Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

Look in the knives.

The knife form doesn't have the same consistency as the pole, and no outside system has yet appeared with the same set. I do agree though, on an individual basis, that the knives would contain some of those other elements. Unfortunately, I believe what found would only be applicable to that lineage.

 

[LFJ]

It's quite plausible.

The problem is, I don't think it would make sense to teach two contradictory methods, or multiple in the case of various "YM" lineages, especially if you're not making it clear to everyone which is which.

A larger problem is that not only do many of the other "YM" methods contradict the weapons-based boxing method, and each other, but many of them don't even work and are clearly the result of missing information/ experience.

Plus, a secret style for the special ones sounds too much like WT or TWC stories.

Fact is, most of his students weren't around long enough to learn fully, and most were never fighters. So, it's no wonder he only taught a few the full system, and didn't really invest much in others.

 

[LFJ]

The knife form doesn't have the same consistency as the pole,

And for good reason! The strategies between knives and barehand are opposite.

Only some tactical guidelines are carried over to help make the core, pole-based method effective.

 

[geezer]

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

I can agree with this. Rather than argue endlessly over the "chicken or the egg" issue of whether the pole came first or not, I'd rather focus on how the mechanics of the pole informs the way we use our hands. The way a long, thrusting weapon (spear, pole or even rapier) displaces the opponent's weapon and thrusts through to it's target is exactly what you see in good WC/VT. Da sau juk si siu sau -- attacking hand is defending hand.

 

[Nobody Important]

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.

True, but I also pointed out how a scenario could have played out where the pole was used to re-engineer the hands, possibly prior to Yip Man. This would technically be hands coming from pole as far as YMVT is concerned. This isn't applicable to all Wing Chun and I can't speak for LFJ as to whether or not he feels this could be the case.

 

[geezer]

BTW Dale -- I see that you study WSL VT in Australia and in another post mentioned that you had trained some other WC and then put it aside. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit. What was your prior experience and what did you find most appealing about WSL VT?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.



The conclusion is supported by the evidence.



Like whom?



The conclusions are supported by the evidence.



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



No one has.



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.



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?



Here:



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.

Your grasp of the logical chain of evidence to conclusion is apparently weak. You're claiming evidence exists where claims have been used as evidence, without support.

I'm done trying to explain the weaknesses. You seem convinced I'm trying to assert one theory. All I've done is show where there are weaknesses in arguments, and show where arguments have support (and where claims against them lack support).

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence - positive or negative - in either direction, your fiat statements notwithstanding.

 

[LFJ]

You're claiming evidence exists where claims have been used as evidence, without support.

Where? You have not said what specifically.

The evidence I've presented are observable facts.

My conclusions are based on them.

You seem convinced I'm trying to assert one theory.

You have certainly tried your darnedest to defend the possibility of one.

All I've done is show where there are weaknesses in arguments, and show where arguments have support (and where claims against them lack support).

Without realizing the weaknesses in your own arguments and where they lack support.

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence - positive or negative - in either direction, your fiat statements notwithstanding.

None has been asserted.

 

[Nobody Important]

The problem is, I don't think it would make sense to teach two contradictory methods, or multiple in the case of various "YM" lineages, especially if you're not making it clear to everyone which is which.

A larger problem is that not only do many of the other "YM" methods contradict the weapons-based boxing method, and each other, but many of them don't even work and are clearly the result of missing information/ experience.

Plus, a secret style for the special ones sounds too much like WT or TWC stories.

Fact is, most of his students weren't around long enough to learn fully, and most were never fighters. So, it's no wonder he only taught a few the full system, and didn't really invest much in others.

Agree, and I mentioned that in part. What is not accounted for in your assessment is if Yip Man did indeed learn from two teachers of the same system and favored one over the other, it's plausible that he taught parts of the method he felt inferior to substandard students. I have seen this happen first hand with many Kung Fu teachers, TBH, I've done it myself. Some students aren't worthy of learning better material because they have proven themselves substandard, take into account a need to keep them around to pay the bills and...

 

[LFJ]

Agree, and I mentioned that in part. What is not accounted for in your assessment is if Yip Man did indeed learn from two teachers of the same system and favored one over the other, it's plausible that he taught parts of the method he felt inferior to substandard students. I have seen this happen first hand with many Kung Fu teachers, TBH, I've done it myself. Some students aren't worthy of learning better material because they have proven themselves substandard, take into account a need to keep them around to pay the bills and...

Whatever the truth may be upstream from YM, it strengthens the case for what WSL received from him being historically accurate and consistent when analyzed in comparison with the preexisting pole method. Others, eh, not so much...

 

[Nobody Important]

Whatever the truth may be upstream from YM, it strengthens the case for what WSL received from him being historically accurate and consistent when analyzed in comparison with the preexisting pole method. Others, eh, not so much...

I don't study from the Yip Man line so I cannot really comment on the validity of your statement. I can, however, agree that it is a plausibility. Taking into account what others have stated concerning who received full transmission from Yip Man, the conclusion isn't absurd. Since it's not my line I'll let others argue validity.

 

[Nobody Important]

Based on LFJ's claim, I presented some scenarios as to how YMVT could have came to be based upon pole work. They are conjecture and unsubstantiated, yet quite plausible. LFJ has agreed with many parts of it. There are holes and "what if" questions that demand attention, but until more information becomes available, what presented is what we have.

In the course of this discussion there have been claims of "truth", argument over semantics to the point of minutiae, various fallacies etc. I would suggest re-reading some posts for clarification to answer many of the questions that have been repeated over & over, the answers are there. Many points of contention, as well as clarification, have been addressed only to be ignored in side discussion.

For what it's worth, I feel this to be an unproven, yet plausible theory. When examined it does make sense in certain aspects of why YMVT is so different to other branches of Wing Chun. It by no means suggests superior, simply in and of itself, consistent.

I don't feel as if I really have any more to add to this discussion, so I'll bow out. Thank you all for your time and input. This has been a very fruitful and productive discussion, and if nothing else, thought provoking. Kudos to LFJ for bringing it to light.

 

[LFJ]

For what it's worth, I feel this to be an unproven, yet plausible theory. When examined it does make sense in certain aspects of why YMVT is so different to other branches of Wing Chun. It by no means suggests superior, simply in and of itself, consistent.

That's all it was ever presented as.

I too would like it if we all just agreed to drop the topic here.

Everything that is going to be said has been said, more than a few times.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm leaving the country for a month in a couple days and probably won't be on for a long while anyway.

 

[Juany118]

I can agree with this. Rather than argue endlessly over the "chicken or the egg" issue of whether the pole came first or not, I'd rather focus on how the mechanics of the pole informs the way we use our hands. The way a long, thrusting weapon (spear, pole or even rapier) displaces the opponent's weapon and thrusts through to it's target is exactly what you see in good WC/VT. Da sau juk si siu sau -- attacking hand is defending hand.

I would also say that it helps train structure, if you are using the full on hard wood 6.5 point pole and not the shorter staffs some schools may use due to practical space considerations. The weight of the full on pole and the effect the length has on the perceived weight forces you to focus very much on retaining your bodies structure during the form.

 

[KPM]

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".

---Absolutely wrong. There is no more evidence to say that there was a "proto-Wing Chun" that was created exclusively from the pole and knives than there is to say there was a "proto-Wing Chun" that added on the pole and knives and then evolved from there. Both premises are on equal footing. The later does not introduce an "unknown" any more than the former. Multiple people have pointed this out to you multiple times now on this thread. You are being very dishonest in denying this point.



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

---No its not. That post does not directly answer the points I made in post #302. If I tried to respond as if it did, I'm quite sure I would end up misinterpreting something at some point. So why are YOU dodging actually answering the logic of my points in post #302?



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

----Wrong! See, there you go! Belittling someone else's theory for no reason! Did aliens also come up with the "proto-Wing Chun" developed entirely from the pole and knives?? Just as much or as little evidence says they did!



Who said decades after?

----Oral history has been discounted as unreliable in this discussion.



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

----If it takes in-depth knowledge of and indoctrination into WSLVT, then your theory is invalid. If it cannot hold up to someone with knowledge of Wing Chun and Wing Chun pole methods examining similarities, then your theory is invalid. Anything that takes such specialized knowledge to accept as true is not a very good theory.



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.

---Denying an obvious difference in the way one moves when empty-hand versus while holding a pole is retarded. Saying that they are "exactly the same" is retarded when anyone with a brain can see that they are not. Resorting to...."but, but, its conceptual!" is retarded. A physical skill is a physical skill. The physical skills (biomechanics) used when doing Wing Chun empty hand versus doing the pole are different. To deny that is just plain retarded!



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

----But it has! Just as much as you have demonstrated that your theory "could be" true! That's what you refuse to acknowledge! BOTH are speculation!




Legends and fairytales are not history!

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

Big difference.

---Wrong. And if Ip Man's testimony in a written magazine article can be discounted then certainly any personal testimony can be discounted. After all, we have to go by the "observable facts"!!

 

[KPM]

I think you meant "hearsay".

Yes, you are right! Thanks for the correction!

 

[KPM]

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.

This is it, exactly!

 

[KPM]

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.

A VT boxing system derived entirely from the weapon existing prior to YMVT has as much evidence to support it as aliens as well.....none! NOT EVEN legends and fairytales!!! Why can't you see that????

 

[KPM]

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.

William Cheung was a fighter. Duncan Leung was a fighter. Hawkins Cheung was a fighter. There were others. Yet none of them seem to have this "pole = empty hand" understanding.

 

[DALE80]

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?

Huh?

LFJ showed that the pole existed prior to YM VT. There is evidence for this, but not evidence for any pre-weapons empty hand wing chun.

YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons.

What are you even talking about?

---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!

YM didn't teach many people fully. This is why their wing chun isn't the same as his.

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!

Your thinking is badly faulty here.

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!

You are being blatantly dishonest because LFJ is talking about discounting legends and fairlytales, not things that actual people said about actual things happening in their actual lives. You know this but pretend not to.

You are being blatantly dishonest in pretending you haven't understood that LFJ's argument is supported by the actual facts that are available, while the idea of an earlier "hands only" wing chun adds complexity without increasing understanding and so is not as good a theory as LFJ's. You know this but pretend not to.