Juany118
Senior Master
The problem is more than a few MA scholars have drawn connections saying that WC unarmed techniques are drawn from Fujan White Crane and Snake style before you even look at weapons.
Yip Man's curriculum changes
- Thread starter DanT
- Start date
The problem is more than a few MA scholars have drawn connections saying that WC unarmed techniques are drawn from Fujan White Crane and Snake style before you even look at weapons.
Hendrik Santos and the people that copied his inane ramblings (Sergio) don't count as scholars on this one. Got any legitimate sources?
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
Thanks LFJ! So it seems I'm not the only one that was "gossiping" here??? Seems Joy is guilty of what he is so quick to accuse others of???And we both know how old men love to tell stories. That makes it very hard to sort truth from fiction. But there is no doubt that YKS was a living and breathing Wing Chun person. The same cannot be said for Leung Bik.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
------------------------------------------
LFJ has already given a translation.,,,essentially saying what I said about YKS-1 being an uninvited visitor often when IM was teaching
2 IM telling his student not to show YKS what IM was teaching. 3YKS was unable to penetrate
IM's student's defense. I will as usual ignore
KPM's silly ad hominem comments.
LFJ has already given a translation.,,,essentially saying what I said about YKS-1 being an uninvited visitor often when IM was teaching
2 IM telling his student not to show YKS what IM was teaching. 3YKS was unable to penetrate
IM's student's defense. I will as usual ignore
KPM's silly ad hominem comments.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
Thanks LFJ! So it seems I'm not the only one that was "gossiping" here??? Seems Joy is guilty of what he is so quick to accuse others of???
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
LFJ translated the thrust of IM's Foshan student's interview- no issue of gossiping on my part.I provided the info that Juany asked for.
One old man's stories often contradict another old man's stories. So as I said, that often makes it hard to sort truth from fiction. So who is gossiping?
Yuen Kay San was THE top Wing Chun Sifu! ā Yun Hoi gung fu
The pole method specifically in other styles is practically indistinguishable from VT pole. That only proves it wasn't created based on VT empty hand, since the method already existed.
---No one has said the pole is based on Wing Chun empty hand methods, only that Wing Chun empty hand methods are NOT based upon the pole! The legends say that the pole was added to the system. The fact that other gung fu styles also have a "Luk Dim Boon Kwun" should be enough evidence of that. Then the pole methods were refined and adjusted to suit Wing Chun.
Yet, VT empty hand is closely mapped to this pole method, combined with tactical guidelines from the knives.
---Easily explained by adapting an existing pole method to fit more appropriately with Wing Chun strategies and concepts.
That is not possible if the VT empty hand method was not conceptualized using these existing weapon methods as foundation.
---Of course it is possible! In fact, far more probable! It is far more probable that someone took a pole method and realized they could apply centerline theory, zoning, deflections, and other concepts from an empty hand system to it, ......than it is to say that a complex empty hand system based upon using two arms at the same time and training a complex "sticking hand" method was derived from a long pole method.
The empty hand training system also has preparations for weapon training in the forms and drills. That means they were created after the weapons, with the weapon training already in mind.
---Your logic is rather odd I think! It means nothing of the sort! Again, far more probable to adapt the weapon to the empty hand system and then include in the empty hand system preparatory work prior to teaching the weapon. Or to reinterprete things that were already in the empty hand system to show how they support the pole method that has been adapted to that system.
If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.
---Again, a logical leap that is just not justified. The weapon method is found in other styles because it was TAKEN from other styles and adapted to fit! Those other styles from which the pole was taken may very well have been older than Wing Chun.
---None of the Wing Chun lineage histories or legends support the idea that the style was derived from the weapons. Legends often have foundations in truth. So if the weapons came first, why do none of the lineages...both Wing Chun and Weng Chun.... support that idea? Seems at least ONE of them would, if there was any truth to it. But they don't.
---Sorry LFJ, but I still see nothing to support your theory.
---No one has said the pole is based on Wing Chun empty hand methods, only that Wing Chun empty hand methods are NOT based upon the pole! The legends say that the pole was added to the system. The fact that other gung fu styles also have a "Luk Dim Boon Kwun" should be enough evidence of that. Then the pole methods were refined and adjusted to suit Wing Chun.
Yet, VT empty hand is closely mapped to this pole method, combined with tactical guidelines from the knives.
---Easily explained by adapting an existing pole method to fit more appropriately with Wing Chun strategies and concepts.
That is not possible if the VT empty hand method was not conceptualized using these existing weapon methods as foundation.
---Of course it is possible! In fact, far more probable! It is far more probable that someone took a pole method and realized they could apply centerline theory, zoning, deflections, and other concepts from an empty hand system to it, ......than it is to say that a complex empty hand system based upon using two arms at the same time and training a complex "sticking hand" method was derived from a long pole method.
The empty hand training system also has preparations for weapon training in the forms and drills. That means they were created after the weapons, with the weapon training already in mind.
---Your logic is rather odd I think! It means nothing of the sort! Again, far more probable to adapt the weapon to the empty hand system and then include in the empty hand system preparatory work prior to teaching the weapon. Or to reinterprete things that were already in the empty hand system to show how they support the pole method that has been adapted to that system.
If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.
---Again, a logical leap that is just not justified. The weapon method is found in other styles because it was TAKEN from other styles and adapted to fit! Those other styles from which the pole was taken may very well have been older than Wing Chun.
---None of the Wing Chun lineage histories or legends support the idea that the style was derived from the weapons. Legends often have foundations in truth. So if the weapons came first, why do none of the lineages...both Wing Chun and Weng Chun.... support that idea? Seems at least ONE of them would, if there was any truth to it. But they don't.
---Sorry LFJ, but I still see nothing to support your theory.
I didn't bother because you just said you haven't even learned BJD, in any style, never mind WC. So, it is pointless to do a comparison with you.
Yes. It is impossible that VT empty hand would just happen to be a perfect combination of tactical guidelines from preexisting weapon methods.
There are other large clues throughout the empty hand system as well. The Biu-ji form, for example, is almost entirely preparatory actions for knives that already existed, and borrows knife concepts for certain empty hand needs.
All of your points hinge on the theory that LDBG was adapted to Wing Chun.
But, it was not. It is indistinguishable as it is in other styles. (See below)
So, you believe HS's Emei + White Crane origin theory based on a fairy tale with a nun, a snake, and a crane?
In order to support his theory he had to do a ton of tinkering with terminology and form, not to mention history.
The only solid fact we have on the history of Wing Chun is that it is unrecorded and none of the stories are reliable. I won't attempt to write up an origin story. The system and observable facts speaks for themselves.
As I said, and as we all know, YM only taught the knives to a few people. So, of course it's not common knowledge! I would suspect it wasn't shared through history because it reveals the entire strategy and tactical guidelines of the new empty hand fighting system.
Other lineages that took another direction with empty hand appear to be doing something quite different, anyway. So, what they have to say is irrelevant.
You will think this looks nothing like Wing Chun either, until you get to 1:35-2:16. Then it's entirely LDBG exercises and form with left hand lead.
This is the LDBG segment extracted from the above form. Note the shot of the clock at the beginning. Luk dim bun is also how you say 6:30 in Cantonese.
You will notice this segment is as short and simple as YM's form. No way YM made it up himself, or simplified it from YKS's, when it had already existed!
And here it is performed in 1949, so you can't say it was just copied from YM in recent decades. From 1:18-1:32.
Last edited:
So, you believe HS's Emei + White Crane origin theory based on a fairy tale with a nun, a snake, and a crane?
----Well, as far as origin theories go.....they have shown a similarity between the writings from Yik Kam Wing Chun, Emei, and Fukien White Crane. They have pointed out an origin legend from Wing Chun that talks about a fight between a snake and a crane. Since legends are often metaphors, this could indicate the meeting of a snake style with a crane style. They have pointed out that White Crane and Wing Chun share very similar origin stories....Yim Wing Chun vs. Fong Wing Chun. They have pointed out forms from Fukien White Crane which have some very similar movements to Wing Chun. They have pointed out that both Wing Chun and White Crane trace at least part of their history to the Red Boats. All circumstantial evidence to support a theory, but that seems to be a whole lot more than what you have provided to support your theory.
---You ignored my video of an actual Luk Dim Boon Kwan form from Choy Li Fut and provided instead footage of the Bat Gwa Kwan form from Hung Kuen.
In order to support his theory he had to do a ton of tinkering with terminology and form, not to mention history.
---You don't even have that much support for your own theory! So its probably better not to denigrate someone else's theory!
As I said, and as we all know, YM only taught the knives to a few people. So, of course it's not common knowledge! I would suspect it wasn't shared through history because it reveals the entire strategy and tactical guidelines of the new empty hand fighting system.
---Ah! The typical argument! "No one has seen what I'm saying/showing before because it has been a well guarded lineage secret!"
You will think this looks nothing like Wing Chun either, until you get to 1:35-2:16. Then it's entirely LDBG exercises and form with left hand lead.
---Thanks for the videos! What is interesting is that you chose to show Hung Kuen's Bat Gwa pole. From what Sifu Tang has said, the Bat Gwa pole method was typically seen as the "rival" to the Weng Chun pole method. When sifu shows pole vs. pole techniques, some of the time he is actually showing his Weng Chun pole going against the Bat Gwa pole!
---But let me get this straight. Only a small segment of that Hung Kuen pole form bears any resemblance to Wing Chun pole. So your theory is that someone took that small segment and then decided to derive an entire empty hand method from it? But they chose to ignore the rest of that pole form and didn't use the other parts for the empty hand system? So no low stance and wide motions as is actually found in Hung Kuen empty hands? Why would the leave out the other 2/3's or more of that form if they were using it to derive an entire empty hand method????
---And you think this is more likely than the idea that at some point a Wing Chun guy decided to add a pole method to the Wing Chun empty hand system, perhaps saw this form or one like it, and recognized that that one segment was actually the only portion that embodied preexisting Wing Chun concepts and strategies the best and so chose to adapt just that one section to his Wing Chun system?
You will notice this segment is as short and simple as YM's form. No way YM made it up himself, or simplified it from YKS's, when it had already existed!
---Again, no one has said that Ip Man made up his entire pole method! No one has denied that similar pole methods existed prior to Wing Chun. The alternate theory to yours is that Wing Chun adapted a pole method that DID exist prior!
----Well, as far as origin theories go.....they have shown a similarity between the writings from Yik Kam Wing Chun, Emei, and Fukien White Crane. They have pointed out an origin legend from Wing Chun that talks about a fight between a snake and a crane. Since legends are often metaphors, this could indicate the meeting of a snake style with a crane style. They have pointed out that White Crane and Wing Chun share very similar origin stories....Yim Wing Chun vs. Fong Wing Chun. They have pointed out forms from Fukien White Crane which have some very similar movements to Wing Chun. They have pointed out that both Wing Chun and White Crane trace at least part of their history to the Red Boats. All circumstantial evidence to support a theory, but that seems to be a whole lot more than what you have provided to support your theory.
---You ignored my video of an actual Luk Dim Boon Kwan form from Choy Li Fut and provided instead footage of the Bat Gwa Kwan form from Hung Kuen.
In order to support his theory he had to do a ton of tinkering with terminology and form, not to mention history.
---You don't even have that much support for your own theory! So its probably better not to denigrate someone else's theory!
As I said, and as we all know, YM only taught the knives to a few people. So, of course it's not common knowledge! I would suspect it wasn't shared through history because it reveals the entire strategy and tactical guidelines of the new empty hand fighting system.
---Ah! The typical argument! "No one has seen what I'm saying/showing before because it has been a well guarded lineage secret!"
You will think this looks nothing like Wing Chun either, until you get to 1:35-2:16. Then it's entirely LDBG exercises and form with left hand lead.
---Thanks for the videos! What is interesting is that you chose to show Hung Kuen's Bat Gwa pole. From what Sifu Tang has said, the Bat Gwa pole method was typically seen as the "rival" to the Weng Chun pole method. When sifu shows pole vs. pole techniques, some of the time he is actually showing his Weng Chun pole going against the Bat Gwa pole!
---But let me get this straight. Only a small segment of that Hung Kuen pole form bears any resemblance to Wing Chun pole. So your theory is that someone took that small segment and then decided to derive an entire empty hand method from it? But they chose to ignore the rest of that pole form and didn't use the other parts for the empty hand system? So no low stance and wide motions as is actually found in Hung Kuen empty hands? Why would the leave out the other 2/3's or more of that form if they were using it to derive an entire empty hand method????
---And you think this is more likely than the idea that at some point a Wing Chun guy decided to add a pole method to the Wing Chun empty hand system, perhaps saw this form or one like it, and recognized that that one segment was actually the only portion that embodied preexisting Wing Chun concepts and strategies the best and so chose to adapt just that one section to his Wing Chun system?
You will notice this segment is as short and simple as YM's form. No way YM made it up himself, or simplified it from YKS's, when it had already existed!
---Again, no one has said that Ip Man made up his entire pole method! No one has denied that similar pole methods existed prior to Wing Chun. The alternate theory to yours is that Wing Chun adapted a pole method that DID exist prior!
And he was shown to have done some tinkering with his writings to support his theory.
I don't put much stock in fairy tales. There's no reason to believe that.
Most Southern TCMAs do.
And I pointed out the exact same movements he showed in unrelated styles.
No reason to believe the Red Boats story is true either. These are legends, not history.
Well, I'm not going around tinkering with "evidence" and dealing with fairy tales. Everything I've pointed to is what we have as far as observable facts.
The segment I pointed out is also called LDBG.
I didn't say no one. It's simply a fact that only a few people ever received the knife training from YM, so, few even knew the full system. Hence, it is not widespread knowledge today. The same is probably true throughout history. Very few people knew it.
No. That segment was a preexisting method known as LDBG and was integrated into that pole method. It is even older than you think.
Again, it's not one segment. It's a separate method, and it is in part what was used in the conceptualization of VT empty hand fighting. VT empty hand already maps to this pole method without any adaptation necessary.
The OP of this thread says YM created his pole form. On page 2, DanT says YM simplified his pole form from something longer that YKS taught.
But these videos show almost the identical sequence of YM's pole form, and demonstrate that it already existed long ago.
Juany118
Senior Master
Well first I would ask "do you know main land styles of WC? The main point of this entire thread is that YM, suddenly having to find himself teaching for a living, essentially had to make his own curriculum because after many decades he couldn't remember every single detail of the WC he had been taught.
If you look at some Main Land WC styles not only do they have more techniques that resemble those from other martial arts, but sometimes the techniques are overtly named after such animals.
As for sources KPM did a good job illustrating stuff, however this book also does a good job. Complete Wing Chun: The Definitive Guide to Wing Chun's History and Traditions (Complete Martial Arts): Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie, Y. Wu: 9780804831413: Amazon.com: Books
First they break down the legend behind and then know history of a number of Lineages, then in the conclusions portions go into a break down of what is actually historical record vs legend, where the various legends converge and where they differ etc. as well as similarities one can see in techniques. The book is worth a read just to see the oral history and traditions of different Lineages, even if you don't agree with the conclusions at the end.
Juany118
Senior Master
That is actually the biggest cop out I have seen you ever make and it contradicts your premise. Your claim was that only the empty hand portion of WC/VT is unique, that the use of twin knives is not, ergo the Baat Jaam Do section is predates the empty hand.
If the BJD section predates WC then you would not need actual BJD training to see the truth of what you say and simply extensive sword/knife experience.
You do not need to be an trained in a specific martial art's techniques in order to see the biomechanical differences in techniques between different arts when it comes to weapons. You simply need to understand how those weapons/tools work. So you have (apologies for the quality of the first video)
or
and then
or
first note, especially in the last video, the swords/knives that are clearly designed with stabbing in mind (one of the other things I pointed out.). Additionally a Hung Ga sword/knife tends to be longer than a WC sword/knife, even if by but an inch or two.
Regardless, I do not need to have studied either of these to see the biomechanical differences. If you look at all of the videos, and then the description i wrote that you chose to ignore, you will see that my break down of just a few of the differences is fairly accurate. Why? Because I know how to fight with swords and knives. This knowledge allows me to also see similarities to what I do in both arts. Examples.
Like the WC form we do not go too wide, we keep things close so we can always be defending and attacking simultaneously. We also try to keep a largely "up right" posture without leaning to me efficiently protect the head, among other things. Also, as with the more modern "chopper" Baat Jaam do, most Filipino blades tend to be single edged (some have a short false edge) and are also more suited to chopping, so thrusts are less common than slashing and chopping.
However there are times we will go "deep" or "round" with a technique like they do in Hung Ga, but for a specific purposes and with some key difference. You may want to attack the foot/shin of an opponent because an opponent with a "chopped" foot is going to have issues fighting you. You do this by "sinking" with your legs, without the accompanying strong lean you see in Hung Ga, so you can still defend yourself without offering the opponent your noggin. As for round there are techniques referred to as "redondo" and "abaniko" which are essentially fanning actions but only using the wrist and elbows, not the shoulder. You can do this as an attack or a defensive maneuver.
The point of the last paragraph being that when you know how to use weapons in a variety of ways you can see where other arts have similarities and differences to what you do. To simply dismiss this reality (and it is a reality) and needing to contradict yourself in order to dismiss this, is to be trapped in dogma.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
The book I noted also goes further than simply pointing out that there are similar techniques in WC and White Crane and note something I find equally relevant
Some of the context is missing of course if you dont read the whole book but the fact that White Crane is admitted to has spread far enough to be part of some forms of Karate, and then combine that with similarities in WC, one can't simply dismiss the possibility.
What section?
If you have no idea what the strategy and tactical guidelines are to BJD, you can't assume to know it just because you've learned other knife styles. Have you learned any Chinese double knife style at all?
I've studied numerous long weapon systems in China, including staff, pole, spear, etc. from north to south. That doesn't mean I understand every style now, including ones I've never learned.
There is a lot of variation. Same goes for bladed weapons.
Unfortunately, you cannot know the strategy or tactical guidelines of a weapon system just by looking at the blade design, or even necessarily the forms. I think you should wait until you have learned the topic before attempting to discuss it authoritatively.
