Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

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.

There are some. I do remember seeing a 3 1/2 Point version that was exact. My version is same, with the exception of more repetition and performed on both sides. We also have to take into consideration that the HSHK version wasn't melded with the 8 diagram pole completely. It's quite possible that only the salient points were included. I am currently attempting to gather more information on this with some Hung Kuen friends.

I like your theory, I think it has promise, but there are holes that need addressed and crossed off before validation. I cannot support the premise in how you came to your conclusion because of the various questions that are left unanswered. That being said, outside of remarks suggestive of only WSL passing on this method, I don't see what all the resistance is about. Because this is a theory that could benefit any branch of Wing Chun. I think I have done a good job of mapping some of it out, but there is a lot left to be explained in a consistent and plausible manner. Good luck with it should you continue to explore it.

 

[DALE80]

So, you're going to say that all the other principle students of YM cannot possibly have carried forth his style?

You mean principal I guess? Certainly a lot of these guys were not particularly principled!

That's a very strong claim, which requires very strong evidence to support it.

Suggest you try some VT rather than talking about it from a position of complete ignorance

 

[Juany118]

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?

Well my question is this regarding weapons in general.

1. We have a WSL student who actually explains how, according to WSL himself, YMVT is different in many respects than Main Land WC and according to that story it simply has to do with YM having to remember, and reinvent what could not be remembered, more than what he personally practiced in order to teach a complete system.

2. If the weapons are indeed the core, and this WSL student is in error, then logically their should be a proto-BJD as well, which has yet to be produced. You can't say "weapons" without it.

3. While there are indeed differences between Main Land WC and YMVT they are not so dissimilar as for YMVT empty hands to be seen as unique with no influence from it's predecessors which would also be a requirement for this theory to be considered "confirmed".

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!

1. While I don't really expect to find much in terms of WSL himself commenting on the weapons in terms of "points of origin" because of his "period" (largely pre-web) but I have yet to find a single direct student of his that says this. Not only do they all appear to share the ideas of the other YMVT sub-Lineages but at least one even speaks of modifications made knowing by WSL based on his own experience.

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!

I am confused by this as well because the idea that some students (apparently just one) were taught some "secret" teaching is actually a fiat statement, aka a fairly tale, without supporting evidence.

getting to your #302 post you said this

2. WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun

But what does "track so closely" mean? According to DP it means

...the best description of this form would be that of "One-armed Wing Chun." Basically, what the form resembles most of all is the way in which one might have to fight if restricted to just one side of the body, whilst still utilising Wing Chun concepts and strategies. If that were the case, due to injury to one arm for example, the smart way to fight would be to use extremely short deflecting movements and very direct thrusting attacks, whilst reducing one's own target area and increasing one's reach...

Having knowledge of the Luk Dim Boon Gwan offers an introduction as to how to make use of ANY long object as an effective weapon, confirming that the same basic concepts of the system that apply to the hands can also be applied to weapons usage. In addition, it provides an efficient means of strengthening the body, especially the wrists and arms, enhancing one's ability to hit harder, as well as how to draw more power from the body structure, stance and the ground. Sure, you won't be carrying a 12 foot pole around with you on a daily basis, but regular training with the Luk Dim Boon Gwan will add greatly to your Wing Chun skills base.

GL says...

When considering its proportions, it is easy to understand why some may doubt the luk dim boon quan's relevancy to modern martial arts training. The dragon pole measures 9.5 feet to 10 feet in length and weighs 10 to 15 pounds (poles made of purple heart wood can weigh over 20 pounds). Why all this length and weight? The primary purpose of dragon pole training is not in its use as a weapon. The main points of dragon pole training are to develop internal power, confidence...The fighting applications of the dragon pole do stand alone as good combat technique. The method for usage is simple, powerful and can be learned and utilized quickly. But it is important to remember why the founders of our tradition found the luk dim boon gwun training valuable in the first place. Dragon pole training is most valuable as a method for developing physical power...dragon pole training is essential to the explosive short-range power and structural stability necessary for the execution of strong Wing Chun techniques. The idea is to take the large, wide, explosive movements used in dragon pole training and condense them down to energize the small, simple and powerful techniques that characterize Wing Chun.

So are their correlations? Yes but in terms of this correlation it is more in terms of again having a tool that builds up, enhances what has already been learned. So can the pole have come from Hung Kuen (GL says this as well) he also states that while when the pole was added to WC/VT is subject to much debate it was added later.

...When this Hung Kuen master finally did make the pole form available... he found plenty of raw material to work with... The pole form taught by this person provided a fast and sure means for developing internal power, which greatly augmented the Wing Chun training regimen. Ultimately the pole training was simplified to suit the character and needs of Wing Chun

It makes very little sense to think that the pole is the start because of the HK origin, not according to me but GL, because

Whoever he was...he was a master of the Hung Kuen (or Hung Gar) system of kung fu. This is why the pole training, with its low horse stance and big wide movements look so different from the rest of Wing Chun.

If the pole really was the origin, it makes little sense that the empty hand would make such fundamental changes to the over all body structure. HOWEVER if the pole was added later, first to provide a commonly available weapon, and most importantly to provide the enhancement of the existing empty hand form, then the structural differences begin to make more sense.

Now this isn't to say that 100% absolutely positively confirmed the pole was added later however the differences between the pole and the first are profound enough that the form itself undermines the idea that it is the point of origin as well.

 

[KPM]

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.

---Attacked? Paleeeezzzz! Trying to get a point across to someone being purposefully evasive and ignoring logic is not attacking!

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.
-
---And you sound like another WSLVT follower who has "drank the koolaide" and become a "true believer"!!! You aren't by chance in a PB lineage are you?

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.

---Fine. You are welcome to go elsewhere! We have enough of your kind of dogmatic belief with just LFJ being here!


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

---Anyone that repeatedly accuses others of being trolls simply because he does not agree with the points they are making probably isn't worth carrying on a discussion with anyway!

 

[KPM]

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

Worthless statement. It means nothing. That's just a "trolling" statement if you ask me! It didn't answer the point I made at all. It is NOT an "observable fact". If you would like to explain how it is, then please go ahead.

 

[KPM]

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

Another statement that contributes nothing and could be seen as an example of just "trolling." I understand the pole well enough. But that is irrelevant to the points that have been made.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You mean principal I guess? Certainly a lot of these guys were not particularly principled!



Suggest you try some VT rather than talking about it from a position of complete ignorance

I've made absolutely no statements that required any knowledge of VT. I've only discussed the points of logic. Suggest you try some logic rather than talking about it from a position of complete ignorance.

 

[KPM]

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

---What? That makes no sense and is irrelevant to what I said.

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

---Also an irrelevant and pointless statement. Sounds like you are running out of steam LFJ! And I'm not the one having a hard time here!



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.

---And no reason to believe that is HAS always been that way either!

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

----I don't know LFJ. I offered that many pages ago and you turned it down. Now that things aren't exactly going your way you've changed your mind????

 

[Nobody Important]

This discussion has gone from Schrodinger's Cat to Russell's Paradox, lol!

I suggest putting differences aside to how it could have came to be, and explore the premise that the weapons could contain information to keep the empty hand methodology consistent within YOUR method. Ultimately people's beliefs on origin is of little value to the actual validity of a quality control measure.

 

[DALE80]

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.

No, the second theory is less simple because it requires an extra factor, the now vanished empty hand style. More factors increases complexity, for no additional insight. First theory is a better one than second theory.

 

[KPM]

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.

You don't have the support for your theory to convince me. And I wasn't the one that denied the existence of a "proto-Wing Chun" because after more than 100 years it is no longer around for us to examine, you where! And if you recall, I was the one that equated that to denying the theory of evolution. So your use of that analogy above is somewhat amusing!

 

[KPM]

No, the second theory is less simple because it requires an extra factor, the now vanished empty hand style. More factors increases complexity, for no additional insight. First theory is a better one than second theory.

And the first theory also suffers from the fact that there is no "proto-Wing Chun" that was initially derived entirely from the weapons still around to examine either! How do you not see that??? No one knows when this "weapons-derived" Wing Chun might have occurred within the lineage. Was it with Leung Jan? Was it with Chan Wah Shun? Was it earlier? The first theory requires that "extra factor" the same as the second! How can you not follow that logic!!!

 

[KPM]

I am bringing my post #302 forward again because I think it was largely ignored. I'm not convinced that Dale or LFJ even read it. So here it is again. If you eliminate speculation and oral history and go just by "observable facts" and logic. This is what you come up with. If you disagree, please point out the flaw in my logic and WHY you disagree! Just stating "wrong" or "you obviously don't know WSLVT" or "you're just a troll" will be seen as evidence that you cannot deny the logic I have used!!!!

Ok, so here is an exercise in theory development based upon observable facts:

1. WSL's pole form is very similar to an older pole form also know as LDBK that is said to predate the existence of Wing Chun. (We'll assume age of said older LDBK is indeed older than Wing Chun, but that little tidbit hasn't actually been well established either! The oldest recorded version of this pole form seems to be from about 1945. I believe Wing Chun is older than that! But we proceed anyway!)

2. WSLVT empty hands correlates with and tracks closely with the pole form. (We'll also just have to assume this is true based upon LFJ's testimony since none of the rest of us know the "complete" WSLVT.)

3. Other versions of Wing Chun, both Ip Man VT and Mainland Wing Chun, do not track the empty hands with the pole. Thus fact #2 seems to only apply to WSLVT.

4. Any kind of oral history, legend, or testimony can be disregarded as fairytales or unreliable. (That is a rule applied to this discussion by LFJ)

5. Wong Shun Leung learned his Wing Chun from Ip Man. Ip Man learned his Wing Chun from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So. Chan Wah Shun learned his Wing Chun from Leung Jan.


So based upon the above, the theory of the weapons being the entire source of the empty hand method would apply only to WSLVT. Based upon only the observable facts it cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole.

But there is a problem! Clearly neither Ip Man or WSL started from nothing but the pole and knives. They had an empty hand system as noted in #5 above. So if the theory cannot be generalized further back than WSL, if the theory cannot be generalized to Wing Chun as a whole, then it cannot be valid. Because both WSL and YM had a base empty hand method to start with!

You cannot argue that the other methods have diverged away from the original weapons-based approach, because you would have to prove that they started out with the empty hand tracking closely with the pole. And that can't be proven. Remember....we are going solely by observable facts here!!!! Fact #3 above applies.

So the observable facts do not actually support the theory that Wing Chun empty hands (even WSLVT empty hands) derived entirely from the weapons. Because for this theory to be true based upon observable facts, either WSL would have had to start without a empty hand base system, or ALL versions of Wing Chun would need to be observed to have that same version of LDBK and to have empty hand methods that tracked very closely with the pole!

Now I'm sure LFJ will have plenty of things to repeat over and over again. But I challenge anyone to deny the logic that I have put forth above and tell me where it is wrong! And simply stating "wrong" is not enough!



Now to continue to show how deriving interesting theories from limited observations can lead to fun stuff, I offer a new theory below that also takes into account the observable facts noted above!

This theory is that WSL learned this older version of LDBK from Ip Man or even someone else (it doesn't really matter). He also learned the knives very thoroughly. Based upon his in-depth knowledge of both the pole and the knives he set out to refine and adapt the empty hand VT he had learned from Ip Man. This resulted in a version of VT very focused on the punch and on using each arm as if it was a "pole" to close in as quickly and directly as possible. This theory explains why:

1. WSLVT is different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that are currently in existence.
2. WSLVT pole and empty hands track so closely with the pole while the same is not true of everyone else's Wing Chun
3. None of Ip Man's other close long-term students do Wing Chun like WSL and have this same understanding of empty hand and pole methods.

All of this matches "observable facts"!!!

 

[Nobody Important]

No, the second theory is less simple because it requires an extra factor, the now vanished empty hand style. More factors increases complexity, for no additional insight. First theory is a better one than second theory.

To be fair this would only ring true if you believe that the YMVT empty hand forms bear absolutely no relation to other lineages of Wing Chun not connected to Yip Man. I don't see how that could be factual. Improbable to think that the YMVT versions of SNT, CK & BJ could have developed independent of other Wing Chun versions of SNT, CK & BJ and retain like choreography & naming convention.

 

[DALE80]

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

Any arbitrary factor can be a part when you are just pulling things from you know where. All have the same level of support and all add precisely nothing to the simpler alternative.

 

[geezer]

Why are all WSL guys so stuck up?

You just say that because you haven't met my kung fu brothers in my old lineage!

 

[Juany118]

To be fair this would only ring true if you believe that theYMVT empty hand forms bear absolutely no relation to other lineages of Wing Chun not connected to Yip Man. I don't see how that could be factual. Improbable to think that the YMVT versions of SNT, CK & BJ could have developed independent of other Wing Chun versions of SNT, CK & BJ and retain like choreography & naming convention.

And this is the main issue. While there are differences in specific execution there are also many similarities between YMVT and Main Land WC. If we are to take the accounts of some of YM's students, most clearly elaborated second hand via DP, the differences are not the product of a unique art created from whole cloth. Rather YM first did what we are all supposed to do, namely make the art our own. Second he suddenly finds himself having to recall and/or create a curriculum to do what he never planned on doing in Hong Kong, teaching. Heck he never even planned to be in Hong Kong, he fled the Communists. This process of "rememberance" would also fall in line with those students of YM who say, not that he actually had to remember the WC he was taught but that he just "simplified" it. As a matter of fact that is the most obvious thing, imo, someone sees when they look at SLT without knowing either of these two accounts, that YMVT SLT is basically just a more simple version than the Main Land versions.

With that said the insistence that YMVT is entirely unique from the Main Land arts is completely unsupported by any objective evidence.

 

[Transk53]

Think this thread needs a toys being thrown out of a pram emoticon. Never known one art that can evoke such amounts of click baiting, arguing and such like. Such a simple premis that Yip Man made changes to the curriculum.

 

[DALE80]

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

The fallacy of false equivalence is what you are doing. LFJ is not making a truth claim and so argument from silence etc is nonsense. All he is doing is pointing to the better theory on the basis of its simplicity and requiring no extra evidence, which is the one he has outlined.

 

[DALE80]

I think you meant "hearsay".

No he probably meant heresy, given the reaction here to a simple and logical explanation for the available facts. If LFJ was present in person with you guys he would probably be burning at the stake by now. Talk about dogmatic and limited thinking!