Please provide me with a link to where he has said this.
Yip Man's curriculum changes
- Thread starter DanT
- Start date
Please provide me with a link to where he has said this.
This forum is not even a microcosm of the world of VT
If it is, it's unlikely to be LFJ. While I feel LFJ can be hard to debate with because he doesn't seem to want to follow arguments that are only about the validity of information, he doesn't quickly resort to name-calling and other middle school attempts to control the situation.
I'll take that as a no?
Sign me up, sounds awesome
Juany118
Senior Master
Well it could be here or on the old KF forums. Everywhere I have seen him he shows knowledge of WSLVT but makes the inaccurate extension of that knowledge to ALL of VT, including to people even better known for there knowledge not of WSLVT but YMVT who post here as well, such as Joy.
You said my theory is invalid if it requires special knowledge.
Evolution is not rendered invalid because people are uneducated on the topic.
Likewise, my theory is not rendered invalid because you are uneducated on the topic.
From my perspective, one just has to laugh at the fumbling around in the dark most of you guys are doing.
Especially you and Juany, who (I still can't get over) didn't even know YM kicks in his CK form, but now thinks he is sufficiently educated on YMVT and WSLVT (by googling) that he can conduct quality comparisons with other MAs he has equally 0 knowledge of and somehow reach valid conclusions.
You both are like those Evolution denialists who think logic is on their side because monkeys and humans obviously cohabit the Earth.
It is an utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of the entire topic due to lack of education in the subject matter.
You don't know the first thing about what WSL learned from YM or taught to his students, yet you think you can explain what he learned and what he invented.
Your cluelessness and guessing is just laughable.
You are having a hard time understanding how VT boxing could be based on the pole if it doesn't physically mimic it.
The reason is you aren't able to understand how concept-based systems function. They are not physical mimicry.
Therefore, you cannot even begin to discuss how they may have been developed. You need to educate yourself on the topic first.
The sun rises in the east today and there is evidence that it has in the past. There is no reason or evidence to believe it hasn't always.
If you want to suggest the contrary is even possible, you need to provide evidence for that, and not just say "you can't prove it".
Science never deals with absolute certainty, and I haven't made a truth claim on the origins of YMVT.
But on the other hand, I do not accept your alternate origin theory as true or even possible.
This does not mean I believe it is false or impossible. I am just not convinced, as you have not even demonstrated the possibility, so I cannot investigate it.
That's the exact opposite of my theory!
Please don't tell lies about me when I'm not around. Thanks.
This from a follower of William Cheung's "Traditional Wing Chun"!
Oh, the irony!
If anyone has ever lied about anything it's this Juany character.
Can't stand little lying punks like this!
You said my theory is invalid if it requires special knowledge. Evolution is not rendered invalid because people are uneducated on the topic.---Not the same thing. Evolution would be invalid if the theory required people to wear special glasses to see the connections!
Likewise, my theory is not rendered invalid because you are uneducated on the topic.
----We have outlined the simple logic. I really isn't all that complicated. Yet you have denied the logic based on the fact that you have special insider knowledge that we don't. That does not negate the logic unless you can provide something that shows where the logic is flawed. Is certainly sounds much more like a case of "sifu sez" to me!!
From my perspective, one just has to laugh at the fumbling around in the dark most of you guys are doing.
---And from our perspective we all are scratching our heads and wondering just how you and Dale can be so dogmatic and continue to deny simple logical and reasonable arguments as if we were challenging your religious beliefs! I mean, just look as the visceral reaction Dale has had and the way he has resorted to just insulting anyone that disagrees with your pet theory!!!
You both are like those Evolution denialists who think logic is on their side because monkeys and humans obviously cohabit the Earth.
---So why have you again avoided going back to my recent posts and showing just where my logic and reasoning is wrong? Because your criticism above again just sounds like someone grasping at straws because they don't know what else to do!
You don't know the first thing about what WSL learned from YM or taught to his students, yet you think you can explain what he learned and what he invented.
---And you really don't either! You weren't there! You don't even know truly what YM's Wing Chun was like. All we can do is compare his long-time direct students.
Your cluelessness and guessing is just laughable.
---And your dogmatism and clinging to "sifu sez" and denial of any point that contradicts "sifu sez" is just pitiful.
But on the other hand, I do not accept your alternate origin theory as true or even possible.
---So you do not accept the idea that the weapons were an add on to the Wing Chun system that then influenced how it developed as even being a possibility? Hence the problem we have had through-out this discussion!
You are not coming from a position of reason and open mindedness. You are obviously coming from a position of religious belief and "sifu said it so it MUST be true!"---In contrast, I never even considered the possibility that the system could have been entirely derived from the weapons until Guy B. mentioned it and then you revisited it in this thread. Unlike you, I acknowledge that it is a possibility and an interesting theory. But when I look at the evidence I see several theories that can explain that evidence. I look at the possibilities and consider multiple factors and conclude which theory looks the most plausible. And sorry, but your theory is actually the least plausible of the three. That's my conclusion. But again, unlike you, I don't just throw it out. If other information presents in the future that makes it seem more plausible, then I will take that into consideration! Now, unless you care to go back to my recent post and show where my reasoning and logic is wrong....we can now "agree to disagree"!
---Not the same thing. Evolution would be invalid if the theory required people to wear special glasses to see the connections!
Exactly the same thing.
If you want to talk about what WSL learned and what he invented, you need to educate yourself on the topic first.
That monkeys and humans cohabit the Earth is pretty simple too. But it's flawed logic and a complete misunderstanding of Evolution.
Evolutionary scientists also reject the monkey "logic" because they are educated on the topic, as anyone can go and do for themselves.
It's available for examination. You have not made the effort.
That is a charge of an Appeal to Authority I have not once made.
Scratching your heads like monkeys and wondering why the evolutionary scientists can't see your logic.
I have.
Then everything becomes crystal clear, as I've elaborated on before.
Again with the charge of an Appeal to Authority I have not once made.
You are going to have to quote me if you wish to continuing making that charge.
You have not demonstrated a Wing Chun system or anything remotely similar to YMVT that predates the weapons.
I have consistently appealed only to the facts which you have conceded. Quote me, or don't make this false charge again.
Your conclusion is wrong.
Because our theories are not on equal ground.
Already did. I don't mean to be rude, but you are too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.
Great, bye!
^^^^Like I said, this "witty exchange" back and forth just reinforces the idea that you've got nothing left. You aren't willing to go back and actually point out where my logic is wrong because you can't. That is becoming pretty obvious. So you just go right on believing whatever you want to believe. At least until your Sifu tells you something else to believe!
Yes.
0 evidence whatsoever to support a WC boxing system or anything remotely similar to YMVT prior to the weapons.
This proposed base system is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory more complicated, in turn less likely, not even a demonstrable possibility, and impossible to investigate.
Can be disregarded without further evidence.
The simplest theory, with no unknown or indemonstrable variables. All based on known and observable facts.
Requires an extremely unlikely and complete overhaul of the entire system from ground up, yet without adding, subtracting, or changing a single piece.
Also wrongly and unwarrantedly calls WSL a liar.
It doesn't effect them equally. Theory 1 is not demonstrated to even be a possibility.
Does not equate to evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Legends and fairytales are not history and are invalid as evidence of anything.
This doesn't support an indemonstrable base style.
It supports YMVT and Mainland systems having taken different courses through history.
Same as the last point. It is a problem if you wish to posit the existence of such a base style.
Different lineages incorporating the weapons to different degrees only speaks to them having taken different directions with the boxing method.
It says nothing about their origins.
Inconsequential to the theory.
Non-YM lineages obviously took a different course.
Other YM lineages do not even match their pole methods to the proven preexisting pole method. He taught it to very few people.
Inconsequential to the theory that it came through YM who is known to have taught less than a handful of people the complete system, and fewer than that in any detail whatsoever.
Also not true. Others have said similar things.
(Example: "It is possible that the entire Wing Chun art is based on the art of the spear.")
Doesn't need to if this weapon-based boxing system only came through YM.
No two YM students taught the same system. They are all inconsistent and contradictory.
None of them even match the proven preexisting pole method exactly in theory and application, so of course their hands will not track it.
None of them even match the clip of YM's pole actions, which matches the HSHK method exactly. None but WSL of course.
Has nothing to do with WSL. Non-YM lineages took a different course a long, long time ago.
#1 is not a demonstrable possibility. No evidence of a base style predating the weapons. Not even investigable.
#2 is a demonstrable possibility. Has all the evidence it needs to be presented as a viable theory.
#3 is only "supported" by unrelated or fragmented systems differing, i.e. wholly unsupported.
Only #2 is really plausible without further evidence.
---Ah! Thank you for finally making the effort! 
0 evidence whatsoever to support a WC boxing system or anything remotely similar to YMVT prior to the weapons.
---There is also 0 evidence whatsoever to support an early WC boxing system that was derived completely from the weapons. Both theories have the same problem! All we know is that WC evolved over the generations WITH the weapons. That is ALL we know for sure! When was this period "prior to the weapons" that you refer to? You don't know when this occurred, so how can you so confidently say your theory is the only valid one? Theory 1 and Theory 2 are on equal footing as far as the 2 "observable facts" that we have both agreed upon are concerned. You keep denying that, but it is a logical and reasonable fact.
---And this is not even necessary for theory #1 to be valid. Wing Chun has evolved and developed over the past 100 years or so with the weapons as part of the system. So why would anyone expect this "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method prior to the weapons to still be around today?? As noted before, this is like saying the theory of evolution is invalid because the original ancestor of apes and men is no longer around to examine. That just makes no logical sense!
This proposed base system is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory more complicated, in turn less likely, not even a demonstrable possibility, and impossible to investigate.
--And likewise an early version of WC derived completely from the weapons is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory impossible to investigate. In the absence of this early version of weapons-based WC to investigate, showing another system other than WSLVT that tracks so very closely the empty hands with the weapons would be a strong supporter for the theory because it would show that it is not unique to WSLVT. But no such system exists!
Can be disregarded without further evidence.
---That is just flat wrong and not a logical conclusion that follows from the facts! You did not justify WHY theory 1 can be disregarded without evidence while retaining theory 2, which also has no evidence!
The simplest theory, with no unknown or indemonstrable variables. All based on known and observable facts.
---Oh, but it does have "unknown or indemonstrable variables." You don't know who derived WC entirely from the weapons or when it even occurred. You can't even demonstrate another system that so closely tracks empty hands and weapons that would disprove theory 3. So really, if you want to go with the theory that is simplest and fits the observable facts, that is the theory that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features of WSLVT! That is what follows from logic based upon those 2 facts we agreed upon!
Requires an extremely unlikely and complete overhaul of the entire system from ground up, yet without adding, subtracting, or changing a single piece. Also wrongly and unwarrantedly calls WSL a liar.
---That is speculation on your part. And you haven't provided WSL's own testimony as part of any evidence so far. So we don't know whether he was lying or not. We are going just by the "observable facts", remember??
It doesn't effect them equally. Theory 1 is not demonstrated to even be a possibility.
---Neither has theory 2. What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1? You keep making statements here without backing them up. Fiat statements do not count in a discussion of logic.
Does not equate to evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
---Fair enough! Then we could stop this discussion right now and dismiss both theory 1 and theory 2 because neither have any actual evidence! The only theory with evidence is theory 3...and that evidence is the existence of the WSLVT system currently being taught in multiple places with this emphasis on the weapons tracking so closely with the empty hands. And that is the ONLY real evidence we have for any of the theories!
Legends and fairytales are not history and are invalid as evidence of anything.
---I said they lend support. And they do.
Different lineages incorporating the weapons to different degrees only speaks to them having taken different directions with the boxing method. It says nothing about their origins.
---True. But the existence of even one system independent of WSLVT that also tracked empty hand and weapons so closely would lend support to theory 2. But none exist.
Inconsequential to the theory. Non-YM lineages obviously took a different course. Other YM lineages do not even match their pole methods to the proven preexisting pole method. He taught it to very few people.
---It is consequential. You point to lack of evidence for theory 1, and I point to lack of evidence for theory 2. It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons. But you have never made that point clear. Is that what you believe???
Inconsequential to the theory that it came through YM who is known to have taught less than a handful of people the complete system, and fewer than that in any detail whatsoever.
---"Coming through YM" implies it existed prior to Ip Man. If it existed prior to Ip Man, then no longer being able to find this previous "weapons-based" WC is a problem....same problem you have pointed out for theory #1!
--- But again, you have been unclear. Are you saying that Ip Man is the creator??? If so, how are you going to prove or show any evidence that Ip Man completely disregarded his prior WC background and started solely from scratch using only the weapons????
Also not true. Others have said similar things.
---You haven't entered that as evidence in the past. Remember, it was you who dismissed lineage stories and oral histories. We are going only by the "observable facts" that you provided at the beginning of this discussion.
(Example: "It is possible that the entire Wing Chun art is based on the art of the spear.")
---Who said that and where and when? That is not quite the same thing as theory #2!
Doesn't need to if this weapon-based boxing system only came through YM.
---You need to clarify that. Because that takes this discussion in a whole different direction!
No two YM students taught the same system. They are all inconsistent and contradictory.
None of them even match the proven preexisting pole method exactly in theory and application, so of course their hands will not track it.
None of them even match the clip of YM's pole actions, which matches the HSHK method exactly. None but WSL of course.
---All true! So that makes the idea that this was something that Ip Man taught to WSL much less likely and more likely that WSL came up with it himself. Because, again, if there was another version of YMVT that was exactly like what WSL taught, then it would support that Ip Man taught it. But there isn't. Again...."observable facts".
#1 is not a demonstrable possibility. No evidence of a base style predating the weapons. Not even investigable.
---Exact same criticism applies to theory #2. Why can't you see that? Its just simple logic!
#2 is a demonstrable possibility. Has all the evidence it needs to be presented as a viable theory.
---If there is evidence for it why have you not gone over it in your post? Because from what we have been seeing here, theory #2 has the same evidence as theory #1. So where was it demonstrated to be more of a possibility than theory #1? I don't think you have done that. Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed.
#3 is only "supported" by unrelated or fragmented systems differing, i.e. wholly unsupported.
---Theory #3 is supported by the existence of multiple people in the WSLVT lineage teaching this idea of the weapons and empty hand system tracking so closely together, while no one in any other Ip Man derived lineage teaches this. Again, just basic logic. If there were ANY other WC system teaching that WC was derived entirely from the weapons and taught the empty hands and weapons tracking so closely, then that would negate theory #3. But there isn't one! So the logical conclusion is that it originated with WSL himself. And since there is no evidence for either theory 1 or theory 2, this theory is actually the most plausible one at this point!
Only #2 is really plausible without further evidence.
---That just makes no sense. That is illogical. You haven't provided any real evidence for theory #2. All you have done is make fiat statements and declared it to be true based upon your own "insider" knowledge. That isn't evidence. You'll have to do better than that!
0 evidence whatsoever to support a WC boxing system or anything remotely similar to YMVT prior to the weapons.
---There is also 0 evidence whatsoever to support an early WC boxing system that was derived completely from the weapons. Both theories have the same problem! All we know is that WC evolved over the generations WITH the weapons. That is ALL we know for sure! When was this period "prior to the weapons" that you refer to? You don't know when this occurred, so how can you so confidently say your theory is the only valid one? Theory 1 and Theory 2 are on equal footing as far as the 2 "observable facts" that we have both agreed upon are concerned. You keep denying that, but it is a logical and reasonable fact.
---And this is not even necessary for theory #1 to be valid. Wing Chun has evolved and developed over the past 100 years or so with the weapons as part of the system. So why would anyone expect this "proto-Wing Chun" empty hand method prior to the weapons to still be around today?? As noted before, this is like saying the theory of evolution is invalid because the original ancestor of apes and men is no longer around to examine. That just makes no logical sense!
This proposed base system is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory more complicated, in turn less likely, not even a demonstrable possibility, and impossible to investigate.
--And likewise an early version of WC derived completely from the weapons is unknown and indemonstrable, making this theory impossible to investigate. In the absence of this early version of weapons-based WC to investigate, showing another system other than WSLVT that tracks so very closely the empty hands with the weapons would be a strong supporter for the theory because it would show that it is not unique to WSLVT. But no such system exists!
Can be disregarded without further evidence.
---That is just flat wrong and not a logical conclusion that follows from the facts! You did not justify WHY theory 1 can be disregarded without evidence while retaining theory 2, which also has no evidence!
The simplest theory, with no unknown or indemonstrable variables. All based on known and observable facts.
---Oh, but it does have "unknown or indemonstrable variables." You don't know who derived WC entirely from the weapons or when it even occurred. You can't even demonstrate another system that so closely tracks empty hands and weapons that would disprove theory 3. So really, if you want to go with the theory that is simplest and fits the observable facts, that is the theory that WSL himself is responsible for the technical features of WSLVT! That is what follows from logic based upon those 2 facts we agreed upon!
Requires an extremely unlikely and complete overhaul of the entire system from ground up, yet without adding, subtracting, or changing a single piece. Also wrongly and unwarrantedly calls WSL a liar.
---That is speculation on your part. And you haven't provided WSL's own testimony as part of any evidence so far. So we don't know whether he was lying or not. We are going just by the "observable facts", remember??
It doesn't effect them equally. Theory 1 is not demonstrated to even be a possibility.
---Neither has theory 2. What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1? You keep making statements here without backing them up. Fiat statements do not count in a discussion of logic.
Does not equate to evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
---Fair enough! Then we could stop this discussion right now and dismiss both theory 1 and theory 2 because neither have any actual evidence! The only theory with evidence is theory 3...and that evidence is the existence of the WSLVT system currently being taught in multiple places with this emphasis on the weapons tracking so closely with the empty hands. And that is the ONLY real evidence we have for any of the theories!
Legends and fairytales are not history and are invalid as evidence of anything.
---I said they lend support. And they do.
Different lineages incorporating the weapons to different degrees only speaks to them having taken different directions with the boxing method. It says nothing about their origins.
---True. But the existence of even one system independent of WSLVT that also tracked empty hand and weapons so closely would lend support to theory 2. But none exist.
Inconsequential to the theory. Non-YM lineages obviously took a different course. Other YM lineages do not even match their pole methods to the proven preexisting pole method. He taught it to very few people.
---It is consequential. You point to lack of evidence for theory 1, and I point to lack of evidence for theory 2. It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons. But you have never made that point clear. Is that what you believe???
Inconsequential to the theory that it came through YM who is known to have taught less than a handful of people the complete system, and fewer than that in any detail whatsoever.
---"Coming through YM" implies it existed prior to Ip Man. If it existed prior to Ip Man, then no longer being able to find this previous "weapons-based" WC is a problem....same problem you have pointed out for theory #1!
--- But again, you have been unclear. Are you saying that Ip Man is the creator??? If so, how are you going to prove or show any evidence that Ip Man completely disregarded his prior WC background and started solely from scratch using only the weapons????
Also not true. Others have said similar things.
---You haven't entered that as evidence in the past. Remember, it was you who dismissed lineage stories and oral histories. We are going only by the "observable facts" that you provided at the beginning of this discussion.
(Example: "It is possible that the entire Wing Chun art is based on the art of the spear.")
---Who said that and where and when? That is not quite the same thing as theory #2!
Doesn't need to if this weapon-based boxing system only came through YM.
---You need to clarify that. Because that takes this discussion in a whole different direction!
No two YM students taught the same system. They are all inconsistent and contradictory.
None of them even match the proven preexisting pole method exactly in theory and application, so of course their hands will not track it.
None of them even match the clip of YM's pole actions, which matches the HSHK method exactly. None but WSL of course.
---All true! So that makes the idea that this was something that Ip Man taught to WSL much less likely and more likely that WSL came up with it himself. Because, again, if there was another version of YMVT that was exactly like what WSL taught, then it would support that Ip Man taught it. But there isn't. Again...."observable facts".
#1 is not a demonstrable possibility. No evidence of a base style predating the weapons. Not even investigable.
---Exact same criticism applies to theory #2. Why can't you see that? Its just simple logic!
#2 is a demonstrable possibility. Has all the evidence it needs to be presented as a viable theory.
---If there is evidence for it why have you not gone over it in your post? Because from what we have been seeing here, theory #2 has the same evidence as theory #1. So where was it demonstrated to be more of a possibility than theory #1? I don't think you have done that. Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed.
#3 is only "supported" by unrelated or fragmented systems differing, i.e. wholly unsupported.
---Theory #3 is supported by the existence of multiple people in the WSLVT lineage teaching this idea of the weapons and empty hand system tracking so closely together, while no one in any other Ip Man derived lineage teaches this. Again, just basic logic. If there were ANY other WC system teaching that WC was derived entirely from the weapons and taught the empty hands and weapons tracking so closely, then that would negate theory #3. But there isn't one! So the logical conclusion is that it originated with WSL himself. And since there is no evidence for either theory 1 or theory 2, this theory is actually the most plausible one at this point!
Only #2 is really plausible without further evidence.
---That just makes no sense. That is illogical. You haven't provided any real evidence for theory #2. All you have done is make fiat statements and declared it to be true based upon your own "insider" knowledge. That isn't evidence. You'll have to do better than that!
Last edited:
The existing YMVT boxing system maps to the weapons. In can be investigated. This is what led to the discovery and confirmation of a pre- and non-VT pole method to help validate the theory in the first place!
The alternate theory cannot be investigated.
So, not able to be investigated. Indistinguishable from there having been no such method.
We can analyze their DNA, find a 99% match between some, find ancestors of both, and logically theorize a common ancestor.
We can do the same with YMVT and an ancestor we have found.
Can't even begin to investigate an unknown and indemonstrable style.
YMVT is known and when investigated it matches a found ancestor. There is nothing to suggest the VT that came through YM was not always matched to this ancestor.
It doesn't need to be proven to be a viable theory.
It doesn't need to not be unique. It's possible that it only came through YM who taught it to very few.
I just did, and theory 2 has evidence.
Those aren't variables making the theory that pole + knives = boxing inviable.
The theory is viable based on known and observable facts. Those bits of information would prove it.
Without them it can't be proven, but it is certainly viable, as you conceded.
Don't need to.
This doesn't follow all the facts we have.
It is not speculation. You just lack the knowledge and experience, even though it's readily available.
WSL always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM. If you are saying otherwise, you are unwarrantedly calling him a liar.
It has. You have already conceded the possibility. Do not lie.
False. Evidence already put forward and conceded by you and others.
That unrelated or fragmented systems differ is not evidence that WSL was the originator.
False. There is substantial evidence that WSL taught exactly what he learned from YM. Already presented.
Then the theory that the Tooth Fairy exists has support. You are being silly.
Now stop saying it.
Not necessary if as I said the system only came through YM who didn't teach it to hardly anyone else.
No, you haven't. You conceded the evidence already. You are now lying.
Not true. The systems diverged many, many decades prior to YM. That they differ is inconsequential to the origin theory of YMVT.
No, because YMVT is that VT. Investigation of the origin theory reveals the exact same pole method preexists, as predicted, which strengthens the theory.
No. I have been very clear. You are just extremely slowwitted.
I have entered evidence of others outside WSLVT talking about the weapons-base theory.
I have not dismissed oral histories. Legends and fairytales are not oral history.
Don't care. Not WSLVT.
I didn't say the same. I said similar. You had stated that only I've ever spoke of such a thing. Demonstrably false.
Also, it could still be the same if pole originally came from spear, I think this has been presented before too. This is just tracing the source further back.
Dude?! That has been my entire theory the entire time!!! I have never spoken of non-YM lineages that are obviously very far removed at this point!
WTF?!
WSL's VT matches YM's where others don't. That is evidence that WSL accurately received his teachings.
It does not matter if there are none that also match, because YM didn't hardly teach anyone beyond CK, and without details even then!
Because it's wrong. We have analyzed YMVT and the theory that it is based on weapons. Upon investigation we have found a pole ancestor that it matches exactly.
This is a predictable outcome of investigation, and strong supporting evidence for the theory.
It strengthens the theory, and there is no reason to believe the VT that came through YM and to WSL was not always based on this method.
All explained above. You are being very slow to follow.
But WSLVT matches YMVT where others don't, is internally consistent where others aren't, and is consistent with the predictably discovered ancestor style where others aren't.
All evidence that WSL accurately received YM's VT where others didn't.
Not necessary to validate origin to YM to WSL. Other systems are irrelevant.
Absolutely wrong. You are apparently too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.
I admit I'll have to do better than I have done to "prove" the theory, but that is not my goal at this point.
What has been accomplished;
Origin theory formed (pole + knives = boxing);
Investigation conducted ("the pole as the main source must preexist");
Predictable outcome of investigation confirmed (pole method proven to preexist).
That's how science is conducted, pal.
We don't deal with absolute certainty, but the evidence leads to a very plausible conclusion, and investigations have succeeded as predicted. This is by far the most viable theory to date.
Last edited:
lklawson
Grandmaster
Simultaneous attack and defense? Nothing special about that. In many Western martial traditions influenced by fencing, it's called a Single-Time Counter. It certainly exists in boxing, particularly in "Old School Boxing." I've posted numerous references to it before.
The fact that you seem to be ignorant of single-time counters in boxing makes me question whether or not you are qualified to make such a comparison.
The existing YMVT boxing system maps to the weapons. In can be investigated. This is what led to the discovery and confirmation of a pre- and non-VT pole method to help validate the theory in the first place!
---A pole method predating Wing Chun supports theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Why is it you can't grasp that simple point of logic?
The alternate theory cannot be investigated.
---Theory #2 cannot be investigated any more than theory #1 can. We only have our 2 "observable facts", remember?
So, not able to be investigated. Indistinguishable from there having been no such method.
---The exact same logic applies to theory #2. Can't you see that????
We can analyze their DNA, find a 99% match between some, find ancestors of both, and logically theorize a common ancestor. We can do the same with YMVT and an ancestor we have found.
---You have only found an older pole method. You have not found the "ancestor" in the sense of the original "proto-Wing Chun" that was developed directly from the weapons (except now it is becoming apparent that you believe that YMVT itself IS that ancestor) The older pole method could have easily been adopted by a system of Wing Chun without weapons long ago (by Wong Wah Bo perhaps?). Just because that older pole method is shown to exist does not support theory #2 any more than it does theory #1. Again, simple logic!
Can't even begin to investigate an unknown and indemonstrable style.
---Do you mean like...an original style created directly from the weapons and nothing else??? (Oh wait...you think that style IS YMVT!)
YMVT is known and when investigated it matches a found ancestor. There is nothing to suggest the VT that came through YM was not always matched to this ancestor.
---True. But that also does not rule out the possibility that the VT that came through YM was derived from an older version of empty hands that incorporated this "ancestral" pole method and then developed and evolved from there. It is matched to this ancestor, but there is nothing to suggest that this ancestor was the sole source of the empty hands either! You really need to start thinking logically and get past this dogmatic and stubborn adherence to what you've been taught!!
It doesn't need to be proven to be a viable theory.
---Wait, what? You rule out theory #1 because it can't be proven, but say its Ok that theory #2 is unproven??? That isn't very logical!
I just did, and theory 2 has evidence.
---What evidence? I asked this in my previous post. Now you are just making fiat statements again rather than actually trying to participate in an honest and logical discussion.
Those aren't variables making the theory that pole + knives = boxing inviable.
The theory is viable based on known and observable facts. Those bits of information would prove it.
Without them it can't be proven, but it is certainly viable, as you conceded.
---Yes. Just as viable as theory #1. But no more viable than theory #1 and less viable than theory #3!
This doesn't follow all the facts we have.
---It certainly follows the 2 "observable facts" that we agreed upon. So what facts are you referring to? Again....making fiat statements without backing them up is why discussions like this become long and convoluted.
WSL always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM. If you are saying otherwise, you are unwarrantedly calling him a liar.
---I'm doing no such thing. I didn't hear him say that! Did you? Can you provide the exact quote? Ip Man wrote a magazine article on the history of Wing Chun that didn't include the idea of it being derived entirely from the pole and you dismissed it as a fairytale. Are you calling Ip Man a liar???
It has. You have already conceded the possibility. Do not lie.
---I asked you: "What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1?" Rather than provide an answer to that you just resort to calling me a liar. I'm not lying about anything. Are you participating in this discussion or not? Now is the time to lay out your evidence and the logic behind your theory to back it up. But you are not doing that. Why is that?
That unrelated or fragmented systems differ is not evidence that WSL was the originator.
---And the fact that WSLVT tracks empty hands together with the pole is not evidence that it was ALWAYS that way!
False. There is substantial evidence that WSL taught exactly what he learned from YM. Already presented.
---You "presented" the idea that "WSL said so"! That is not "substantial evidence". So what are you talking about? This is just another fiat statement.
No, you haven't. You conceded the evidence already. You are now lying.
----What evidence are you talking about? You certainly haven't presented it in this post! And stop calling me a liar! We are trying to have a reasonable and logical discussion here. Why are you resorting to name-calling?
Not true. The systems diverged many, many decades prior to YM. That they differ is inconsequential to the origin theory of YMVT.
---Actually I asked you: "It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons. But you have never made that point clear. Is that what you believe???" You didn't actually answer my question here.
No. I have been very clear. You are just extremely slowwitted.
---Uh, no. And you continue to be evasive in your responses. Why is that? How are we to have a reasonable and logical discussion about this if you continue to avoid answering questions and would rather resort to name-calling and insults?
I have entered evidence of others outside WSLVT talking about the weapons-base theory.
---You mean that one quote from your prior post???? If you have more you need to put it here to back up your argument or you are just making fiat statements again.
Dude?! That has been my entire theory the entire time!!! I have never spoken of non-YM lineages that are obviously very far removed at this point!
----Well, if it has then I apologize for missing that! You have never explicitly stated it that way! And saying "very far removed at this point!" is still somewhat confusing. They are very far removed from WHAT, if you believe that Ip Man was the one that created exclusively from the weapons???
---So you believe that Ip Man himself took the pole and the knives and created the entire YM system from scratch? He did not draw upon what he had previously learned from Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So and others at all? How do you account for the fact that his VT still looked very much like Yuen Kay Shan's Wing Chun as well as others? And if this was such a fundamental part of his VT, why would he teach this idea only to WSL? Students should have been learning that this was the main approach of the system right from the beginning. Why would he hide that fact from anyone? The idea is taught right from the beginning in WSLVT, is it not? Why would he keep the fact that he had developed his own Wing Chun system based entirely on the weapons from his own sons, or from people close to him like Ho Kam Ming and Tsui Tsung Ting? Really, your theory is getting less and less plausible the more I learn of it
WSL's VT matches YM's where others don't. That is evidence that WSL accurately received his teachings.
---How do you know? YM taught Ho Kam Ming closely for many years and Ho Kam Ming's VT does not match WSL's.
We have analyzed YMVT and the theory that it is based on weapons. Upon investigation we have found a pole ancestor that it matches exactly.
---You have simply restated our 2 "observable facts." You have not explained how those 2 facts contradict theory #1. Based on what you just said, there is a very real possibility that the older version of LDBK was incorporated into an already existing version of Wing Chun and then the empty hands were adjusted and reworked to match the concepts and strategies from the pole. Nothing you have presented so far rules out that possibility.
All explained above. You are being very slow to follow.
---I stated: "Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed." If you think you just "explained" that away above, then you are the one that is a bit slow here! Because you haven't explained anything! You are not following logical discussion at all.
But WSLVT matches YMVT where others don't, is internally consistent where others aren't, and is consistent with the predictably discovered ancestor style where others aren't.
---All of which makes WSLVT unique, and therefore likely to have been created by WSL himself! Again, simple logic!!!
All evidence that WSL accurately received YM's VT where others didn't.
---It is evidence of no such thing! All you can really say based on those facts that you just wrote is that WSLVT is different from what every other student learned from Ip Man. That's all! That does not prove how those differences actually came to be! Could it be because Ip Man taught only WSL his "true" version of VT? Maybe! Could it be because WSL himself continued to develop and rework what Ip Man taught him? Maybe!!
Absolutely wrong. You are apparently too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.
---And once again, you are just flinging insults rather than actually try to show where my logic is wrong. I can only conclude that you can't show my logic is wrong, and so you resort to insults.
What has been accomplished;
Origin theory formed (pole + knives = boxing);
Investigation conducted ("the pole as the main source must preexist");
Predictable outcome of investigation confirmed (pole method proven to preexist).
That's how science is conducted, pal.
---Uh, no "pal." Science would look at each possible explanation for a given outcome and then seek to rule each one out until only one remains. You haven't done that at all! Science would not dismiss a theory out of hand simply because the investigator had already decided upon what the best theory was going to be! That is considered very "poor" science! The pole method being proven to preexist supports more than one theory.
We don't deal with absolute certainty, but the evidence leads to a very plausible conclusion, and investigations have succeeded as predicted. This is by far the most viable theory to date.
---So let me get this right.....you think that because someone formed the theory that the system derived entirely from the weapons and then did a little looking around and found that the pole form comes from another system is enough "science" to just dismiss any other theory that would explain how the empty hands and pole track so well together within WSLVT? Dude, you really need to learn more about the "scientific method"!!
---But his is going nowhere because you seem incapable of conducting a straight-forward discussion based upon logic. Now it appears you believe it was Ip Man himself that created VT exclusively from the weapons! That makes your theory even less plausible than I thought! So its probably better if we do just agree to disagree at this point!
---A pole method predating Wing Chun supports theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Why is it you can't grasp that simple point of logic?
The alternate theory cannot be investigated.
---Theory #2 cannot be investigated any more than theory #1 can. We only have our 2 "observable facts", remember?
So, not able to be investigated. Indistinguishable from there having been no such method.
---The exact same logic applies to theory #2. Can't you see that????
We can analyze their DNA, find a 99% match between some, find ancestors of both, and logically theorize a common ancestor. We can do the same with YMVT and an ancestor we have found.
---You have only found an older pole method. You have not found the "ancestor" in the sense of the original "proto-Wing Chun" that was developed directly from the weapons (except now it is becoming apparent that you believe that YMVT itself IS that ancestor) The older pole method could have easily been adopted by a system of Wing Chun without weapons long ago (by Wong Wah Bo perhaps?). Just because that older pole method is shown to exist does not support theory #2 any more than it does theory #1. Again, simple logic!
Can't even begin to investigate an unknown and indemonstrable style.
---Do you mean like...an original style created directly from the weapons and nothing else??? (Oh wait...you think that style IS YMVT!)
YMVT is known and when investigated it matches a found ancestor. There is nothing to suggest the VT that came through YM was not always matched to this ancestor.
---True. But that also does not rule out the possibility that the VT that came through YM was derived from an older version of empty hands that incorporated this "ancestral" pole method and then developed and evolved from there. It is matched to this ancestor, but there is nothing to suggest that this ancestor was the sole source of the empty hands either! You really need to start thinking logically and get past this dogmatic and stubborn adherence to what you've been taught!!
It doesn't need to be proven to be a viable theory.
---Wait, what? You rule out theory #1 because it can't be proven, but say its Ok that theory #2 is unproven??? That isn't very logical!
I just did, and theory 2 has evidence.
---What evidence? I asked this in my previous post. Now you are just making fiat statements again rather than actually trying to participate in an honest and logical discussion.
Those aren't variables making the theory that pole + knives = boxing inviable.
The theory is viable based on known and observable facts. Those bits of information would prove it.
Without them it can't be proven, but it is certainly viable, as you conceded.
---Yes. Just as viable as theory #1. But no more viable than theory #1 and less viable than theory #3!
This doesn't follow all the facts we have.
---It certainly follows the 2 "observable facts" that we agreed upon. So what facts are you referring to? Again....making fiat statements without backing them up is why discussions like this become long and convoluted.
WSL always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM. If you are saying otherwise, you are unwarrantedly calling him a liar.
---I'm doing no such thing. I didn't hear him say that! Did you? Can you provide the exact quote? Ip Man wrote a magazine article on the history of Wing Chun that didn't include the idea of it being derived entirely from the pole and you dismissed it as a fairytale. Are you calling Ip Man a liar???
It has. You have already conceded the possibility. Do not lie.
---I asked you: "What have you "demonstrated" that makes it any more of a possibility than theory 1?" Rather than provide an answer to that you just resort to calling me a liar. I'm not lying about anything. Are you participating in this discussion or not? Now is the time to lay out your evidence and the logic behind your theory to back it up. But you are not doing that. Why is that?
That unrelated or fragmented systems differ is not evidence that WSL was the originator.
---And the fact that WSLVT tracks empty hands together with the pole is not evidence that it was ALWAYS that way!
False. There is substantial evidence that WSL taught exactly what he learned from YM. Already presented.
---You "presented" the idea that "WSL said so"! That is not "substantial evidence". So what are you talking about? This is just another fiat statement.
No, you haven't. You conceded the evidence already. You are now lying.
----What evidence are you talking about? You certainly haven't presented it in this post! And stop calling me a liar! We are trying to have a reasonable and logical discussion here. Why are you resorting to name-calling?
Not true. The systems diverged many, many decades prior to YM. That they differ is inconsequential to the origin theory of YMVT.
---Actually I asked you: "It is only inconsequential if you believe that it was Ip Man himself that created WC based solely on the weapons. But you have never made that point clear. Is that what you believe???" You didn't actually answer my question here.
No. I have been very clear. You are just extremely slowwitted.
---Uh, no. And you continue to be evasive in your responses. Why is that? How are we to have a reasonable and logical discussion about this if you continue to avoid answering questions and would rather resort to name-calling and insults?
I have entered evidence of others outside WSLVT talking about the weapons-base theory.
---You mean that one quote from your prior post????
If you have more you need to put it here to back up your argument or you are just making fiat statements again. Dude?! That has been my entire theory the entire time!!! I have never spoken of non-YM lineages that are obviously very far removed at this point!
----Well, if it has then I apologize for missing that! You have never explicitly stated it that way! And saying "very far removed at this point!" is still somewhat confusing. They are very far removed from WHAT, if you believe that Ip Man was the one that created exclusively from the weapons???
---So you believe that Ip Man himself took the pole and the knives and created the entire YM system from scratch? He did not draw upon what he had previously learned from Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So and others at all? How do you account for the fact that his VT still looked very much like Yuen Kay Shan's Wing Chun as well as others? And if this was such a fundamental part of his VT, why would he teach this idea only to WSL? Students should have been learning that this was the main approach of the system right from the beginning. Why would he hide that fact from anyone? The idea is taught right from the beginning in WSLVT, is it not? Why would he keep the fact that he had developed his own Wing Chun system based entirely on the weapons from his own sons, or from people close to him like Ho Kam Ming and Tsui Tsung Ting? Really, your theory is getting less and less plausible the more I learn of it
WSL's VT matches YM's where others don't. That is evidence that WSL accurately received his teachings.
---How do you know? YM taught Ho Kam Ming closely for many years and Ho Kam Ming's VT does not match WSL's.
We have analyzed YMVT and the theory that it is based on weapons. Upon investigation we have found a pole ancestor that it matches exactly.
---You have simply restated our 2 "observable facts." You have not explained how those 2 facts contradict theory #1. Based on what you just said, there is a very real possibility that the older version of LDBK was incorporated into an already existing version of Wing Chun and then the empty hands were adjusted and reworked to match the concepts and strategies from the pole. Nothing you have presented so far rules out that possibility.
All explained above. You are being very slow to follow.
---I stated: "Our two "observable facts" lead to theory #1 just as easily as theory #2. Again, that's just simple logic and you haven't yet shown where that logic is flawed." If you think you just "explained" that away above, then you are the one that is a bit slow here! Because you haven't explained anything! You are not following logical discussion at all.
But WSLVT matches YMVT where others don't, is internally consistent where others aren't, and is consistent with the predictably discovered ancestor style where others aren't.
---All of which makes WSLVT unique, and therefore likely to have been created by WSL himself! Again, simple logic!!!
All evidence that WSL accurately received YM's VT where others didn't.
---It is evidence of no such thing! All you can really say based on those facts that you just wrote is that WSLVT is different from what every other student learned from Ip Man. That's all! That does not prove how those differences actually came to be! Could it be because Ip Man taught only WSL his "true" version of VT? Maybe! Could it be because WSL himself continued to develop and rework what Ip Man taught him? Maybe!!
Absolutely wrong. You are apparently too slowwitted and inexperienced to follow.
---And once again, you are just flinging insults rather than actually try to show where my logic is wrong. I can only conclude that you can't show my logic is wrong, and so you resort to insults.
What has been accomplished;
Origin theory formed (pole + knives = boxing);
Investigation conducted ("the pole as the main source must preexist");
Predictable outcome of investigation confirmed (pole method proven to preexist).
That's how science is conducted, pal.
---Uh, no "pal." Science would look at each possible explanation for a given outcome and then seek to rule each one out until only one remains. You haven't done that at all! Science would not dismiss a theory out of hand simply because the investigator had already decided upon what the best theory was going to be! That is considered very "poor" science! The pole method being proven to preexist supports more than one theory.
We don't deal with absolute certainty, but the evidence leads to a very plausible conclusion, and investigations have succeeded as predicted. This is by far the most viable theory to date.
---So let me get this right.....you think that because someone formed the theory that the system derived entirely from the weapons and then did a little looking around and found that the pole form comes from another system is enough "science" to just dismiss any other theory that would explain how the empty hands and pole track so well together within WSLVT? Dude, you really need to learn more about the "scientific method"!!
---But his is going nowhere because you seem incapable of conducting a straight-forward discussion based upon logic. Now it appears you believe it was Ip Man himself that created VT exclusively from the weapons! That makes your theory even less plausible than I thought! So its probably better if we do just agree to disagree at this point!
So, as it finally emerges after many pages of pretty pointless banter.....LFJ's theory seems to be this:
Ip Man took the LDBK pole form that predates Wing Chun and that is found within the Hung Kuen system as well as other systems. He then managed to completely set aside and forget his years of training Wing Chun with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and his years of practicing alongside Yiu Choi and Yuen Kay Shan. He then created his own version of Wing Chun completely from scratch using only the pole and the knives as his guide. I guess the fact that this newly created system still bore a striking resemblance to mainland styles of Wing Chun...complete with a SNT, CK, BG, and dummy form, similar system of Chi Sao, etc.....doesn't suggest to him that Ip Man may have built upon his Wing Chun knowledge rather than completely discarding it (which would actually be a version of theory #1). Then once Ip Man had developed this far superior version of Wing Chun that was based ONLY on the weapons and did not draw upon his prior knowledge of Wing Chun....he taught this system ONLY to Wong Shun Leung!
Is anyone buying this??
Ip Man took the LDBK pole form that predates Wing Chun and that is found within the Hung Kuen system as well as other systems. He then managed to completely set aside and forget his years of training Wing Chun with Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chung So and his years of practicing alongside Yiu Choi and Yuen Kay Shan. He then created his own version of Wing Chun completely from scratch using only the pole and the knives as his guide. I guess the fact that this newly created system still bore a striking resemblance to mainland styles of Wing Chun...complete with a SNT, CK, BG, and dummy form, similar system of Chi Sao, etc.....doesn't suggest to him that Ip Man may have built upon his Wing Chun knowledge rather than completely discarding it (which would actually be a version of theory #1). Then once Ip Man had developed this far superior version of Wing Chun that was based ONLY on the weapons and did not draw upon his prior knowledge of Wing Chun....he taught this system ONLY to Wong Shun Leung!
Is anyone buying this??
Taught in many Japanese MA, as well. As you pointed out, not particularly special.
Juany118
Senior Master
I have been trying to figure out if this is REALLY what he means tbh. The fact it seemed to be the case is why I returned him to ignore. It is all well and good to have different opinions but when one not only beggars a basic logical analysis, but the accounts of his students who were there, it's just not worth it.
