Yip Man's curriculum changes

[LFJ]

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.)

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

And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold!

What the actual hell is with these trolls?!

 

[Nobody Important]

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

Unfortunately true, but it has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with a need to justify a belief to support a narrative. All so that the walls don't crumble in around them. We are all guilty of erecting these barriers to one extent or another as a way of keeping things safe and comfortable.

 

[Juany118]

And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold!

What the actual hell is with these trolls?!

The problem is you see WSLVT and YMVT as synonymous. Forget me, but going back to page 1 people from other YM sub-lineages have called shenanigans as well.

If you replaced "YMVT" with "WSLVT" I would never have made the statement you so disagree with.

 

[LFJ]

The problem is you see WSLVT and YMVT as synonymous.

There is all the reason and history to believe so, and none not to.

Forget me, but going back to page 1 people from other YM sub-lineages have called shenanigans as well.

They can call shenanigans all they want, but history and reason are not on their side.

If you replaced "YMVT" with "WSLVT" I would never have made the statement you so disagree with.

It would still be a strawman because WSLVT goes through YM as the same system, but I have not claimed the origin theory to be historically proven.

 

[Juany118]

There is all the reason and history to believe so, and none not to.



They can call shenanigans all they want, but history and reason are not on their side.



It would still be a strawman because WSLVT goes through YM as the same system, but I have not claimed the origin theory to be historically proven.

As do both Ips left living and others. Not counting me at least 2 students of sub- lineages, not WSL, have called shenanigans. Also more than a couple YM first gen students still live...

There in lies the problem. You follow the path on one disciple, and not even directly. I have no doubt that this is what you were taught and I respect it. However thus far (not counting me) 2 other YM Lineages have called BS. They just feel that once they have said their bit, no sense arguing with a brick wall.

So logic doesn't dictate what you were taught = YMVT. The furthest you can go logically is your WSLVT as even GL only speaks of the pole as something that reinforces the empty hand.

 

[LFJ]

As do both Ips left living and others.

They didn't learn the whole system.

Not counting me at least 2 students of sub- lineages, not WSL, have called shenanigans.

You practice a system Cheung made up.

Also more than a couple YM first gen students still live...

Not that learned the full system.

You follow the path on one disciple, and not even directly.

How do you know?

So logic doesn't dictate what you were taught = YMVT.

Your faulty logic.

The furthest you can go logically is your WSLVT as even GL only speaks of the pole as something that reinforces the empty hand.

It does reinforce the empty hand. That is not a conflicting message.

 

[DALE80]

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.

All assumptions introduce potential error and so a more complicated theory giving the same outcome is more likely to be wrong than a simpler theory. This is why simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones.

 

[DALE80]

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?

Hi Geezer, all I can really see is that LFJ presents a simple theory which fits the facts and makes sense of the way YM VT works. As he himself says above, he isn't making a truth claim. On the basis of current facts available, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).

On the other side of the argument there appear to be a lot of people who will cling on to any alternative provided it means they don't have to agree with LFJ.

The later part of your post makes it clear that the reason lies in past forum events and that LFJ isn't very popular with you and others, for whatever reason. I can't really comment on that, but in this particular discussion LFJ's looks like the sane and correct view, while others look a bit unbalanced.

I do practise WSL VT in Australia.

 

[DALE80]

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.

I don't think LFJ is proposing 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.

We do know that WSL taught it. It is standard belief in WSL VT.

We do know that not many people received YM's VT- a realistic estimate is 2 or 3 people. WSL would be one of these, HKM another. Many of the others have either a partial version or something they made up themselves.

We do know that if a pre-existing empty hand method was modified to the pole and knives, then nothing exists of it today and so it is an idea that adds no new information, but a lot more complexity, i.e. we choose the simpler theory by Occams razor until we get to the truth.

 

[LFJ]

On the other side of the argument there appear to be a lot of people who will cling on to any alternative provided it means they don't have to agree with LFJ.

The reason for the bias is clear.

Other YM lineages have 0 historical evidence to support their interpretations of his boxing method as historically accurate or consistent with the only part across lines proven to be original to whatever proto-system VT/WC was at earliest verifiable inception, namely the pole.

Since WSLVT does, it doesn't look good for them at best, and invalidates them at worst. Hence the desperate resistance to the facts.

Standard disclaimer once again: evidence to support ≠ proof to confirm. I am not making a truth claim or discussing the history and evolution of non-YM lineages after the pole.

 

[DALE80]

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?

Not really. I think you will find that pole and knives were commonly used during wartime in 19th C China.

 

[DALE80]

Unfortunately, those points outside of the pole found in the hand method cannot be validated.

Look in the knives.

 

[DALE80]

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!

Personal testimony involving actual persons is not the same as legend (things like red boat stories) and fairytale (things like origin stories).

 

[KPM]

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.

---Well, there is this very basic matter of body mechanics differing quite considerably between pole and empty hands. How many times has that little fact been pointed out now???

 

[KPM]

Look in the knives.

Dale, you never have introduced yourself and told us of your background.

 

[KPM]

Personal testimony involving actual persons is not the same as legend (things like red boat stories) and fairytale (things like origin stories).

Oh, it certainly is when you get right down to it! It isn't an "observable fact" any more than Ip Man's written history that was published in a HK magazine is!!! If that can be discounted, then most certainly any "personal testimony" that does not have facts to back it up can be discounted as just heresy!

 

[KPM]

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

---Sorry. Not trying to be insulting. It is a fact that saying just because a "proto-Wing Chun" is not around to analyze after 100 or more years of evolution disproves that one existed is just plain stupid. What's the old saying...."absence of proof is not proof of absence!" Again, simple and basic logic. To deny something like that is...well....just plain stupid!



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

----Do you really want to go back and hunt down and quote the number of times you said "proves" on this thread?



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

---Very convenient to declare anything you don't like to be a "strawman" and simply ignore it!



Again, please stop with the strawmen!

---That one most certainly is NOT a "strawman"! That one is statement of fact that you simply cannot dismiss and ignore! You are simply running away from something that doesn't fit nicely with your theory!

 

[KPM]

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

---Profanity now! Are you having a bad day? Would you like to talk about it?

 

[KPM]

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.

However, what you admitted earlier and LFJ has chosen to ignore is the part where you can't really pin down any time when the empty hand method would have been derived ENTIRELY from the pole. Your analysis (very well done) still shows the empty hands developing under the influence of the pole, not originating from the pole as LJF believes.

 

[KPM]

And there it is, immediately following my declaration in bold!

What the actual hell is with these trolls?!

You say one thing, but in actual conversation you come across as if you believe something completely different. This has been pointed out multiple times but evidently you just don't see it. Why is that?