Yip Man's curriculum changes

[DALE80]

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???

The important part of the body mechanic is exactly the same in pole and empty hands.

 

[DALE80]

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

Certain tactical guidelines applying to the empty hands come from the knives

 

[DALE80]

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.

This is not what LFJ has been doing on the thread. He has been discounting both legend and fairlytale, but not things that actual people actually said. You seem to be taking a deliberately dishonest approach to the discussion for some reason?

 

[LFJ]

You seem to be taking a deliberately dishonest approach to the discussion for some reason?

Frustrating when people are repeatedly telling blatant lies during a discussion.

 

[DALE80]

, 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 theory seems just to be trolling because you have some personal issue with LFJ. As an impartial observer I would prefer to read the thread if biased people like yourself would not post. Nobody Important is a good example of someone who disagrees with some things that LFJ has said, but who doesn't troll. That kind of person makes for good readable discuassion whereas your contributions tend to be mostly noise on this thread. Please don't ruin the discussion any more than you have already.

 

[DALE80]

If Ip Man's own narrative and written history published in a HK magazine can be discounted

YM repeating legends can be discounted as legend the same way that other legend can be discounted as legend. Same goes for anyone including WSL.

personal testimony should also be invalid.

No, not the same at all. Please realise that if you keep on saying silly things I will block your comment from my account. You are just cluttering up the discussion with nonsense at this point. I don't have time to respond to this kind of thing.

 

[DALE80]

-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

Only if we were idiots

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?

VT empty hands is a synthesis of pole and knife ideas

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

No there are not. Are you being even slightly serious?

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!

Haha. Wow, poor LFJ having to deal with this.

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???

Well, I have managed to put aside previous wing chun I learned. I am sure that YM could have managed!

 

[KPM]

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.

---Yes. But your theory then relies on there being that "proto-Wing Chun" version that was based entirely upon the weapons with no prior empty hand method involved. There is not evidence for its existence any more than there is evidence for a "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method that was then influenced by and evolved when the weapons were included as add ons. You can't have it both ways! Either both theories are equally valid in this respect or neither theory is valid in this respect! Which is it?

---And if this "proto-Wing Chun" that was derived entirely from the weapons DID exist, we would expect to find other systems than WSLVT that track so closely with pole and empty hand. But we don't. Not even amongst Ip Man's other students! So there is no evidence to support the existence of your version of a "proto-Wing Chun" than there is to support the existence of the other version!


Here

---Not acceptable. If you are serious about this discussion, then show me where my logic is wrong from my post outlining my new theory above.

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

---I am being VERY honest now and simply discarding everything other than the "observable facts" as YOU suggested! And that line of reasoning leads directly to WSL! You are the one being dishonest by not acknowleding that. Just as you have been dishonest by not acknowledging the point that multiple people have made so far in this thread that the theory that Wing Chun empty hands evolved under the influence of the weapons as an add on is just as valid as the theory that they empty hands derived entirely from the pole!

 

[KPM]

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.

Sorry. You can't have it both ways! If the written history of Wing Chun that Ip Man himself provided for a magazine article to be published for all posterity can be completely dismissed, then certainly any "personal testimony" given decades after said events should be discounted. We are going only by "observable facts", remember??

 

[KPM]

Please see my reply to Geezer above.

You said only that you are from Australia. That isn't much. Are you being evasive on purpose?

 

[KPM]

The important part of the body mechanic is exactly the same in pole and empty hands.

I disagree. I think most people looking at the pole and empty hands would disagree. The body mechanics are completely different. That should be obvious to anyone with a brain! The stances are different. The method of power generation is different. The range is different.

 

[KPM]

Frustrating when people are repeatedly telling blatant lies during a discussion.

Frustrating when people ignore other people's valid points or just dismiss them as a "strawman." Frustrating when someone sticks so dogmatically to their believe and will not acknowledge the possiblity that an alternative belief could also be true.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Just one quick point on this. Just as I pointed out to LFJ about his conclusions, your conclusion here is not foregone. It seems most likely that WSL is the source of the differences. However, a couple of other possibilities exist that are not excluded by what's in evidence. One is that, indeed, WSL is the only student who learned YM's complete system (I don't know the timeline of WSL's involvement, but I'm imagining it being late enough that YM may have evolved to what would be his "most complete" system by that time). Another is that YM actually taught very different approaches at different periods of his life - each being a complete system, but different in significant ways and later differentiated even more by the interpretation of each student (this would be similar to what we can see in the branches of Ueshiba's Aikido). There are probably other possible explanations I've not thought of.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This has been a fun discussion, meaningless but fun.

I agree to both parts of this.

 

[KPM]

Your theory seems just to be trolling because you have some personal issue with LFJ. As an impartial observer I would prefer to read the thread if biased people like yourself would not post. Nobody Important is a good example of someone who disagrees with some things that LFJ has said, but who doesn't troll. That kind of person makes for good readable discuassion whereas your contributions tend to be mostly noise on this thread. Please don't ruin the discussion any more than you have already.

Now look. This discussion started out perfectly reasonable. LFJ presented his theory. Multiple other people pointed out another theory that was equally as valid. LFJ refused to acknowledge that, discounted most of what everyone else had to say as being speculation and based upon fairytales or as "strawman". He stuck very dogmatically to his theory and refused to acknowledge that there was another line of thinking that could be just as valid. So I have simply decided to use his own strategy in continuing this discussion. I am also discounting anything other than the "observable facts", just as LFJ has done. When you do that, then the reasoning process based upon what is left leads directly back to WSL. That isn't trolling. That is simply using LFJ's own approach to this discussion. I will stick dogmatically and stubbornly to my theory just as LFJ has stuck to his until he is willing to acknowledge that there is a very real possibilty that an early version of Wing Chun developed and evolved AFTER weapons were included as an add on. That's not trolling. That is simply playing by LFJ's own rules!

 

[KPM]

YM repeating legends can be discounted as legend the same way that other legend can be discounted as legend. Same goes for anyone including WSL.



No, not the same at all. Please realise that if you keep on saying silly things I will block your comment from my account. You are just cluttering up the discussion with nonsense at this point. I don't have time to respond to this kind of thing.

My point has been and will remain....if you are going to dismiss over 100 years of oral history from multiple lineages....if you are going to dismiss Ip Man's own written account of Wing Chun history.....then including heresy from people that weren't actually there when the events were happening is equally valid! If you are going to dismiss oral history that is 100 years old, why not dismiss oral history that is 20 or 30 years old??? Block me if you want. I don't care. I don't know anything about you because you have neglected to introduce yourself after being asked several times now. Why is that?

 

[KPM]

Just one quick point on this. Just as I pointed out to LFJ about his conclusions, your conclusion here is not foregone. It seems most likely that WSL is the source of the differences. However, a couple of other possibilities exist that are not excluded by what's in evidence. One is that, indeed, WSL is the only student who learned YM's complete system (I don't know the timeline of WSL's involvement, but I'm imagining it being late enough that YM may have evolved to what would be his "most complete" system by that time). Another is that YM actually taught very different approaches at different periods of his life - each being a complete system, but different in significant ways and later differentiated even more by the interpretation of each student (this would be similar to what we can see in the branches of Ueshiba's Aikido). There are probably other possible explanations I've not thought of.

Oh no, I freely admit that there are other possibilities! But if we want to dogmatically stick to just the "observable facts", then the only conclusion we can reach with any real confidence is that WSL must have come up with it himself! Now, if you are willing to start taking into account oral histories and "speculation" then all kinds of alternate theories are possible! But that is not part of LFJ's approach to theory development!

 

[LFJ]

---Yes. But your theory then relies on there being that "proto-Wing Chun" version that was based entirely upon the weapons with no prior empty hand method involved. There is not evidence for its existence any more than there is evidence for a "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method that was then influenced by and evolved when the weapons were included as add ons. You can't have it both ways! Either both theories are equally valid in this respect or neither theory is valid in this respect! Which is it?

Already covered. These two theories are not on equal ground because the latter introduces an unknown and unestablished variable equivalent to saying "aliens did it".

---And if this "proto-Wing Chun" that was derived entirely from the weapons DID exist, we would expect to find other systems than WSLVT that track so closely with pole and empty hand.

That's not necessary.

Here

---Not acceptable. If you are serious about this discussion, then show me where my logic is wrong from my post outlining my new theory above.

It's in that post. You have dodged the points repeatedly.

you have been dishonest by not acknowledging the point that multiple people have made so far in this thread that the theory that Wing Chun empty hands evolved under the influence of the weapons as an add on is just as valid as the theory that they empty hands derived entirely from the pole!

I acknowledge that theory has been posited, but it is indistinguishable from "aliens did it".

Sorry. You can't have it both ways! If the written history of Wing Chun that Ip Man himself provided for a magazine article to be published for all posterity can be completely dismissed, then certainly any "personal testimony" given decades after said events should be discounted. We are going only by "observable facts", remember??

Who said decades after? Personal testimony from actual people of actual events is not legend.

I disagree. I think most people looking at the pole and empty hands would disagree.

Because you don't know what you're looking at.

The body mechanics are completely different. That should be obvious to anyone with a brain! The stances are different. The method of power generation is different. The range is different.

The power generation is the same. Stances and range differ because in one case you're holding a pole, and in the other you're not, and because VT boxing is a concept-based method. Again, fighting exactly as if we're holding a pole while empty handed is retarded.

Frustrating when people ignore other people's valid points or just dismiss them as a "strawman." Frustrating when someone sticks so dogmatically to their believe and will not acknowledge the possiblity that an alternative belief could also be true.

It has not been demonstrated that the alternative belief "could be" true.

Multiple other people pointed out another theory that was equally as valid.

Wrong.

My point has been and will remain....if you are going to dismiss over 100 years of oral history from multiple lineages....if you are going to dismiss Ip Man's own written account of Wing Chun history.....

Legends and fairytales are not oral history, they are myths.

then including heresy from people that weren't actually there when the events were happening is equally valid!

What heresy? And what events?

If you are going to dismiss oral history that is 100 years old, why not dismiss oral history that is 20 or 30 years old???

Legends and fairytales are not history!

Personal testimony from actual people about actual people and events are oral history.

Big difference.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

What the actual hell is with these trolls?!

I think his comment is in reaction to your complete rejection of alternatives. Those alternatives cannot be disproven, any more than (as you acknowledge) the possibility under discussion can be proven. By the way, as I pointed out in response to one of NI's posts, the "proto-style" you seek may actually be early branches of WC. That the principles aren't the same doesn't remove this possibility, as those principles would probably be what changed as YM evolved his style.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

So, you're going to say that all the other principle students of YM cannot possibly have carried forth his style? That's a very strong claim, which requires very strong evidence to support it. I've never seen anyone present such strong evidence. Mostly, I've seen some refer to what they've been told, and references to the "completeness" of WSL's VT, which seems a subjective measure.