something better and even more plausible comes along. Unfortunately, with most TCMA history this is the best we've got.

 

[Juany118]

Sometimes the best we can do is accept the most plausible scenario that supports our belief until something better and even more plausible comes along. Unfortunately, with most TCMA history this is the best we've got.

The problem is, to my "android" brain (not my description, my wife's, yes she is a saint) when it comes to TCMA there is no single "more plausible" scenario. There are at least two that are equally so. So much can be boiled down to "chicken or the egg" like logic. That both thrills and drives me nuts. It thrills me because I love intelligent and informed debates. It drives me nuts because my "android" nature is always in search of something resembling definitive conclusions. Such is life I suppose.

 

[Nobody Important]

The problem is, to my "android" brain (not my description, my wife's, yes she is a saint) when it comes to TCMA there is no single "more plausible" scenario. There are at least two that are equally so. So much can be boiled down to "chicken or the egg" like logic. That both thrills and drives me nuts. It thrills me because I love intelligent and informed debates. It drives me nuts because my "android" nature is always in search of something resembling definitive conclusions. Such is life I suppose.

There are no absolutes in TCMA, young padawan. Absolutes are the way of the Sith.

 

[Juany118]

There are no absolutes in TCMA, young padawan. Absolutes are the way of the Sith.

Luckily I know that, so you don't have to cut my legs off and watch me slide into lava.

 

[Nobody Important]

Luckily I know that, so you don't have to cut my legs off and watch me slide into lava.

I like to do stuff like that though. Why would you deny me that pleasure? Seems pretty selfish to deny a man something that makes him happy

 

[Juany118]

I like to do stuff like that though. Why would you deny me that pleasure? Seems pretty selfish to deny a man something that makes him happy

and you wanted to say "absolutes" were Sith like... oh brother

 

[Nobody Important]

and you wanted to say "absolutes" were Sith like... oh brother

I never said I was perfect, lol!

 

[LFJ]

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.

You have not demonstrated that it "could have" been anything.

There are no discernible remnants of anything unrelated to the weapons in YMVT.

Nothing to point to and suggest "could have" come from another source than the weapons, and no alternative source to point to as the "could have been" that we can investigate.

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.

This makes it entirely indistinguishable from there having been no preexisting base style other than the weapons.

This is indeed fatal to the theory because there is nothing to even look into!

 

[LFJ]

----Oh now come on! That's just being just plain stupid.

You've been pretty insulting lately. Something going on at work or home? Wanna talk about it?

That's like saying the theory of evolution is invalid just because the common ancestor of apes and men is no longer around.

Nope. We share as much as 99% DNA with some.

We can't even point to one system that functions similarly to YMVT.

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 never said the theory is proven. Please stop with this strawman!

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???

Yes. You have repeated the same strawman to me over and over. Please stop!

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.

Again, please stop with the strawmen!

 

[LFJ]

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.

Thank you for being the only one honest enough to dismantle the goddamned strawman!

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.

Correct. And YMVT is the only system to have a boxing method perfectly aligned with this.

Others systems have evolved in a different direction with their boxing methods, and are wholly irrelevant to YMVT.

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.

Correct. So, it is irrelevant to point out what other non-YM Wing Chun lineages are doing. Their boxing methods have taken a different path from what has come through YM.

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.

Exactly. If the weapon theory is used to guide the boxing method, it will easily remain intact because it is based on very simple tactical guidelines not at all difficult to adhere to. Violations or inconsistencies are immediately obvious.

On the other hand, if the weapon theory is not used to guide the boxing method, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction. This is what appears to have happened in other non-YM Wing Chun.

I have never said non-YM Wing Chun is broken. They have simply taken a different path and are at this point entirely different styles from YMVT, and therefore irrelevant to the origin theory of YMVT.

And I'll just take this opportunity to say here again, for the billionth time;

The theory applies only to YMVT, and I have not and will not make a truth claim for an origin story, because there is no recorded history to officially confirm it.

(I should add this as my signature so it's on every post, since this friggen strawman is bound to be asserted again.)

 

[Nobody Important]

Thank you for being the only one honest enough to dismantle the goddamned strawman!



Correct. And YMVT is the only system to have a boxing method perfectly aligned with this.

Others systems have evolved in a different direction with their boxing methods, and are wholly irrelevant to YMVT.



Correct. So, it is irrelevant to point out what other non-YM Wing Chun lineages are doing. Their boxing methods have taken a different path from what has come through YM.



Exactly. If the weapon theory is used to guide the boxing method, it will easily remain intact because it is based on very simple tactical guidelines not at all difficult to adhere to. Violations or inconsistencies are immediately obvious.

On the other hand, if the weapon theory is not used to guide the boxing method, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction. This is what appears to have happened in other non-YM Wing Chun.

I have never said non-YM Wing Chun is broken. They have simply taken a different path and are at this point entirely different styles from YMVT, and therefore irrelevant to the origin theory of YMVT.

And I'll just take this opportunity to say here again, for the billionth time;

I have not and will not make a truth claim for an origin story, because there is no recorded history to officially confirm it.

(I should add this as my signature so it's on every post, since this friggen strawman is bound to be asserted again.)

I hear ya, and completely understand, so we are in agreement. I've stated several times that this hypothesis doesn't encompass all of Wing Chun collectively. I have laid out possibilities as to how this could have occurred, all unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but plausible, so that everyone could see a path to how it could have came to be. I'm not saying that it was that way, nor am I trying to rewrite anything. Just a way of looking at it from a different perspective because I find it an intriguing concept. I find that it explains a lot where YMVT is concerned. Thank you for confirming.

 

[Juany118]

I hear ya, and completely understand, so we are in agreement. I've stated several times that this hypothesis doesn't encompass all of Wing Chun collectively. I have laid out possibilities as to how this could have occurred, all unsubstantiated and unverifiable, but plausible, so that everyone could see a path to how it could have came to be. I'm not saying that it was that way, nor am I trying to rewrite anything. Just a way of looking at it from a different perspective because I find it an intriguing concept. I find that it explains a lot where YMVT is concerned.

I think the issue some we have here is that many of also see many things as "plausible", meaning "seeming reasonable" but one, maybe two, sees it as "truth."