Yip Man's curriculum changes

[DALE80]

Important to what?

To the system of VT?

 

[DALE80]

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.

VT is a concept based system. It isn't a system of physical mimicry, whether tat be of animals or of people holding poles.

Standing with one arm forward as if holding a pole would be utterly moronic in terms of the pole concepts being used.

 

[DALE80]

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.

It is a fact that YM taught 1 or 2 people his system. One of these was WSL. Refine your speculation accordingly.

 

[DALE80]

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?



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



What's confusing?



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



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?

Good post. KPM's idea is worse than idiotic (although it is)..it is also trolling, dishonest, insulting to anyone that reads it, and the work of a child brained man. It is hideous.

 

[DALE80]

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.

LFJ is not saying anything about wing chun as a whole, only about YM VT. I can't understand why you forget this so quickly?

 

[geezer]

Hey Dale, just let it go. You and LFJ have made your point, as have those who partly or entirely disagree. Nobody Important in post 493 above said:

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.

I agree completely. At this point further argumentation is moot, and neither side is going to persuade the other on this matter. What might be interesting to share is how the weapons sets inform your WSL strategy. Certainly they influence my strategy even though I train YM VT that does not come through WSL. In fact, in our branch it is held that the Biu Tze form was reverse engineered from the Bart Cham Dao. However, I am not about to engage in a 500+ post argument defending that idea. To me, speculation on origin and arguments regarding lineage mean little. As my first Escrima instructor, Rene Latosa often stated, "It's not who you learned from, it's what you can do that matters".

So, Dale, if you are just here to lend support to LFJ, fine. Not that he needs it anyway, but if that was the case, your job is done and I expect you will be moving on from this forum. On the other hand, if you actually enjoy discussing your VT, hang around, but for God's sake, let's move on to a new topic!!!

 

[KPM]

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!

Well, let's see....before you came along to lend support, LFJ was disagreeing with me, Gerry, Juany, Geezer, and Nobody Important. All of us were essentially saying the same thing and LFJ would have nothing of it. So just WHO do you think was the "dogmatic" one here????

 

[geezer]

Well, let's see....before you came along to lend support, LFJ was disagreeing with me, Gerry, Juany, Geezer, and Nobody Important. All of us were essentially saying the same thing and LFJ would have nothing of it. So just WHO do you think was the "dogmatic" one here????

Hey Keith, you can't knock the guy just for sticking to his guns. You do that too. The difference, IMO is that you are a "questioner" and a bit of a skeptic. LFJ on the other hand has found the truth and can't figure out why the rest of us are so stubbornly determined to remain ignorant.

 

[DALE80]

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?

Hi Geezer,

I studied with David Peterson before he went to Malaysia, now I am a solo operator occasionally learning from a different teacher. I teach a small class myself.

Before WSL VT I learned a different lineage, also popular in Australia, which I later discovered to be fake/made up/fraudulent (whatever description you want to use).

I like WSL VT because it works and makes logical sense. It is simple and there is no nonsense.

 

[Juany118]

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.

First when your thesis is, in part has a foundation based on a "truth" you are making such a claim. Coming late to the debate you may have missed when he opened his position by stating the only portions of YMVT that come from other systems are the weapons. He specifically stated that YMVT empty hand is entirely unique. Yet we know that YMVT empty hand has a foundation in Main Land WC Lineages. We also know these Lineages share not only techniques but also certain foundational principles such as centerline theory, straight punching and simultaneous attack and defense all based on the centerline theory with older arts. So YMVT is not wholely unique and the Main Land arts it's based on were also not uniquely created out of whole cloth

Next, if you aren't making a statement of "truth" one doesn't say "wrong" in response to an opposing opinion that is also based on observable facts. One can say "I believe my idea has a stronger foundation" and the like but a simple "wrong" or "false" is in effect stating that you speak truth.

 

[DALE80]

Well, let's see....before you came along to lend support, LFJ was disagreeing with me, Gerry, Juany, Geezer, and Nobody Important. All of us were essentially saying the same thing and LFJ would have nothing of it. So just WHO do you think was the "dogmatic" one here????

Looking at the thread? I would say you guys. I haven't seen previous threads so can't comment on your history with LFJ. But this thread didn't make you look very good.

 

[DALE80]

First when your thesis is, in part has a foundation based on a "truth" you are making such a claim.

Lack of understanding of LFJ's argument

Coming late to the debate you may have missed when he opened his position by stating the only portions of YMVT that come from other systems are the weapons. He specifically stated that YMVT empty hand is entirely unique. Yet we know that YMVT empty hand has a foundation in Main Land WC Lineages.

There is nothing like YMVT that I am aware of. Mainland wing chun is entirely different, why would you assume it has anything to do with YMVT?

We also know these Lineages share not only techniques but also certain foundational principles such as centerline theory, straight punching and simultaneous attack and defense all based on the centerline theory. So YMVT is not wholely unique and the Main Land arts it's based on were also not uniquely created out of whole cloth

Mainland wing chun appears completely unrelated to YM VT

Next, if you aren't making a statement of "truth" one doesn't say "wrong" in response to an opposing opinion that is also based on observable facts. One can say "I believe my idea has a stronger foundation" and the like but a simple "wrong" or "false" is in effect stating that you speak truth.

It is fine to say "wrong" when someone makes a mistake or is dishonest. It doesn't mean you are making a truth claim

 

[KPM]

Good post. KPM's idea is worse than idiotic (although it is)..it is also trolling, dishonest, insulting to anyone that reads it, and the work of a child brained man. It is hideous.

Ok genius. Since you chose to again ignore my post where I explained my reasoning, let me sum it up a bit so you can't miss it!

We have essentially established 2 "observable facts" that are underlying this discussion. They are:

1. The pole form that WSL taught is the same as an much older version of the LDBK. Therefore neither WSL or YM could have created this pole form themselves. The LDBK pre-dates YMVT.
2. The empty hand method within WSLVT tracks very closely with the weapons and is based upon the concepts, strategies and tactics from the pole and knives.

Now, if we go only by these facts and discount any speculation, oral history, stories, or legends we can reach several logical possibilities:

1. There was an early "proto" Wing Chun empty hand system to which the weapons were added. This system then continued to develop and evolve so that it became closely "tracked" with those weapons and adjusted to be based upon the strategies and tactics taught with those weapons.
2. There was an early "proto" Wing Chun empty hand system that developed directly from the pole and knives with no preexisting empty hand method being used. It then continued to evolve and refine this relationship with the weapons.
3. WSL himself recognized the value of the weapons and worked to adjust what he learned from YM to align or "track" with the weapons as closely as possible.

Any of the 3 theories above could account for the "observable facts" noted. The existence of or lack of existence of a "proto Wing Chun" to examine affects both theory 1 and theory 2 equally. Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence!

IF we then introduce some speculation and things to support these theories things can shift. One theory or the other can be seen as more or less plausible than the alternative. Nobody Important offered some interesting and intriguing possibilities! But just to keep it basic:

1. Weapons added to empty hand:
---Supported by the lineage history of every known version of Wing Chun.
---Supported by the magazine article that Ip Man himself wrote for a HK magazine.
---Supported by the fact that various versions of Wing Chun...both Ip Man and Mainland incorporate weapons understanding to various and differing degrees.
---Lack of a "proto-Wing Chun" that didn't have the weapons isn't really a problem, because it can be assumed that different lineages would have made use of the weapons to differing degrees after the weapons were incorporated. You wouldn't expect to find a system of Wing Chun without weapons, because the weapons became part of the system!


2. Empty hand derived entirely from the weapons:
---Unsupported by the fact that no other system other than WSLVT seems to track empty hands and weapons so closely.
---Unsupported by the fact that no lineage other than WSLVT even teaches this theory.
---If ANY system other than WSLVT was shown to teach this theory and also tracked weapons and empty hand so closely, this would go a long ways towards validating this theory! But that system doesn't seem to exist.


3. WSL tracked the weapons to the empty hands:
---Supported by the fact that no other Ip Man student teaches this or does their Wing Chun empty-hands like WSL.
---Supported by the fact that no other version of Wing Chun tracks the empty hands to the weapons so closely.

So, in my assessment theory #2 is the LEAST plausible. So I still have to go with either theory #1 or #3.

 

[DALE80]

I'm done trying to explain the weaknesses

Great news for the thread

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)

 

[DALE80]

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.

Good constructive post

 

[DALE80]

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.

Good post, and very interesting thread. Thanks

 

[KPM]

Hi Geezer,

I studied with David Peterson before he went to Malaysia, now I am a solo operator occasionally learning from a different teacher. I teach a small class myself.

Before WSL VT I learned a different lineage, also popular in Australia, which I later discovered to be fake/made up/fraudulent (whatever description you want to use).

I like WSL VT because it works and makes logical sense. It is simple and there is no nonsense.

Well then, before you get too cozy with LFJ, you should know that he does not consider DP a valid student of WSL. He did not learn the "complete" system and was only a seminar student. His understanding is also "broken" compared to someone that knows the "complete" WSLVT. Now those are HIS words, not mine! I don't believe that at all. But this has come up in multiple discussions in the past. Therefore according to LFJ, your Wing Chun would also be "broken." So does DP actually teach what you and LFJ have been so dogmatically supporting? I don't recall this theory that Wing Chun derived entirely from the weapons being featured in the book that he wrote.

 

[DALE80]

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.

There is YM VT (based exclusively upon pole and knives). There is pole elsewhere. There is not hand only prehistoric VT style. So you are wrong (again).

 

[DALE80]

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's a fact that today the empty hands of YM VT is based upon the understanding in the weapons. LFJ is presenting a theory for how it got that way. You don't seem to like either facts or theories, only the sound of your own voice droning on about a system you don't understand, never pausing to listen.

 

[Juany118]

Lack of understanding of LFJ's argument

Not when you consider what I said after.

There is nothing like YMVT that I am aware of. Mainland wing chun is entirely different, why would you assume it has anything to do with YMVT?

Then you don't look at them with an open mind. They are little more different the pole that LFJ admits was imported. It also ignores what YM's first generation students say. They either say YMVT is different because he had to remember the curriculum he was taught because he never intended to teach, resulting in change, or that he didn't have to remember what he was taught, rather he just simplified and refined what he had been taught.

In either case his first generation students all state it is founded in the Mainland WC he had been taught and YMVT as we know it is a product of a refinement based on one of the two above mechanisms.

It is fine to say "wrong" when someone makes a mistake or is dishonest. It doesn't mean you are making a truth claim

Simply saying "wrong" as a fiat statement, without elaboration on an error of FACT is a claim of truth.