Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Juany118]

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.

But then ethically it would be something you "hang on your shingle" so to speak, and we have no evidence of that. As an example at my School there is a "seniors" only class held at a special time. Everyone knows about it and knows that you have to show a specific level of skill and control to get into the class. The reason for this is that it has a fair amount of Kali grappling and ground fighting in it. Kali grappling, especially ground fighting, isn't about submissions but actual breaks and dislocations. The Sifu/Guro wants to make sure you have adequate technique and control before teaching these to students so they don't "break" their training partners.

Additionally you would THINK that some student other than WSL would have been taught this, at least one of his sons, given the fact that YM is almost always referred to as a "traditional" Chinese Man and it would be virtually unheard of not to pass down your methods to one of your children. However like I said this is the first time I think any of the YM people round these parts have heard such a theory regarding the pole.

As an example I have heard some people propose the BJD as a point of origin. It is more similar to the empty hand than the pole and it also has certain things, especially regarding footwork, that add to the empty hand. This theory usually pops up in the context of "If Bruce Lee would have finished the BJD, he would have seen WC/VT is not limited to close range combat." However it ignores the fact, that as here, there is no evidence of a Proto-BJD like we see with the pole.

I really think that most people simply end up taking a western context of teaching into an analysis. They can't imagine that a system would be set up where something taking up as much "space" is there simply to reinforce already taught principles, that there must be some larger and more unique purpose to it.

 

[KPM]

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.

---No. That is NOT true. What you just wrote applies ONLY to WSLVT!

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.

---What, are you finally admitting that the rest of us might be right and have had a point all along!!!

Can this thread be done now?


----Hey, I gave you an "out" and suggested we move on multiple times in the past. But you chose to keep denying everyone else's points and kept it going. So if you want it "done" its time you start listening to what others are saying!

 

[dudewingchun]

Why are all WSL guys so stuck up?

 

[LFJ]

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

Actually, I'm sure I've said this before...

LJ is the earliest verifiable ancestor of VT/WC.

Some lineages have LJ passing on the weapons, others don't.

So, it's entirely possible that the other forms got passed on without the weapon theories, allowing the boxing methods to change and evolve, with weapons being added back in later, as some LJ lineages claim.

While on the other side, we have the other forms getting passed on with the weapons from LJ down through YM, leaving the weapons-based boxing method intact.

 

[LFJ]

---No. That is NOT true. What you just wrote applies ONLY to WSLVT!

WSLVT is YMVT and it is true.

---What, are you finally admitting that the rest of us might be right and have had a point all along!!!

No. You are not right and have no point.

 

[LFJ]

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

Got videos? I haven't seen quite the same pole method. Most are more complex or differ in major ways. Pole method is something where seemingly insignificant differences in form could result in major tactical and strategic differences.

 

[KPM]

---OK. Since LFJ has pointed to this post from another thread multiple times now rather than respond to my post #302, let's take a look at it!

There is right and wrong in YMVT, both in reference to what he taught and what is functional. I've tried to make this more objective by illustrating problems that result from not getting it right, and all have acknowledged it. So, I think everyone can relate if we lay ego aside and take an honest look at things.

Everyone can test out the drill/scenario and see what works, how and why, and why alternatives fail so easily where one should not.

Also, looking at the photos I posted, even though they are still shots, with explanation it can be seen clearly that awareness of the VT strategy YM taught is missing in the latter two (three). If there is still doubt, any video or direct interaction will dispel that.

Since wu-sau is only a small part of the whole, I think it may be a bit more obvious now that it wasn't a WSL invention. It is too cohesive with the rest of the system for this idea and strategy to have been reconceptualized into the existing actions of SNT for example, without changing anything.

If the actions are not changed, but explanation is given, then it will be evident what the original interpretation must be. Where there is strategic information represented in abstract actions meant to establish certain concepts, others have replaced this information/gap-filled with application ideas devoid of strategy.

The opening actions of SNT are a perfect example. Everyone sees blocks or strikes of all sorts, or training shapes for these types of things, or they have changed it to add rolling arms, introducing complicated double arm actions like kwan-sau before even looking at the basic punch in the system. Very illogical learning progression and not a "little" idea.

When I look at it I see abstract concepts setting up an understanding of space and attack lines which we'll deal with when looking at the punch in the following taan and fuk section, which are also abstract pre-punch elbow training, not deflections and controlling arm actions. Each step of the form and indeed the rest of the system is built upon in logical progression this way.

If we look at other YM derived lineages, we wonder why all this information is missing and their systems are comparatively so disjointed and full of applications, not to mention failures we've discussed. We then look back at various student testimonials of YM's temperament (preferring to teach 1 good student over 10 lousy ones, and not wasting time on people he felt not worth it) and teaching style (having students go through the motions with little or no explanation), and the lack of fighting experience of most, and we can plainly see why their systems are the way they are.

If I tell a beginner this is taan-sau, it means spreading hand, but give no further detail, they will naturally assume it's for blocking. If I say to them this is chi-sau practice, it means sticking hands, but give no further detail, they will assume it is for sticking to, feeling, and wrestling with an opponent's arms.

Why else would other YM lineages be missing all the information and what they do have is exactly what an uninformed beginner would come up with?

I know it's hard to avoid offense when talking about this, and I'm really not trying to insult anyone. But hopefully I am conveying to you just why I have the views I do. That they are based on an honest examination of the evidence (technical analysis and comparison of teachings and functionality; YM student testimonials and experience or lack thereof; photos of YM showing ideas no one else can explain), and not just "because I said so".

----I see nothing there that either answers or refutes what I wrote in post #302 about the simplest and most logical theory being that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features in WSLVT that have been discussed.

---Again.....if what WSLVT taught is so very different than what all other students of Ip Man teach, while all those others are pretty similar.....without documentation from Ip Man himself stating that he taught and passed on the "true and real" version of his VT only to WSL....the logical conclusion is that WSL himself innovated and developed what we now know as WSLVT based upon what he learned from Ip Man. I see nothing above that would disprove this idea.

 

[DALE80]

Now look. This discussion started out perfectly reasonable. LFJ presented his theory. Multiple other people pointed out another theory that was equally as valid

Multiple other people (basically you and your trolling buddies) were wrong. Reasoning was explained, yet you continue to go at it, dishonestly.

LFJ refused to acknowledge that, discounted most of what everyone else had to say as being speculation and based upon fairytales or as "strawman".

Advise that you don't support your arguments with fairytales or set up strawman arguments

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!

So you decided to troll. Interesting admission. The difference between fairlytales and eyewitness testimony of real people have been pointed out already, many times. Advise you get with the program and start acting like an adult. This stuff just looks dumb.

 

[KPM]

WSLVT is YMVT and it is true.

----Nope. That is just another fiat statement! Prove it!

 

[DALE80]

It seems most likely that WSL is the source of the differences.

Lol what incredible bias

 

[LFJ]

Additionally you would THINK that some student other than WSL would have been taught this, at least one of his sons, given the fact that YM is almost always referred to as a "traditional" Chinese Man and it would be virtually unheard of not to pass down your methods to one of your children.

Doesn't matter what you would THINK. It really has no bearing on the truth. His sons' styles contradict each other too.

 

[KPM]

Multiple other people (basically you and your trolling buddies) were wrong. Reasoning was explained, yet you continue to go at it, dishonestly.

---Oh! So anyone that disagrees with you and LFJ are simply "trolls"! How convenient!



Advise that you don't support your arguments with fairytales or set up strawman arguments

---Point out where I have done so in regards to my theory that WSL is the one that aligned the pole and the empty hand methods.



So you decided to troll. Interesting admission.

---You should really look up what "troll" means! That is not trolling. Giving someone a dose of their own medicine is not trolling unless THEY were trolling to begin with!


The difference between fairlytales and eyewitness testimony of real people have been pointed out already, many times. Advise you get with the program and start acting like an adult. This stuff just looks dumb.

----What is the difference between "eyewitness testimony" and the testimony of Ip Man himself in his written history of Wing Chun published for all posterity???

 

[LFJ]

----I see nothing there that either answers or refutes what I wrote in post #302 about the simplest and most logical theory being that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features in WSLVT that have been discussed.

Try reading with your eyes open this time.

---Again.....if what WSLVT taught is so very different than what all other students of Ip Man teach, while all those others are pretty similar.....

They aren't. They all contradict one another.

Not finishing your sentence.

You are arguing entirely from ignorance.

 

[KPM]

Lol what incredible bias

No bias here! That conclusion is based entirely on the "observable evidence"!!!!

 

[KPM]

Try reading with your eyes open this time.



They aren't. They all contradict one another.

Not finishing your sentence.

You are arguing entirely from ignorance.

That's all you've got? Not very convincing at all!!!!

 

[LFJ]

----What is the difference between "eyewitness testimony" and the testimony of Ip Man himself in his written history of Wing Chun published for all posterity???

Seriously?

Relation of actual events vs legend and fairytales.

 

[LFJ]

That's all you've got? Not very convincing at all!!!!

Not worth trying to convince you.

You're like those people who deny evolution because they can't wrap their heads around monkeys and humans existing together.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

Okay, from that standpoint, we can agree. I might argue that the principles are taught from that basis, rather than it being based upon it, but that's probably arguing semantics. That it works, as you said, is the important point.

And, yeah, I think we can let it die. We've beaten it sufficiently.

 

[Nobody Important]

Actually, I'm sure I've said this before...

LJ is the earliest verifiable ancestor of VT/WC.

Some lineages have LJ passing on the weapons, others don't.

So, it's entirely possible that the other forms got passed on without the weapon theories, allowing the boxing methods to change and evolve, with weapons being added back in later, as some LJ lineages claim.

While on the other side, we have the other forms getting passed on with the weapons from LJ down through YM, leaving the weapons-based boxing method intact.

True he is, but we cannot discount other lineages that passed on similar material with similar origins just because it suits a narrative. We do not conclusively know what Leung Jan passed on, it's speculation as to what his Wing Chun consisted of, much like it is for Wong Wa Bo or Dai Fa Min Kam. Also it has to be taken into consideration that the only known example of LDBK outside of Wing Chun is Lam Guei Chung's version. It can't be ignored that either he or Lam Sai Wing choreographed the HSHK version of LDBK. It cannot be verified, but it also has to taken into consideration as a possibility, because it's quite plausible and if true creates an entirely new conundrum.

This entire theory is an example of Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Lol what incredible bias

Would you like to point out what bias that might be? I know nothing of any of the lines, except what folks on here have told me. From what I've been told, it seems apparent WSL was remarkable. If a remarkable student teaches differently than others, and there's no firm evidence otherwise, then the most likely cause (not the only likely cause, but the most likely) is that this remarkable person is the reason for the difference.

What's the bias in that?