Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

A theory's simplicity is not expressed by counting parts (pole+x=y). Both of the theories I've looked at are equally simple. One has an existing pole style and an empty-hand method created from whole cloth. The other has an existing pole style and an existing empty-hand method that is adapted to the pole. Neither is more complex than the other, and each requires its own assumptions, given the gaps in available evidence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

heresy

I think you meant "hearsay".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Only if you think an empty-hand method without weapons is as unlikely as alien abduction.

 

[LFJ]

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.

Essentially, mine is the Big Bang Theory (based on observable facts, but not "proven") and yours is Creationism (based solely on belief of something undemonstrated to exist, but not "disproven").

You're telling me it's possibly aliens because I can't disprove aliens.

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.

YMVT boxing matches the proven preexisting pole method. There is nothing to suggest it didn't always match.

Non-YM WC boxing doesn't match the pole method. There is nothing to suggest it was ever so closely related to the pole and the original boxing method that accompanied the pole, whatever that was.

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.

The data is objective. See here for a simple outline.

Both of the theories I've looked at are equally simple. One has an existing pole style and an empty-hand method created from whole cloth. The other has an existing pole style and an existing empty-hand method that is adapted to the pole. Neither is more complex than the other, and each requires its own assumptions, given the gaps in available evidence.

The latter is more complex because it's introducing an unknown and undemonstrated variable. The former is working completely with known and demonstrable elements.

You have to demonstrate that variable before entering it into the equation as even a possibility. Nothing shows that is even possible.

Only if you think an empty-hand method without weapons is as unlikely as alien abduction.

A VT boxing system existing prior to the weapons has just as much evidence to support it as aliens, that is none. There are only legends and fairytales.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

All the same, I don't think NI's analysis in anyway precludes that possibility, either.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.....

That's a possibility (and actually fits with one of the alternatives I suggested earlier), though I'd wonder why those 2 or 3 didn't include his own sons. It wouldn't be the first time someone had a student they favored over their sons, but it would be unusual not to include them in that level unless there was some significant dispute (which I'd expect would end their training altogether).

 

[LFJ]

That's a possibility (and actually fits with one of the alternatives I suggested earlier), though I'd wonder why those 2 or 3 didn't include his own sons. It wouldn't be the first time someone had a student they favored over their sons, but it would be unusual not to include them in that level unless there was some significant dispute (which I'd expect would end their training altogether).

They didn't start training until later in life, learned largely from others, and were never fighters. YM preferred to teach real fighters. Most of his students didn't ever fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Wait, what? Now you're saying he did not start from scratch? If your origin theory only applies to YM's branch, then either he started from scratch at some point, or his existing training was the "proto-style" you keep claiming is impossible (impossibility of it would be the only reason to call its absence a "fatal flaw" in a theory). Or are you saying that YM didn't originate this, and the pole-derived methods simply died out in all other branches of VT?

 

[LFJ]

Wait, what? Now you're saying he did not start from scratch? If your origin theory only applies to YM's branch, then either he started from scratch at some point, or his existing training was the "proto-style" you keep claiming is impossible (impossibility of it would be the only reason to call its absence a "fatal flaw" in a theory). Or are you saying that YM didn't originate this, and the pole-derived methods simply died out in all other branches of VT?

The latter. YM was not the originator, and VT is not entirely from the pole anyway. It's pole + knives.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Essentially, mine is the Big Bang Theory (based on observable facts, but not "proven") and yours is Creationism (based solely on belief of something undemonstrated to exist, but not "disproven").

You're telling me it's possibly aliens because I can't disprove aliens.

This is a fallacy of "false equivalence". You've paired this with the "appeal to the stone" and/or "argument from silence" fallacy repeatedly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The latter. YM was not the originator, and VT is not entirely from the pole anyway. It's pole + knives.

I should have said "weapons-based". "Pole-based" was just easier to type.

Okay, I'm confused then how the line of reasoning supports that all the other branches of WC/VT lost this connection, and it was only preserved through YM. What shows us that this wasn't a development contemporary to YM's training (either his development, or a refinement by one of his instructors)?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Important to what?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Only if we were idiots

Why would that be idiotic? A lot of martial arts use a version of one arm forward as their preferred fighting position. It has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the square-on stance preferred by WC.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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!

That's my point. That's not the only conclusion. It's the one most readily supported by the observable facts, but those facts don't actually counter other theories - they simply appear to support that theory somewhat better. Adding information (like the fact that YM's sons started training late) lends some additional possibility to the idea that YM may not have passed his complete system to them. Likewise, some of the quotes I've seen from WSL seem to support the idea that he provided some refinement to VT. Those aren't strong supports for either side, so also don't preclude the other possibilities.

 

[LFJ]

This is a fallacy of "false equivalence". You've paired this with the "appeal to the stone" and/or "argument from silence" fallacy repeatedly.

I've explained exactly how they are equivalent.

I've explained exactly how your theory is absurd.

I've made no conclusion based on the absence of your variable, other than that it can't be investigated and so is unviable as it stands. I haven't said it's impossible, but I don't accept your assertion that it is. You understand the difference?

I should have said "weapons-based". "Pole-based" was just easier to type.

It was KPM who said "entirely based on the pole".

Okay, I'm confused then how the line of reasoning supports that all the other branches of WC/VT lost this connection, and it was only preserved through YM.

What's confusing?

What shows us that this wasn't a development contemporary to YM's training (either his development, or a refinement by one of his instructors)?

As I said, it matches the preexisting pole method and there is no reason to believe it didn't always.

Why would that be idiotic? A lot of martial arts use a version of one arm forward as their preferred fighting position. It has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the square-on stance preferred by WC.

KPM suggests that if we are basing our boxing method on the pole, we shouldn't fight with two arms working independently. How is that not the most idiotic idea ever?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

YMVT boxing matches the proven preexisting pole method. There is nothing to suggest it didn't always match.

Non-YM WC boxing doesn't match the pole method. There is nothing to suggest it was ever so closely related to the pole and the original boxing method that accompanied the pole, whatever that was.

The fact that it shows no evidence of ever being so closely related to the pole would seem to suggest the pole alignment is contemporary to YM, rather than the origin of WC as a whole. I'm sure I'm missing something here, so point me toward what I've missed.

The data is objective. See here for a simple outline.

That's good logic, but I consider some of it subjective. There are conclusions stated without sufficient support shown in the post (like the statement that it's too integrated to have been added - that's a conclusion, rather than evidence). I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion, just the the chain of logic is either incomplete (you left out some of your middle-men in the chain) or there are fallacies in it (using unproven conclusions as evidence).

A VT boxing system existing prior to the weapons has just as much evidence to support it as aliens, that is none. There are only legends and fairytales.

Except that there has never been substantial evidence of aliens. We have lots of evidence that, a) arts evolve, b) arts sometimes start from empty-hand methods without weapons, c) arts sometimes gain weapons, and d) arts sometimes evolve into something new without branching to leave the original behind. This is the fallacy I referred to earlier (false equivalence).

While we can't say any of those things definitively happened with VT, we also can't make a definitive claim about it being weapons-originated.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've explained exactly how they are equivalent.

No, you stated that they are equivalent (that is a fiat statement unless evidence is used to support it).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As I said, it matches the preexisting pole method and there is no reason to believe it didn't always.

You just said there was no evidence it ever was tightly aligned with the pole. Given that, what makes it more likely it was, than that it wasn't? That the pole form is older than that point (YM's training) doesn't affect the conclusion. It makes both likely (if the pole form weren't older, we obviously wouldn't have the option of them ever having been aligned).

KPM suggests that if we are basing our boxing method on the pole, we shouldn't fight with two arms working independently. How is that not the most idiotic idea ever?

I don't recall seeing him say the hands couldn't work independently. That would be odd. I was responding, however, to a statement that standing sideways with one arm leading would be stupid.

 

[LFJ]

The fact that it shows no evidence of ever being so closely related to the pole would seem to suggest the pole alignment is contemporary to YM, rather than the origin of WC as a whole.

Never said it was the origin of WC as a whole! Geez! And it would not suggest that at all.

All it suggests is that other lineages are not based on the pole. They could have other origins, or just evolved differently. That's for them to discover.

There is no reason to believe YMVT boxing was not always based on the pole. It's the only one I'm aware of that matches this pole exactly. I have not seen another one with the exact pole method, suggesting lots of expansion and evolution on more than just the boxing, whereas YMVT has remained relatively simple. Easy to do when based on a short, simple weapon theory. Deviation is immediately obvious and avoidable.

That's good logic, but I consider some of it subjective. There are conclusions stated without sufficient support shown in the post (like the statement that it's too integrated to have been added - that's a conclusion, rather than evidence).

The conclusion is supported by the evidence.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion, just the the chain of logic is either incomplete (you left out some of your middle-men in the chain)

Like whom?

or there are fallacies in it (using unproven conclusions as evidence).

The conclusions are supported by the evidence.

Except that there has never been substantial evidence of aliens. We have lots of evidence that, a) arts evolve, b) arts sometimes start from empty-hand methods without weapons, c) arts sometimes gain weapons, and d) arts sometimes evolve into something new without branching to leave the original behind. This is the fallacy I referred to earlier (false equivalence).

There is no evidence of one that has done any of that in this case.

While we can't say any of those things definitively happened with VT, we also can't make a definitive claim about it being weapons-originated.

No one has.

No, you stated that they are equivalent (that is a fiat statement unless evidence is used to support it).

No, I explained how they are equivalent, i.e. one based on observable facts of existing elements, the other based on indemonstrable variables.

If you want to say it's possible that a god created the universe (or a preexisting base style helped form VT), then you have to demonstrate that a god exists (the base style) before you can discuss what it might have done (helped form VT).

You have not done that, so I can't accept your assertion that it is even possible.

Maybe the base style evolved or died out and can no longer be found. Maybe the universe-creating god worked his magic and then disappeared or expired and can no longer be found.

It can't be investigated either way. So, that it is even possible is not a rationally held position.

You just said there was no evidence it ever was tightly aligned with the pole. Given that, what makes it more likely it was, than that it wasn't?

What? I think you're getting tired...

I said there's no evidence non-YM WC systems were ever tightly aligned with the pole, and they certainly aren't now.

What I said about YMVT is that it is tightly aligned with the pole now, and there's no evidence that it hasn't always been.

Follow?

I don't recall seeing him say the hands couldn't work independently.

Here:

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

This suggests we shouldn't be doing that if we're based on the pole. Pretty silly, huh?

VT is a concept-based system, so we don't have to act like we're holding an invisible pole when we fight barehanded.

He doesn't seem to get that conceptual part, which is odd for a WC practitioner.

VT boxing is a "two pole" method. The arms function as the shaft of the poles. We need not pretend to hold anything.

 

[Nobody Important]

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.....

It's quite plausible.