Yip Man's curriculum changes

[wckf92]

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)

Nice post N.I.!
And, if YM knew/learned two different versions of WC...maybe he wanted to reserve the refinements for his select few(?). I.E. maybe he didn't really care about the majority...and only taught the refinements to 2 or 3 of his most dedicated...so that they could also experience this profound impact with their understanding of the art. ?
If some or all of the 'profound impactful' knowledge is contained in the weapons...and the weapons were only taught the the 2 or 3.....

 

[wckf92]

Look in the knives.

Dale80...can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Thx.

 

[KPM]

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

Now, going by the "observable facts" alone and discounting any kind of "oral history" (as you have been doing in this thread)......the facts are that Ip Man had multiple close long-time students. Most of them were doing very similar things, except WSL. You yourself have described to us multiple times on multiple threads how WSLVT differs so much from every other version of Ip Man Wing Chun. Since we don't have extensive footage of Ip Man himself to watch to really figure out what his personal Wing Chun was like, all we can do is compare what his direct long-time students teach. If WSLVT is the outlier, then the logical conclusion is that WSLVT represents changes and innovations that WSL himself made and is not representative of what Ip Man taught.

 

[LFJ]

---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???

VT is a concept-based system. Do you really think we'd run around sideways as if we were holding a pole in our hands if we aren't? Talk about stupid!

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.

Did I say disproves? Your strawman is stupid! I bet he wishes he had a brain!

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

Proves facts that you conceded. Do you want to hunt down and quote the number of times I have said I'm not making a truth claim with my conclusion, while you're at it?

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

It's inconvenient actually, because we aren't having an honest discussion when you keep bringing up a blatant strawman!

---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!

That one most definitely is a strawman, because my theory and conclusion has NOTHING to do with non-YM Wing Chun. I have not made any claim about the origin or evolution of Wing Chun in general. They are entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.

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?

"Come across"? You can't honestly say I come across some way if I categorically deny it at every turn, in about every post now for pages!

 

[KPM]

They didn't learn the whole system.


.

Now THAT is just as much a "strawman argument" as any that you have pointed out!!!

 

[KPM]

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.

I agree completely! And the theory that I provided is the simplest one so far!

 

[KPM]

, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).

----No, my theory was the simplest and fit the "observable facts" the best. Did you see Post #302?

 

[LFJ]

Now, going by the "observable facts" alone and discounting any kind of "oral history" (as you have been doing in this thread)......the facts are that Ip Man had multiple close long-time students. Most of them were doing very similar things, except WSL. You yourself have described to us multiple times on multiple threads how WSLVT differs so much from every other version of Ip Man Wing Chun. Since we don't have extensive footage of Ip Man himself to watch to really figure out what his personal Wing Chun was like, all we can do is compare what his direct long-time students teach. If WSLVT is the outlier, then the logical conclusion is that WSLVT represents changes and innovations that WSL himself made and is not representative of what Ip Man taught.

I have outlined pretty clearly why you are most probably entirely wrong about YMVT lineages in this post. You never did respond to those points.

 

[LFJ]

Now THAT is just as much a "strawman argument" as any that you have pointed out!!!

I see your problem is you don't even know the definition of a strawman fallacy!

, LFJ's is the best theory since it is the simplest (by Occam's razor).

----No, my theory was the simplest and fit the "observable facts" the best. Did you see Post #302?

Your post #302 talks about my theory needing to be able to be generalized to all Wing Chun.

That is entirely false because other lineages have diverged since the pole over 100 years ago, rendering your whole argument invalid.

Non-YM lineages are entirely irrelevant to the history and development of YMVT.

 

[KPM]

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

If Ip Man's own narrative and written history published in a HK magazine can be discounted as "fairytale", then personal testimony should also be invalid. Memories are faulty. People often exaggerate things or say things that are untrue in order to save face or follow their own agendas. People are often repeating something second hand that was told to them that they don't really know first hand to be true. Sooo....you can't have it both ways if we are going to be perfectly rational here!!!

 

[KPM]

I have outlined pretty clearly why you are most probably entirely wrong about YMVT lineages in this post. You never did respond to those points.

That is all irrelevant. We are judging by a different set of standards now! Remember?

 

[LFJ]

If Ip Man's own narrative and written history published in a HK magazine can be discounted as "fairytale", then personal testimony should also be invalid. Memories are faulty. People often exaggerate things or say things that are untrue in order to save face or follow their own agendas. People are often repeating something second hand that was told to them that they don't really know first hand to be true. Sooo....you can't have it both ways if we are going to be perfectly rational here!!!

We don't have an origin story, whether legend or fairytale.

What we have is a likely conclusion based on technical analysis of the system checked and supported by those proven facts you might remember having conceded.

That is all irrelevant. We are judging by a different set of standards now! Remember?

Observable facts. Very relevant.

 

[KPM]

VT is a concept-based system. Do you really think we'd run around sideways as if we were holding a pole in our hands if we aren't? Talk about stupid!

---If the empty hands were based entirely on the pole, shouldn't we be taking a "side on" stance with one arm extended out in front very much like the old school boxers? Where in the pole does anyone stand relatively upright and pivot on their heels? Where in the pole is anything resembling the relatively complex system of Chi Sau that is found in the empty hands? Where in the pole does a person use 2 arms at the same time doing two very different motions? There are definitely similarities between Wing Chun empty hands and Fukien White Crane....even if just superficial. If Wing Chun developed on a purely conceptual basis then there shouldn't be even superficial resemblences to other TCMAs, and there should be more resemblence to old school boxing! Old school boxing developed based upon western swordsmanship....standing "side on", holding a weapon straight out in front on the centerline....just like the pole! So, not so stupid! I am not making comments that completely contradict simple reasoning....like saying that because there is no "proto-Wing Chun still around after over 100 years of evolution that is could not have existed!




That one most definitely is a strawman, because my theory and conclusion has NOTHING to do with non-YM Wing Chun. I have not made any claim about the origin or evolution of Wing Chun in general. They are entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.

----So, do you believe that Ip Man Wing Chun developed completely separately from non-YM Wing Chun? You believe that Ip Man completely threw away what he had learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and started from scratch and created his Wing Chun entirely from the pole? Ip Man was able to completely and totally put out of mind his years of previously training in a "non-YM Wing Chun" and start totally from scratch? Really???



"Come across"? You can't honestly say I come across some way if I categorically deny it at every turn, in about every post now for pages!

---For the last couple pages maybe. That wasn't the case earlier in this discussion!

 

[KPM]

I see your problem is you don't even know the definition of a strawman fallacy!



Your post #302 talks about my theory needing to be able to be generalized to all Wing Chun.

That is entirely false because other lineages have diverged since the pole over 100 years ago, rendering your whole argument invalid.

Non-YM lineages are entirely irrelevant to the history and development of YMVT.

So you are choosing to completely ignore my theory that WSL himself is the source of the correlations between pole and empty hand? Why is that? THAT is the theory that fits the "observable facts" the best! THAT is the theory that is the simplest according to "occam's razor"!

 

[KPM]

We don't have an origin story, whether legend or fairytale.

What we have is a likely conclusion based on technical analysis of the system checked and supported by those proven facts you might remember having conceded.

Agreed! And if we adhere to those standards that you have set forth, the best theory that fits the "observable facts" is that WSL himself is responsible for what you are seeing in WSLVT, just as I summarized on post #302!

 

[LFJ]

---If the empty hands were based entirely on the pole,

It's not. There are knives.

shouldn't we be taking a "side on" stance with one arm extended out in front very much like the old school boxers?

Concept-based!

The tactical guidelines are translated into boxing. We don't need to stand sideways and pretend to be holding a pole! That's retarded.

Where in the pole is anything resembling the relatively complex system of Chi Sau that is found in the empty hands?

I've explained how the concepts transfer to DCS. SCS just adds bong-sau with the other arm at the same time which is also part of the weapons.

Where in the pole does a person use 2 arms at the same time doing two very different motions?

Knives do. And we're talking about a concept-based method here. It is incredibly stupid to act like we're holding a pole when we're not!

We have 2 free "poles" when empty handed. Why the hell would we not use them?

There are definitely similarities between Wing Chun empty hands and Fukien White Crane....even if just superficial.

Maybe other lineages. Not YMVT.

----So, do you believe that Ip Man Wing Chun developed completely separately from non-YM Wing Chun?

As much is obvious from some point forward, given that they have evolved to be vastly different.

You have stated LJ didn't teach weapons, at least knives, to some people. In YMVT and other lineages that route through him, he did.

That could certainly be one starting point of divergence.

You believe that Ip Man completely threw away what he had learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and started from scratch and created his Wing Chun entirely from the pole?

No.

Ip Man was able to completely and totally put out of mind his years of previously training in a "non-YM Wing Chun" and start totally from scratch? Really???

No.

---For the last couple pages maybe. That wasn't the case earlier in this discussion!

I didn't have to start repeating myself until the strawman kept getting put back up! It was denied every single time.

So you are choosing to completely ignore my theory that WSL himself is the source of the correlations between pole and empty hand? Why is that? THAT is the theory that fits the "observable facts" the best! THAT is the theory that is the simplest according to "occam's razor"!

That is the stupidest theory that reason and history speak loudly against.

 

[KPM]

As much is obvious from some point forward, given that they have evolved to be vastly different.

You have stated LJ didn't teach weapons, at least knives, to some people. In YMVT and other lineages that route through him, he did.

That could certainly be one starting point of divergence.

----Now you are being confusing again! You believe that your theory applies only to YMVT and not to non-YM Wing Chun. Yet you don't believe that it was Ip Man himself that derived the empty hand methods entirely from the weapons. And yet it couldnt' have been Chan Wah Shun or Ng Chung So either? So who was it? If it goes further back than Ip Man, then how could the theory NOT apply to non-YM Wing Chun?



That is the stupidest theory that reason and history speak loudly against.

---I invite you to point out any flaws in my logic. And remember, I was simply applying your standards!

 

[LFJ]

----Now you are being confusing again! You believe that your theory applies only to YMVT and not to non-YM Wing Chun. Yet you don't believe that it was Ip Man himself that derived the empty hand methods entirely from the weapons. And yet it couldnt' have been Chan Wah Shun or Ng Chung So either? So who was it? If it goes further back than Ip Man, then how could the theory NOT apply to non-YM Wing Chun?

LJ taught some the weapons and not others.

Just like YM is known to have done.

It is likely the same happened at every generation through history. Very few received it.

Obviously without the weapon theory taught, the boxing method is free to evolve in any direction.

Even when the weapons are taught, the connection to the empty hands that has come down through YM could have not been taught, also allowing the boxing method to freely evolve.

Nothing difficult to follow here. Other lineages could have diverged at any time. What we know for sure is that they certainly did!

---I invite you to point out any flaws in my logic.

Here

And remember, I was simply applying your standards!

My standards involve honesty. That is a difficult area for you.

 

[DALE80]

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!

I don't agree. If you can't tell the difference between the repetition of legends and things actual people actually said about actual events then that's not something I am going to follow you in doing.

 

[DALE80]

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

Please see my reply to Geezer above.