Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Juany118]

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.

And you dance around your previous point and create a new goal post.

You claimed BJD predates empty hand because other arts used twin swords. I simply said "simply because you slash, thrust and chop doesn't mean you do so in the same manner as another art." You challenged that this was true.

So I then specifically mentioned blade shape and edge geometry preferences between the sword knives, used by HG vs WC. You dismiss these when anyone with even have a clue can see them when lined up side by side.

Next I mentioned biomechanics. I gave descriptions of differences and now have provided videos noting this differences. I am talking pure physical methodology. The way, not the why, they both slash, stab, chop and defend.

Yet you won't even address these differences, even though they are as important in understanding a fighting style as the strategy and tactics that lie behind them. You were the one who simply claimed that weapons existed first, ergo weapons were in WC first and that the only unique part of WC/VT is the empty hand.

This means that you should be able to produce evidence of a CMA that predates WC and yet uses the same, or very similar, biomechanics to make BJD not unique. I showed another art, equally known for using two swords/knives, that is clearly biomechanically different. Didn't just say "look at the videos", but explained a few of the differences in detail.

Instead of producing the art with the "proto-BJD" style, you simply ignore the evidence, which anyone can verify, and then go to your cop out position "strategy and tactics", a cop out btw you haven't bothered to detail even when you used it numerous times with empty hand. I could actually explain a few obvious difference in methodology between WC empty-hand and BJD to show how biomechanics can be born of a different strategic and tactical mindset, thus giving a glimpse to someone who hasn't been trained specifically in the differences, but it would clearly be a waste of time since you won't even acknowledge biomechanical facts.

 

[KPM]

I don't put much stock in fairy tales. There's no reason to believe that.

---No reason to believe your theory either. At least there ARE fairy tales that lend some support to Hendrik's theory!


And I pointed out the exact same movements he showed in unrelated styles.

---No you didn't. You mentioned some "rooster style" that no one else has ever seen. He provided a video of a Fukian White Crane form that had very obvious similarities to Wing Chun. But that's a different discussion and no need to go into it again here.



No reason to believe the Red Boats story is true either. These are legends, not history.

---And again, you don't even have legends or history to support what you are saying. And as I said before....legends often have a foundation of truth and so cannot be completely dismissed out of hand. The oral "history" of every Wing Chun lineage is that the pole was an add on. Not one comes even close to suggesting that Wing Chun was derived from the pole.



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.

---Come again? What "observable facts" are you referring to? That Hung Kuen has a pole form with a short segment similar to the Wing Chun pole? That supports the theory I described just as much as it supports your theory. AND... the legends and lineage teachings back up my theory, not yours! So which would seem more plausible?



The segment I pointed out is also called LDBG.

---There entire Choy Li Fut form I posted is called LDBG as well.




No. That segment was a preexisting method known as LDBG and was integrated into that pole method. It is even older than you think.

---I don't doubt that. But it still is far more likely that someone took an existing pole method (or part of it) and adapted it to fit Wing Chun than it is that someone took an existing pole method and derived an ENTIRE empty hand approach from it. And, BTW....whose theory is this anyway? You and Guy B. are the only ones I've heard that have described it. And I know you and Guy do not train together. So who in the WSL lineage is saying this and teaching this to people?




But these videos show almost the identical sequence of YM's pole form, and demonstrate that it already existed long ago.

---Identical? Really? I've seen so much variety in what people call Ip Man pole that I am very skeptical that this is even close to identical!

---These don't look identical to me!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

-I don't doubt that. But it still is far more likely that someone took an existing pole method (or part of it) and adapted it to fit Wing Chun than it is that someone took an existing pole method and derived an ENTIRE empty hand approach from it. And, BTW....whose theory is this anyway? You and Guy B. are the only ones I've heard that have described it. And I know you and Guy do not train together. So who in the WSL lineage is saying this and teaching this to people?

I'd argue it's also plausible that someone researched pole methods and found some (either in bits or entirety) that fit with the existing movements and strategies of WC/VT. It's like me finding techniques in BJJ that fit with NGA, or combinations in Western Boxing, or drills in Fencing (all of which I have found, and any of which could be incorporated into the formal curriculum of NGA if someone wanted to). I might wish to make some small adjustments to other parts of NGA to better integrate the new material, but those adjustments aren't the same thing as basing any part of NGA upon those adopted methods.

Thus, methods can be integrated by adaptation of the new (to the art) methods, or by adaptation of the existing (already in the art) methods, or by them simply fitting together without needing adaptation.

 

[LFJ]

You claimed BJD predates empty hand because other arts used twin swords.

No, I didn't.

You were the one who simply claimed that weapons existed first, ergo weapons were in WC first and that the only unique part of WC/VT is the empty hand.

This means that you should be able to produce evidence of a CMA that predates WC and yet uses the same, or very similar, biomechanics to make BJD not unique.

Hung Syun Hung Kyun, has both LDBG (shown, same as YM's form) and double knives.

I showed another art, equally known for using two swords/knives, that is clearly biomechanically different.

Irrelevant then.

your cop out position "strategy and tactics",

How are the meat and potatoes a cop out?

I could actually explain a few obvious difference in methodology between WC empty-hand and BJD to show how biomechanics can be born of a different strategic and tactical mindset, thus giving a glimpse to someone who hasn't been trained specifically in the differences, but it would clearly be a waste of time since you won't even acknowledge biomechanical facts.

It would be a waste of time because you haven't learned BJD, barely know any WC (even the newest newb has seen YM kick in CK), and are just guessing. I would not bother reading your uninformed ramblings.

 

[LFJ]

At least there ARE fairy tales that lend some support to Hendrik's theory!

Fairy tales don't lend support.

And I pointed out the exact same movements he showed in unrelated styles.

---No you didn't.

I did. We had side-by-side photos showing the exact same postures from an unrelated style, postures he said were proof of the connection he wasn't trying to fabricate.

Someone even added circles around the hands, elbows, knees, and feet to highlight that they were exactly the same.

---And again, you don't even have legends or history to support what you are saying. And as I said before....legends often have a foundation of truth and so cannot be completely dismissed out of hand.

I don't need legends. We can just look at the existing methods, and we know what I have shown predates VT, so...

Besides, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Legends are just legends.

---Come again? What "observable facts" are you referring to? That Hung Kuen has a pole form with a short segment similar to the Wing Chun pole?

It's a separate pole style called LDBG that predates the pole form it was integrated into, and comes from a system that also has double knives, and is said to be very similar to WC, which is obvious from the practically identical pole method.

The segment I pointed out is also called LDBG.

---There entire Choy Li Fut form I posted is called LDBG as well.

Seems you're not understanding. That segment is actually an entire form called LDBG too from an older style.

it still is far more likely that someone took an existing pole method (or part of it) and adapted it to fit Wing Chun than it is that someone took an existing pole method and derived an ENTIRE empty hand approach from it.

Your theory is demonstrably false by the fact that this LDBG predates VT and needs no adaptation whatsoever for VT to map perfectly to it. It was never adapted to fit anything. It is how it was.

And, BTW....whose theory is this anyway? You and Guy B. are the only ones I've heard that have described it. And I know you and Guy do not train together. So who in the WSL lineage is saying this and teaching this to people?

Everyone who knows the full system knows empty hand is a combination of pole and knife ideas.

Here's a thread with someone else talking about it a few years before I joined this forum. I can't find the posts he was talking about, and don't know the lineage of the people who said it, but it shows I'm not the only one that knows VT empty hand came from weapons.

Is Wing Chun taught backwards?

I don't believe it is taught "backwards", though. It has a logical progression for a beginner starting with empty hand. But that is not the order in which it was conceptualized and developed.

But these videos show almost the identical sequence of YM's pole form, and demonstrate that it already existed long ago.

---Identical? Really? I've seen so much variety in what people call Ip Man pole that I am very skeptical that this is even close to identical!

Same for the knives and we all know why...

---These don't look identical to me!

They both repeat fung-lung-cheung and leung-yi actions, change directions with lau-seui, kam-gwan, fung-lung-cheung, then dang-gwan toward the end. And more, the whole opening actions are shown in the long form.

Yes, it is practically the same sequence of the same actions. Immediately obvious if you know YM's form.

 

[LFJ]

Thus, methods can be integrated by adaptation of the new (to the art) methods, or by adaptation of the existing (already in the art) methods, or by them simply fitting together without needing adaptation.

The weapons predate VT. There was no need to do any adaptation and nothing to adapt. It's just combining two weapon ideas to form a new and unique approach to empty hand combat. It's simple, but genius.

Such a direction of development is not inconceivable. Kali empty hand?

 

[KPM]

Fairy tales don't lend support.

---Like I said, legends often have a foundation in truth. So they can lend some level of support. Nothing definitive, but when you have a theory that makes sense, is in-line with the lineage oral histories, AND matches the legends....then that is a level of support whether you like it or not.


I did. We had side-by-side photos showing the exact same postures from an unrelated style, postures he said were proof of the connection he wasn't trying to fabricate.

---Photos are not the same as a video showing actual movement and mechanics. But again, this is not the time to rehash that old argument.



I don't need legends. We can just look at the existing methods, and we know what I have shown predates VT, so...

---And again, I already pointed out that "predating" means nothing! The alternate theory to yours works just as well with saying that the pole method predated the empty hands.


Besides, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Legends are just legends.

---But the evidence you have provided for Wing Chun being derived from the pole has been pretty poor so far. You haven't even attempted to explain in what way the empty hand methods "map perfectly" to the pole methods. So forgive us if we feel free to dismiss your theory!



It's a separate pole style called LDBG that predates the pole form it was integrated into, and comes from a system that also has double knives, and is said to be very similar to WC, which is obvious from the practically identical pole method.

---What system is that? What system has this "nearly identical" pole form AND a "very similar" knife form? Any video? Or is it like that elusive "rooster" style?



Your theory is demonstrably false by the fact that this LDBG predates VT and needs no adaptation whatsoever for VT to map perfectly to it. It was never adapted to fit anything. It is how it was.

---Again, "predating" proves nothing! And so far we only have your word that portion of that Hung Kuen form you focused on "maps perfectly" to Wing Chun. And its just your theory that it was "never adapted."



Everyone who knows the full system knows empty hand is a combination of pole and knife ideas.

---So all of your WSL brethren believe this? Why have we only heard it from you and Guy B.?


Here's a thread with someone else talking about it a few years before I joined this forum. I can't find the posts he was talking about, and don't know the lineage of the people who said it, but it shows I'm not the only one that knows VT empty hand came from weapons.

Is Wing Chun taught backwards?

---From what I can tell, that actually wasn't really his theory, and no one else bought into it then either! Are you saying you derived all of your theory from this guy's posts? If not, then again....who in the WSL lineage has been teaching this to you guys?



Yes, it is practically the same sequence of the same actions. Immediately obvious if you know YM's form.

---Again, not identical if you watch and compare the videos! But you are saying that the entire Wing Chun empty hand system....with all of its concepts and principles.....coordinated use of two hands at the same time.....concept of sticking to and following an opponent at close range...more or less "square on" positioning with a pivoting dynamic....etc......derived from this short pole form?....a pole form with only one "arm"....that has a completely different mechanic (standing sideways, different stances, no pivot, etc)...that works from long range because it is a long pole....the entire Wing Chun empty hand system was developed from this short pole form????

 

[KPM]

Such a direction of development is not inconceivable. Kali empty hand?

Traditional FMA's do not actually have a very developed empty hand system. Those that do have one borrow a lot from Silat and are often Filipino versions of Indonesian Silat. In FMA you train/trained the weapons first and foremost because it was seen as a battlefield art. You only needed to know empty hand in the event that you lost your weapon in combat. So the older systems don't have a lot of empty hand at all. The modern FMA systems borrowed from Karate, boxing, Silat, etc. In FMA there is no highly developed and advanced system of empty hands like Wing Chun that was derived entirely from the weapons.

 

[Juany118]

Traditional FMA's do not actually have a very developed empty hand system. Those that do have one borrow a lot from Silat and are often Filipino versions of Indonesian Silat. In FMA you train/trained the weapons first and foremost because it was seen as a battlefield art. You only needed to know empty hand in the event that you lost your weapon in combat. So the older systems don't have a lot of empty hand at all. The modern FMA systems borrowed from Karate, boxing, Silat, etc. In FMA there is no highly developed and advanced system of empty hands like Wing Chun that was derived entirely from the weapons.

You are correct to a large extent but miss something. FMA does have "pure" unarmed forms like Panatukan, aka dirty boxing and another art called Kuntaw. Now I don't know the origins of Panatukan, and yes admittedly there is a fair amount of Silat influence in Kuntaw, but all of FMA is influenced by the various empires that conquered, trade with various polities etc.

Then you have what are considered modern hybrids; among these are Pekiti Tersia Kali, the core of which was created in 1897 and then refined in the mid 20th century and evolves even today. You also have the one I study, Inosanto Kali. However as these are modern hybrids, in Guro Dan's words "mixed martial arts concepts" they aren't relevant to the conversation imo.

The unarmed content in more typical Kali-Arnis-Escrima is very focused and not "full featured" it revolves around creating the ability to access your own weapon, or if your pants are completely down, to try and disarm your opponent..

 

[LFJ]

---Like I said, legends often have a foundation in truth. So they can lend some level of support.

At best it can point in a direction to research, but if it cannot be substantiated it lends no support whatsoever.

Some times legends are just pulled out of youknowwhere.

---Photos are not the same as a video showing actual movement and mechanics. But again, this is not the time to rehash that old argument.

Posted videos too.

---And again, I already pointed out that "predating" means nothing! The alternate theory to yours works just as well with saying that the pole method predated the empty hands.

Your alternate theory was that the pole method was adapted, but the videos showing the same method demonstrate that to be false.

---What system is that? What system has this "nearly identical" pole form AND a "very similar" knife form? Any video?

Hung Syun Hung Kyun, and you just saw the LDBG that came from this.

---Again, "predating" proves nothing! And so far we only have your word that portion of that Hung Kuen form you focused on "maps perfectly" to Wing Chun. And its just your theory that it was "never adapted."

You see the exact same actions in practically the same sequence. Nothing has been adapted between the two styles. That is proof positive right there.

---So all of your WSL brethren believe this? Why have we only heard it from you and Guy B.?

You can ask others. So long as they have learned the full system, they should know this.

---From what I can tell, that actually wasn't really his theory, and no one else bought into it then either! Are you saying you derived all of your theory from this guy's posts?

Of course not. I just found that post. The theory was something the poster had read.

And of course no one who had never heard of this would be quick to accept it if they had learned something else and hadn't seen the evidence.

But, it's not a popularity contest.

---Again, not identical if you watch and compare the videos!

Exactly the same actions. Practically the same sequence. Obviously the same method!

In fighting, they are indistinguishable from one another.

the entire Wing Chun empty hand system was developed from this short pole form????

No. Empty hand is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives, not just the pole.

the entire Wing Chun empty hand system....with all of its concepts and principles.....coordinated use of two hands at the same time.....

Obviously, if we have two arms we can use "two poles".

concept of sticking to and following an opponent at close range...

No such concept.

more or less "square on" positioning with a pivoting dynamic....etc......derived from this short pole form?....a pole form with only one "arm"....that has a completely different mechanic (standing sideways, different stances, no pivot, etc)...that works from long range because it is a long pole....

It would be silly to fight sideways with only one arm.

Since we aren't holding a pole with both hands we can face squarely and move freely to enable simultaneous use of our "two poles", and our arms are not 7ft long, so they work at close range just fine.

 

[Juany118]

No, I didn't.

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....

...If it were the other way around, the weapon methods should not predate VT empty hand or be found in other styles.

So you do claim that the other styles are practically indistinguishable. The thing is I have shown that, with the sword/knives, there are distinct differences. KPM showed with the pole. You keep making the claim and shown ready stances. That shows nothing of use. You then post two videos of the pole that have brief periods where things look similar BUT have large sections where things are drastically different, showing that the overall method is different.

Video has been shown where WC empty hand doesn't seem to be as unique as you claim, using the same logic you do with the pole...yet somehow that evidence doesn't matter but yours does? That is, well, ridiculous.

Hung Syun Hung Kyun, has both LDBG (shown, same as YM's form) and double knives.

Simply because they use similar blades (and as I said if you actually know blades they are different) doesn't make the techniques the same. Now if you want to try and show that "Old Hung Kyun" is the same as YM WC please do, show it, stop making fiat staements, because they prove nothing except you have no evidence.

Irrelevant then.

No, not irrelevant. you said things like...

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

to support your argument. We have shown with more than one example that this "indistinguishable" nature you keep referring to doesn't exist.

How are the meat and potatoes a cop out?

First because you were the one who mentioned "methods" that are "indistinguishable" first, not "strategy and tactics". You didn't raise the later until people started showing that CMA's that use the same weapons use VERY different methods. suddenly "methods" wasn't the issue it became "well if you don't understand the strategy and tactics..." Also you ignore something that is vitally important. The "method" vs "strategy and tactics" is a chicken or the egg proposition. Each is informed very much by the other. So to say "well the biomechanics don't matter because you can't tell me the strategy or tactical mindset" has to main issues. Most importantly, the biomechanics serve the strategic and tactical mindset of the art. Of course there is a question as to whether the biomechanics were developed to meet the strategic and tactical mindset or if the the strategy and tactics are chosen to make maximal use of the biomechanics, but that isn't the point here. Next again, you have repeatedly used this as the "answer" every time someone calls you out on an easily disproven statement, but have yet to actually explain how it is even vaguely relevant.

It would be a waste of time because you haven't learned BJD, barely know any WC (even the newest newb has seen YM kick in CK), and are just guessing. I would not bother reading your uninformed ramblings.

no because you would simply dance around the truth and keep spouting fiat statements without producing a single piece of independent and verifiable piece of proof that contradicts that which has been arrayed against you thus far. I mean heck, you point to one mistake I made in an unrelated debate, diverting from the point you have produced NO real evidence to support your claim beyond "because I say so."

 

[KPM]

You are correct to a large extent but miss something. FMA does have "pure" unarmed forms like Panatukan, aka dirty boxing and another art called Kuntaw. Now I don't know the origins of Panatukan, and yes admittedly there is a fair amount of Silat influence in Kuntaw, but all of FMA is influenced by the various empires that conquered, trade with various polities etc.

Then you have what are considered modern hybrids; among these are Pekiti Tersia Kali, the core of which was created in 1897 and then refined in the mid 20th century and evolves even today. You also have the one I study, Inosanto Kali. However as these are modern hybrids, in Guro Dan's words "mixed martial arts concepts" they aren't relevant to the conversation imo.

The unarmed content in more typical Kali-Arnis-Escrima is very focused and not "full featured" it revolves around creating the ability to access your own weapon, or if your pants are completely down, to try and disarm your opponent..

Panantukan is heavily influenced by western boxing, and Kuntaw by Silat as you noted. Neither are derived entirely from the weapons. Pekiti Tirsia also has a pretty heavy silat influence. Again, not derived entirely from the weapons.

 

[Juany118]

The weapons predate VT. There was no need to do any adaptation and nothing to adapt. It's just combining two weapon ideas to form a new and unique approach to empty hand combat. It's simple, but genius.

Such a direction of development is not inconceivable. Kali empty hand?

Kali empty hand isn't well developed in the "traditional" systems. There they exist to permit you time to get your weapon out, or to, if completely screwed try to disarm your opponents. There are specific unarmed arts (Panatukan and Kuntaw) and modern hybrids (PTK and Inosanto Kali). Of the hybrids IK is the only one I know of that tries to relate the weapon techniques to the unarmed techniques but PTK basically hybrids existing unarmed arts into the system.

All of that is irrelevant to your argument however. Your argument started on weapon methods from other arts being "indistinguishable" from WC but the empty hand being unique. The problem is even one of the videos of another Kung Fu shows some very obvious differences between them and WC and then we have additional videos that have been linked that illustrate this further. We are still waiting for you to show the "proto-forms" that are indistinguishable from WC

All you need to do is show a video of a single TCMA whose swordsmanship is "indistinguishable" from WC and the argument would go away but we are still waiting.

 

[Juany118]

Panantukan is heavily influenced by western boxing, and Kuntaw by Silat as you noted. Neither are derived entirely from the weapons. Pekiti Tirsia also has a pretty heavy silat influence. Again, not derived entirely from the weapons.

But that is the way of all FMA, armed and unarmed. You have to look at FMAs and how they evolved differently. You have a series of different empires that controlled the Philippines, either in part or almost in total such as the Srivijaya Empire, the Majapahit Empire, The Spanish and the United States all influenced FMA. Just look at terms used in FMA's armed combat. Redondo, Espada y Daga, the shapes of some of their blades

Here is a Majapahit blade that is also found in FMA, as an example

What makes FMA so rich in variety is that due to the tribal nature of the peoples they would take the tribal and family arts but then add elements of the arts taught by their conquerors and also adapt to their conquerors technology, either adapting their weapons, or in the case of the Spanish, adapting techniques to account for their armor. Etc. I suppose one could argue that FMA is one of the first "hybrid martial arts".

You can actually see it regionally even today. In the South, especially Mindanao, you see a greater Silat influence across the board because of the proximity to Indonesia and the Empires that either conquered or traded with the South. Go to the North and you see greater Western Influence because neither the Spanish nor the USA ever managed to fully pacify the south, again especially Mindanao.

The history of FMA is VERY interesting. I would recommend anyone interested in it to read...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TKICF0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

or watch

Amazon.com: The Bladed Hand: Jay Ignacio, Kent Vives, Sonny Sison: Movies & TV

the movie is available on Amazon Instant.

 

[KPM]

At best it can point in a direction to research, but if it cannot be substantiated it lends no support whatsoever.

---Anthropologists use legends and stories to help support theories all the time. Like I said...just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it untrue.


Your alternate theory was that the pole method was adapted, but the videos showing the same method demonstrate that to be false.

---Wrong. All those videos show is a similarity between two pole methods. They were not identical. They don't prove whether the pole was adapted to the empty hand or if the empty hands were adapted to the pole. As I've said before, your logic seems to be a bit questionable.



Hung Syun Hung Kyun, and you just saw the LDBG that came from this.

---You implied that the LDBG portion came from an older art and Hung Kuen had added them into the Bat Gwa pole form. So which is it? Are you saying Wing Chun derived from Hung Kuen, or an older martial art?



You see the exact same actions in practically the same sequence. Nothing has been adapted between the two styles. That is proof positive right there.

---That are not identical. They prove only that they are similar and likely related. Even if they were identical, that still wouldn't disprove the idea of that portion of the Hung Kuen form being added into the Wing Chun system and then the empty hand methods adjusted to conform with it.



You can ask others. So long as they have learned the full system, they should know this.

---You didn't really answer my question. Since only WSL guys know the full system, shouldn't they all agree with your theory? So do they or don't they? And you have now avoided answering my question about who is teaching this theory twice now. Why is that? Let me state my question again....who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people?




And of course no one who had never heard of this would be quick to accept it if they had learned something else and hadn't seen the evidence.

---What evidence?



Obviously, if we have two arms we can use "two poles".

---"Two poles"? Now who is making a "stretch" with their theory?!! Where in the pole form does one "pole" come to the aide of another? Where in the pole form does one "pole" create a compound action with another? Where in the pole form does one "pole" block while another attacks?



Since we aren't holding a pole with both hands we can face squarely and move freely to enable simultaneous use of our "two poles", and our arms are not 7ft long, so they work at close range just fine.

---True. And again, you point out a totally different body mechanic with empty hands as compared to the pole. Making it highly unlikely that the empty hand method was based upon the pole. You move very differently with a 7 foot pole than you do when empty handed! So given the lack of evidence to support your theory, you'll have to forgive for not believing it, since, as you said...."what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." And so far you haven't provided any real evidence. You haven't even attempted to show how the empty hands "track" so closely with the pole even after being asked to do that directly. So until I see something more convincing, I'm not convinced.

 

[ShortBridge]

...yet VT empty hand is unique in the TCMA world and is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.

...

It's true that we can't really know history, because there are no verifiable records for most of what we chose to argue about.

But Wing Chun empty hands are not unique in the world of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Maybe among the ones you've spent years studying in China, but not in my own experience with other southern systems. I'm not saying that Wing Chun is like anything else, but among hand techniques, there is a lot of overlap with other southern systems. There are crane forms that have entire sections, for example, that look like sections of Wing Chun forms.

 

[ShortBridge]

Hendrik Santos and the people that copied his inane ramblings (Sergio) don't count as scholars on this one. Got any legitimate sources?

I do not claim to be a scholar of any type. I've read some of Hendrik's posts and am not influenced by them at all. I can't even say for certain that I understand what he's on about.

I have studied and still practice a bit of crane from a very credible source and my experience with it is not inconsistent with my experience with Wing Chun. There is certainly overlap. They are not the same, but they are not really different either. My belief, based on personal experience is that Wing Chun shares some techniques and approach with crane.

Take that for what it's worth. I offer no statement of authority beyond that and offer no evidence. But I also can't be convinced otherwise any more than you could convince me that lacrosse, soccer, basketball, and hockey were each developed in a vacuum by talented and wise people with no knowledge of one another.

 

[ShortBridge]

Back to the original post, what might be an omission is the tri-pole kicking set. I don't have a good history or dates on it, but I read on Samuel Kwok's site that Yip Man brought it with him from Foshan, but didn't teach it for very long in Hong Kong for practical reasons. That reconciles more or less with what is said in my family as well. I don't claim to know, specifically this or anything else, but if you're making a list like the one that started this discussion, it's probably worth considering.

 

[Juany118]

I do not claim to be a scholar of any type. I've read some of Hendrik's posts and am not influenced by them at all. I can't even say for certain that I understand what he's on about.

I have studied and still practice a bit of crane from a very credible source and my experience with it is not inconsistent with my experience with Wing Chun. There is certainly overlap. They are not the same, but they are not really different either. My belief, based on personal experience is that Wing Chun shares some techniques and approach with crane.

Take that for what it's worth. I offer no statement of authority beyond that and offer no evidence. But I also can't be convinced otherwise any more than you could convince me that lacrosse, soccer, basketball, and hockey were each developed in a vacuum by talented and wise people with no knowledge of one another.

I think you illustrate the core issue. You can have overlap and still be different. Simply because you may overlap here or there doesn't = being "indistinguishable" from something else. Sometimes it maybe because techniques are intentionally borrowed. Other times it can be a matter of biomechanics. The human body can only move in so many ways so at some point there may be natural similarities.

My main contention at least is simply that the weapons forms are no more, or less, unique than the empty hand, from a biomechanical standpoint

 

[Juany118]

Nvm