Yip Man's curriculum changes

[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.

 

[DALE80]

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

I don't believe you introduced yourself to me either? All I have seen is you acting a bit oddly towards someone making a good logical argument on a forum. You sound like a child more than anything. If you want information then try acting like a normal person, not a weirdo.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons.

This is a conclusion in question, not a statement of fact.

 

[KPM]

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.

---Very faulty logic here! First, there is also no reason to believe that YMVT boxing was always based on the pole. YM or WSL could have aligned the empty hands with the pole on their own. Second, you can't even reliably refer to "YMVT", because the only example of YMVT this applies to is WSLVT! No other version of YMVT is like WSLVT. And if "deviation is immediately obvious and avoidable" why would that not also apply to any system prior to YM/WSL that was also based on this "proto Wing Chun" that was derived from the weapons? Very faulty logic here!

 

[DALE80]

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??

The "written history" provided by YM was legend and as such should be treated like all other legend. It was mostly a discussion of legendary people, not real people.

Things that actual people are recorded as actually saying are entirely different. If you repeat this idiocy again then I will definitely ignore you. Life is too short to spend time interacting with people who are either mentally deficient or trolling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't believe you introduced yourself to me either? All I have seen is you acting a bit oddly towards someone making a good logical argument on a forum. You sound like a child more than anything. If you want information then try acting like a normal person, not a weirdo.

Existing members don't typically stop to introduce themselves to every new member unless asked. New members are typically encouraged to fill in their backgrounds, so we know what direction they're coming from (background, level of experience, what they are likely to know that we don't, etc.).

AS for the "good logical argument", I've pointed out 3 major fallacies LFJ keeps repeating, using at least one of them as evidence when it is not. I've also pointed out that where his positive logic is decent, his refutations often are simply fiat statements without support.

 

[DALE80]

This is a conclusion in question, not a statement of fact.

No, it is a statement of fact. Maybe you need to get out more?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, it is a statement of fact. Maybe you need to get out more?

You are stating as fact that which even LFJ has said is not proven. He has stated it as the most likely conclusion from the evidence, but it is not proven. As such, it is not a fact. Maybe you need a dictionary.

 

[KPM]

I don't believe you introduced yourself to me either? All I have seen is you acting a bit oddly towards someone making a good logical argument on a forum. You sound like a child more than anything. If you want information then try acting like a normal person, not a weirdo.

I am not the newbie here, and not the one that showed up to lend support to LFJ exactly when he need it! He is not making a good logical argument. He has been ignoring any logical points that others have made. We've all dealt with LFJ multiple times here and have found that it takes a special approach to deal with his dogmatic assertion of things as if they were widely accepted facts. I just find it strange that you would join the forum and chime right in on a discussion but be unwilling to tell us anything about your background to understand where your viewpoint is coming from.

 

[Juany118]

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.....

But the problem you have with this idea is the following. Remember that YM trained people in WC/VT for money (with the exception of his sons). It seems, and correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of what you say, that you are proposing he had what he saw as a "correct" and thus more profound form of WC/VT and then a simply functional but ultimately "flawed" form of WC/VT he taught to others. So the traditional and honorable YM, in short, ripped off the vast majority of his students, and even short changed his own sons by teaching them the "flawed" version of WC/VT.

I say this because all the YM sub-lineages point to important stuff being in the weapons. The pole helps reinforce the concepts of power generation and the like, the blades introduce longer stepping which can be useful etc. However none of the other ones come close to saying "starts with weapon forms that predate a unique empty hand form created from whole cloth" as it seems some of our WSLVT brethern believe.

I simply find issue with accepting the premise of the first paragraph. /shrug

 

[KPM]

No, it is a statement of fact. Maybe you need to get out more?

No, that is NOT one of the "observable facts" that has been established. Have you been even trying to follow this thread???

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But the problem you have with this idea is the following. Remember that YM trained people in WC/VT for money (with the exception of his sons). It seems, and correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of what you say, that you are proposing he had what he saw as a "correct" and thus more profound form of WC/VT and then a simply functional but ultimately "flawed" form of WC/VT he taught to others. So the traditional and honorable YM, in short, ripped off the vast majority of his students, and even short changed his own sons by teaching them the "flawed" version of WC/VT.

I say this because all the YM sub-lineages point to important stuff being in the weapons. The pole helps reinforce the concepts of power generation and the like, the blades introduce longer stepping which can be useful etc. However none of the other ones come close to saying "starts with weapon forms that predate a unique empty hand form created from whole cloth" as it seems some of our WSLVT brethern believe.

I simply find issue with accepting the premise of the first paragraph. /shrug

I don't think it has to be an ethical issue. If he knew two versions, he may have offered to teach the one version, and chosen folks to teach the other version to as they proved to meet his standards. I don't know how likely that is, but it is a version that would put YM on solid ethical grounds without having to teach his best material to everyone. It would be like me teaching NGA the way I was taught (quite functional), and teaching Shojin-ryu (my refinement of it, which may or may not be any better, but which I prefer) to folks who showed enough promise. Shojin-ryu is harder for me to teach, so I could have chosen to keep most folks on the mainline curriculum.

 

[DALE80]

Existing members don't typically stop to introduce themselves to every new member unless asked. New members are typically encouraged to fill in their backgrounds, so we know what direction they're coming from (background, level of experience, what they are likely to know that we don't, etc.).

AS for the "good logical argument", I've pointed out 3 major fallacies LFJ keeps repeating, using at least one of them as evidence when it is not. I've also pointed out that where his positive logic is decent, his refutations often are simply fiat statements without support.

I was watching the conversation without commenting and I have to say KPM, yourself and 1 or 2 other people (Juany?) have been awfully biased and almost unbalanced. Given this I didn't feel particularly motivated to introduce myself in a friendly way when I decided to comment- I was more motivated to add support for LFJ who was being attacked by KPM, you and others.

I don't agree with any fallacy you personally have highlighted. You sound like a bit of a blowhard with quite a large ego not backed up by thinking ability. Given that you don't even do VT, I tend to just gloss over what you post as irrelevant at this point, considering past form.

If either of you guys want to talk in a normal way to me then maybe I will respond in kind. I don't have anything invested in making friends on this forum though, and given what I have seen of you and KPM, would not want to anyway.

Maybe it would just be easier to ignore both of you- trolling doesn't make for good reading.

 

[DALE80]

No, that is NOT one of the "observable facts" that has been established. Have you been even trying to follow this thread???

You obviously don't have any knowledge of YM VT via WSL.

 

[DALE80]

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.

Ok, you don't understand the pole. No big deal.

 

[LFJ]

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

No, it hasn't. Legend and fairytales have, because they are not oral "history". They are myths.

----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.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory, despite some uneducated idiots thinking it's wrong because monkeys and humans exist together.

Resorting to...."but, but, its conceptual!" is retarded.

Your Wing Chun is not concept-based? Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time here.

there is also no reason to believe that YMVT boxing was always based on the pole.

It is now and has been confirmed to be identical to the preexisting pole method. There is no reason to believe it has not always been that way.

This topic is done anyway. Can we agree to disagree, or what?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was watching the conversation without commenting and I have to say KPM, yourself and 1 or 2 other people (Juany?) have been awfully biased and almost unbalanced. Given this I didn't feel particularly motivated to introduce myself in a friendly way when I decided to comment- I was more motivated to add support for LFJ who was being attacked by KPM, you and others.

I don't agree with any fallacy you personally have highlighted. You sound like a bit of a blowhard with quite a large ego not backed up by thinking ability. Given that you don't even do VT, I tend to just gloss over what you post as irrelevant at this point, considering past form.

If either of you guys want to talk in a normal way to me then maybe I will respond in kind. I don't have anything invested in making friends on this forum though, and given what I have seen of you and KPM, would not want to anyway.

Maybe it would just be easier to ignore both of you- trolling doesn't make for good reading.

Show me where I "attacked" LFJ. I have commented only on his arguments, until such point as he started referring to my posts as untruths, relating my logic to "aliens did it", etc. In fact, I never even took a side as to which theory is more likely - I simply showed some flaws in LFJ's argument. I was actually thinking he'd have responses to them, because his logic starts out pretty solid. Instead, he decided to attack, moved on to some pure logical fallacies, and started throwing out fiat statements. I don't think there's much strength in the evidence presented on either side, and I've acknowledged that. I have also pointed out that LFJ's experience with WSLVT may be the salient point I don't have, and which he couldn't possibly provide via forum. Had he simply leaned on that, rather than the logical fallacies, I'd have been okay with it.

As for your ad hominem attack, perhaps go back and look at my posts. I've done my best to remain polite and courteous until LFJ went on the attack. Perhaps he felt I was taking a side, because the fallacies I pointed out were his.

 

[LFJ]

You are stating as fact that which even LFJ has said is not proven. He has stated it as the most likely conclusion from the evidence, but it is not proven. As such, it is not a fact. Maybe you need a dictionary.

It is a fact that YMVT is interpreted and taught this way. To this extent, we can say it is a fact that YMVT boxing is based on the weapons. We certainly teach it with that understanding.

It is just not historically proven by official records to have been created in this order, despite having evidence to support that theory. So, not officially a "historical fact", but whatever. The important thing is that it actually works, and damn well.

Can this thread be done now?

 

[Nobody Important]

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.

I hate to interrupt, but there is a fallacy that needs addressed here. Yes it is true that the LDBK can be proven to exist prior to Yip Man. There are a couple of points to address here though.

1. The pole seen in YMVT, as verified by Lam Guei Chung's HSHK version, is also present in YKSWC & Kulo.

2. Since the existence of the pole is applicable as being pre-Yip Man, so must to be, the empty hand sets SNT, CK & BJ as these sets are also passed on by YKSWC & other Leung Jan lineages, the same as YMVT. Theory, principles, methodology etc. of the forms and pole of that time cannot be definitively proven, only outward appearance.

3. Even though the appearance of the empty hand sets differ slightly, it doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to the pole. We can deduce that at minimum they existed at the same time.

4. Yip Man's version of the empty hand forms didn't exist prior to YMVT, because YMVT didn't appear prior to Yip Man.

5. The significance of the YMVT empty hand forms being based on the pole is only applicable to YMVT and could only have occurred prior to Yip Man, with Yip Man or after Yip Man. But this does not at any point eliminate the existence of SNT, CK or BJ until the emergence of the LDBK. Because if we take the previous points into consideration, we see that the empty hand sets, like the pole were passed on independent of Yip Man's lineage.

6. This leaves the conclusion that any correlation to pole with empty hand occurred only within the Yip Man line and since the existence of SNT, CK & BJ can be verified prior to YMVT, that the merging of the theory could only have occurred in one of the following ways:

A. Leung Bik/Fung Wah taught it to Yip Man. Since no other students of Chan Wah Shun pass this on, he can be ruled out.

B. Yip Man re-engineered the hands to align with the pole and passed it on to a select few.

C. Wong Shun Leung formulated this methodology and passed it on.

There are no other possible solutions based on the available evidence that would support a plausible explanation.

 

[KPM]

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.

---Yes, the pole existed prior to YMVT. But that is totally unrelated to whether or not that pre-existing pole method became the source for the empty hands, or whether it was added to an empty hand system and then influenced its development and evolution from there. There may be no evidence for a "pre-weapons" empty hand wing chun, but there is also no evidence for a "weapons-based" empty hand wing chun prior to YM either! How many times now has this point been made????


YM VT exists today with hands derived entirely from weapons.

---How do you know that? Did Ip Man tell you that personally? Did Ip Man write that down anywhere? Does any Ip Man student other than WSL believe that? Wouldn't this mean that Chan Wah Shun's Wing Chun was also derived entirely from weapons as well since he was YM's teacher? Wouldn't this mean that Leung Jan's Wing Chun was also derived entirely from weapons since he was CWS's teacher? But now we are in the realm of "non-YM Wing Chun", and LFJ has said the theory doesn't apply here. So that's a logical problem, don't you think?




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

---How do you know? Where you there? Did you see what Ip Man taught personally? If you take most of his close long-time students and look at what they learned it isn't all that different. WSL is the only one that seems so very different than the rest. So without a written statement from Ip Man himself declaring that he passed down the only "true and original" version of his art to WSL, the most logical conclusion is that WSL innovated and refined what he learned from YM and THAT is why is differs from everyone else!



Your thinking is badly faulty here.

---In what way? How can you say that the idea of "proto-Wing Chun" based entirely on the weapons is any more valid than the idea of a "proto-Wing Chun" to which the weapons were added and then evolved from there??



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.

---What things that actual people said about actual things are you talking about?

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.

---That is not at all true. Go back and read my post #302. There is no "added complexity." Just because he wrote out some silly formula doesn't make it true!