ShortBridge
3rd Black Belt
What I was reacting to was "VT hand technique is unique".
"Indistinguishable" is a different standard and I don't claim that.
"Indistinguishable" is a different standard and I don't claim that.
Yip Man's curriculum changes
- Thread starter DanT
- Start date
Juany118
Senior Master
Yes but the thing is someone else is speaking about certain things being indistinguishable. I was simply trying to illustrate that some things overlap between systems isn't the "indistinguishable" that someone else has been using.
ShortBridge
3rd Black Belt
Fair enough and I'll let you guys return to your regularly scheduled programming at this point.
But, in response to this:
Let me just say that while the above statement is absolutely true, I don't personally believe that commonality between Wing Chun and White Crane are incidental. I'm not trying to make any claims that need to be defended, just offering my perspective from my own study and experience. Anyone and everyone are free to disagree and even claim that they have personal knowledge only known to 3 people in the world and have seen the secret scrolls. I'm good with it.
But, in response to this:
Let me just say that while the above statement is absolutely true, I don't personally believe that commonality between Wing Chun and White Crane are incidental. I'm not trying to make any claims that need to be defended, just offering my perspective from my own study and experience. Anyone and everyone are free to disagree and even claim that they have personal knowledge only known to 3 people in the world and have seen the secret scrolls. I'm good with it.
Juany118
Senior Master
Oh, I am not saying your experience is not accurate, nor do I disagree with your analysis. I was simply pointing out another avenue people sometimes overlook.
I didn't say all styles. You showed unrelated styles. Irrelevant.
If you are going to keep joining the discussion, please follow.
The section of the form I pointed out is a pole method from a different style than the larger form it was imbedded into. It is markedly distinct from the rest of that form because it is from a different style.
The rest of that style is irrelevant. I've only used those videos because it is one of the only places you will find this style of LDBG preserved and readily available to be viewed on Youtube.
I have not seen such video.
What blades and what styles are you even comparing?
You absolutely have not. The pole method is unmistakably the same.
The strategy and tactics are the method! When I say "method", I'm referring to the "strategy and tactics".
Except of course for an identical pole method in an older style proving it was not YM's invention or adapted to fit VT.
No, dude. It only provides a direction in which to search. Legends cannot be presented as supporting evidence for a truth claim!
Otherwise, there is supporting evidence that ghosts exist just because there are legends about a spirit world. But research in that direction reveals that the belief is unsubstantiated.
Legends are invalid as supporting evidence for a truth claim. Only observable facts are valid. Until your legend can lead to concrete evidence, it can be disregarded.
Only if you are stubbornly looking for an exact sequence. The actions are identical. The overall pattern is the same. More importantly, the fighting application is indistinguishable. It is unmistakably the same method.
The fact that it predates VT and has not been changed between that style and VT is proof that the pole method was not adapted to fit VT, and there was no VT to be adapted to it.
You are not following.
There are many things labeled Hung Kyun. That LDBG is from an older style than the NLBGG form it was embedded into. Two different styles.
It is from a three form system that includes pole, knives, and empty hand. The system is similar to VT.
You can immediately recognize the same pole method between the two styles. If I showed the form separately and unlabelled, pole drilling, and free fighting, anyone from YMVT would identify it as VT pole method.
The empty hand uses an upright and squared body structure, emphasizes "short bridge" and pressing attacks. But the way VT empty hand functions is very unique, in that it is based on tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.
That's almost exactly the argument! The pole method (techniques and function) is identical and predates VT.
VT empty hands are modelled in part on the pole. Since there was no VT hands to begin with, there was nothing to adjust, only to create.
I have never said only WSL guys know the full system. YM taught a few people. If you look around online you will see other people talking about it. I'm not going to speak for other people. But it is common knowledge to those who know the system.
The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.
---"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?
You expect us to fight with one arm then? Don't be silly. It's the tactical guidelines of the pole that are carried over into two arms. These are conceptual.
Again, tactical guidelines. It would be silly to fight sideways with one arm. Of course we are going to take advantage of the freedom of movement with two empty hands! Plus, you are missing the other half, being the knives.
Hand shapes and physical resemblance are irrelevant. No other style functions as VT does.
wckf92
Master of Arts
@ShortBridge I agree, and what you say matches my understanding as well. It's yet another example (maybe) of YM being selective and only passing this down to a few...like the pole and knives. I've heard this training was the last thing YM taught Duncan, even after the knives (which are typically last in the curriculum).
I didn't realize Kwok was trained in it as well.
Otherwise, there is supporting evidence that ghosts exist just because there are legends about a spirit world. But research in that direction reveals that the belief is unsubstantiated.
---Uh, no dude. Again your logic is flawed. If an anthropologist is working on establishing that a culture believed in an afterlife and practiced certain rituals based upon that, then legends about a spirit world are most certainly supporting evidence for a theory in that direction. If an anthropologist is working through the origins of a certain tribe and its relationship to others, then that tribe's legends about its origins are most certainly supporting evidence for showing relationship with another.
Only if you are stubbornly looking for an exact sequence.
---You mean like you do when looking at comparisons of Wing Chun and some of the Fukien White Crane forms?
The standards I am holding you to in order to make a convincing argument to support your theory are pretty much the same standards you have held Hendrik/Sergio/Robert Chu/etc. to in their theory about a White Crane connection to Wing Chun. And they provided much more supporting evidence than you have!
The actions are identical. The overall pattern is the same. More importantly, the fighting application is indistinguishable. It is unmistakably the same method.
---They are close but not identical. And didn't you make an argument before for "superficial" similarities being irrelevant when discussing White Crane and Wing Chun?
The fact that it predates VT and has not been changed between that style and VT is proof that the pole method was not adapted to fit VT, and there was no VT to be adapted to it.
---How many times do I have to point out that it absolutely does not "prove" anything other than similarity and therefore relationship. Exactly WHAT that relationship is has not been proven at all! Again dude, use a little logical thinking here. In the Hung Kuen form he uses wider motions and angles that WSL did not use. So at the very least the argument would be that this form was taken and adapted to be more linear. That much should be clear to anyone! That fact that it predates Wing Chun means nothing. That form could have been added on to Wing Chun at some point, made more linear in its approach, and then some of the strategies and tactics taught by the pole form incorporated into the empty hand method. Two-way street....Wing Chun empty hands could have lead to some minor adjustments in the form and the form could have also influenced how the empty hands were used and taught from that time forward. Nothing you have said or shown "proves" that the empty hand method was derived entirely from that short pole form. You can deny that all you want. But it is the truth.
You are not following.
---Oh, I'm following just fine!
There are many things labeled Hung Kyun. That LDBG is from an older style than the NLBGG form it was embedded into. Two different styles. It is from a three form system that includes pole, knives, and empty hand. The system is similar to VT.
---And I acknowledged that as one of the options and directly asked you what the name of this system is and whether you had video to show of it. Did you miss that part? Are you not following this discussion?
---Three times how you have ignored my question of who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people. Why is that? Are you not following?
The empty hand uses an upright and squared body structure, emphasizes "short bridge" and pressing attacks. But the way VT empty hand functions is very unique, in that it is based on tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.
---And you have not yet "proven" that, given that the empty hand methods function with a completely different biomechanics, that the pole did not simply influence, contribute to, and refine the preexisting empty hand method with its tactical guidelines. That still seems much more probable to me!
VT empty hands are modelled in part on the pole. Since there was no VT hands to begin with, there was nothing to adjust, only to create.
---That is exactly the point which you have not even come close to proving or even supporting well so far! I've asked you a couple of times to explain exactly where and how the empty hands "track" with the pole, but you have ignored that request both times. That might help support what you have been saying. Then again, maybe not!
I have never said only WSL guys know the full system.
---Dude! You have said EXACTLY that in past arguments! You have said more than once that "maybe Ip Man taught people other than WSL the full system, you that you hadn't come across anyone else yet! You have said that everyone else's Wing Chun is "broken" other than WSL lineage!
The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.
---Are you using the "Trump strategy"? You know....the more times you say something the more it makes it true? Sorry, no "alternative facts" are acknowledged here!
You expect us to fight with one arm then? Don't be silly. It's the tactical guidelines of the pole that are carried over into two arms. These are conceptual.
---And what have you said so far to disprove the idea that those tactical guidelines were not simply added to a preexisting Wing Chun empty hand method on a conceptual basis and the empty hand method adjusted to some extent to make use of those concepts? This makes far more sense than what you have been saying!
Again, tactical guidelines. It would be silly to fight sideways with one arm. Of course we are going to take advantage of the freedom of movement with two empty hands! Plus, you are missing the other half, being the knives.
---The knives are a whole other discussion. Are you know trying to say that the knives also predated the empty hand methods? Because there is pretty good evidence that the knives were a relatively late addition.
---Bottom line here.....you have not made a convincing argument for your theory at all. I don't care how many times you say something "proves" it, that doesn't actually make it true. And you have repeatedly avoided answer direct questions. So there really is no reason to continue this discussion.
---Uh, no dude. Again your logic is flawed. If an anthropologist is working on establishing that a culture believed in an afterlife and practiced certain rituals based upon that, then legends about a spirit world are most certainly supporting evidence for a theory in that direction. If an anthropologist is working through the origins of a certain tribe and its relationship to others, then that tribe's legends about its origins are most certainly supporting evidence for showing relationship with another.
Only if you are stubbornly looking for an exact sequence.
---You mean like you do when looking at comparisons of Wing Chun and some of the Fukien White Crane forms?
The standards I am holding you to in order to make a convincing argument to support your theory are pretty much the same standards you have held Hendrik/Sergio/Robert Chu/etc. to in their theory about a White Crane connection to Wing Chun. And they provided much more supporting evidence than you have!The actions are identical. The overall pattern is the same. More importantly, the fighting application is indistinguishable. It is unmistakably the same method.
---They are close but not identical. And didn't you make an argument before for "superficial" similarities being irrelevant when discussing White Crane and Wing Chun?
The fact that it predates VT and has not been changed between that style and VT is proof that the pole method was not adapted to fit VT, and there was no VT to be adapted to it.
---How many times do I have to point out that it absolutely does not "prove" anything other than similarity and therefore relationship. Exactly WHAT that relationship is has not been proven at all! Again dude, use a little logical thinking here. In the Hung Kuen form he uses wider motions and angles that WSL did not use. So at the very least the argument would be that this form was taken and adapted to be more linear. That much should be clear to anyone! That fact that it predates Wing Chun means nothing. That form could have been added on to Wing Chun at some point, made more linear in its approach, and then some of the strategies and tactics taught by the pole form incorporated into the empty hand method. Two-way street....Wing Chun empty hands could have lead to some minor adjustments in the form and the form could have also influenced how the empty hands were used and taught from that time forward. Nothing you have said or shown "proves" that the empty hand method was derived entirely from that short pole form. You can deny that all you want. But it is the truth.
You are not following.
---Oh, I'm following just fine!
There are many things labeled Hung Kyun. That LDBG is from an older style than the NLBGG form it was embedded into. Two different styles. It is from a three form system that includes pole, knives, and empty hand. The system is similar to VT.
---And I acknowledged that as one of the options and directly asked you what the name of this system is and whether you had video to show of it. Did you miss that part? Are you not following this discussion?
---Three times how you have ignored my question of who in the WSL lineage is teaching this theory to people. Why is that? Are you not following?
The empty hand uses an upright and squared body structure, emphasizes "short bridge" and pressing attacks. But the way VT empty hand functions is very unique, in that it is based on tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.
---And you have not yet "proven" that, given that the empty hand methods function with a completely different biomechanics, that the pole did not simply influence, contribute to, and refine the preexisting empty hand method with its tactical guidelines. That still seems much more probable to me!
VT empty hands are modelled in part on the pole. Since there was no VT hands to begin with, there was nothing to adjust, only to create.
---That is exactly the point which you have not even come close to proving or even supporting well so far! I've asked you a couple of times to explain exactly where and how the empty hands "track" with the pole, but you have ignored that request both times. That might help support what you have been saying. Then again, maybe not!
I have never said only WSL guys know the full system.
---Dude! You have said EXACTLY that in past arguments! You have said more than once that "maybe Ip Man taught people other than WSL the full system, you that you hadn't come across anyone else yet! You have said that everyone else's Wing Chun is "broken" other than WSL lineage!
The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.
---Are you using the "Trump strategy"? You know....the more times you say something the more it makes it true?
Sorry, no "alternative facts" are acknowledged here! You expect us to fight with one arm then? Don't be silly. It's the tactical guidelines of the pole that are carried over into two arms. These are conceptual.
---And what have you said so far to disprove the idea that those tactical guidelines were not simply added to a preexisting Wing Chun empty hand method on a conceptual basis and the empty hand method adjusted to some extent to make use of those concepts? This makes far more sense than what you have been saying!
Again, tactical guidelines. It would be silly to fight sideways with one arm. Of course we are going to take advantage of the freedom of movement with two empty hands! Plus, you are missing the other half, being the knives.
---The knives are a whole other discussion. Are you know trying to say that the knives also predated the empty hand methods? Because there is pretty good evidence that the knives were a relatively late addition.
---Bottom line here.....you have not made a convincing argument for your theory at all. I don't care how many times you say something "proves" it, that doesn't actually make it true. And you have repeatedly avoided answer direct questions. So there really is no reason to continue this discussion.
ShortBridge
3rd Black Belt
Here's the quote that I lifted off of Samuel Kwok's website. It doesn't actually say that he was taught this set, it's just an historical account of it existing.
"...The Bong Kick is another defensive kick that is often not taught. The Bong Kick used to be trained on Moi Fa Joig (3 posts stuck in the ground to form a triangle). However when Ip Man moved to Hong Kong from China it became impractical to find somewhere to put posts in the ground..."
It is part of Duncan's closed door cirriculum, so if you take Kwok's statement and overlay it with Duncan's dates (mid-late '50s) that could be part of your timeline.
I am aware of 3 triangular poles being used in a mainland style that went from China to Malaysia and I've seen Southern Preying Mantis videos that use poles in this configuration. So, at least the concept of the device is not confined to Wing Chun.
wckf92
Master of Arts
Would be interested to know more about that style you mention! We could start a different thread or you could PM me for further discussion? Thx
ShortBridge
3rd Black Belt
It's been a few years and I want to respect their choice to be more private than we are, but let me refresh my memory and I'll send you a PM.
That's not how science works. You don't make up a story and look for things to support it.
If researching a culture, you look at all the available facts, form a hypothesis and continue to research from there.
In this case, legends are a starting point for research, not supporting evidence for anything. If they lead to the discovery of cultural relics suggestive of rituals related to those legends, only then is it time to suppose that an afterlife belief was part of the culture.
If the legends don't lead to any verifiable facts, then they are just stories, myths, or fables told by the people, not evidence that they believed them.
No, they're not. Again, it is only a start point for research.
Supporting evidence must be something concrete; can you put the tribes in the same place and time and objectively verify intermingling?
If not, origin stories are evidence of nothing, especially if those stories are not original and don't explicitly mention any intermingling between tribes. You are just guessing and using Wishful Thinking.
Not at all. The important thing is how the methods function. In the case of these two pole methods, the actions in the forms are the same, the sequence is practically the same from start to finish, and most importantly, the use of one from the other is indistinguishable in combat.
WC and FWC? A few similar hand shapes in the forms is about all. I've shown the same shapes and actions in completely unrelated styles. But most importantly, their free fighting methods are very different.
They are identical, and not at all superficial, since they function exactly the same in combat, too. White Crane and Wing Chun do not.
The approach is exactly the same in combat. Are you not following? It is already a very linear approach.
If there are any minor "adjustments" to the form, it's the result of more than a century separation. But the method is exactly the same in combat. You keep focusing on the finger.
Following just fine? I told both you and Juany the name and you were looking at videos of the pole from that system.
I've not ignored it. I just told you I'm not going to speak for others besides myself or take a survey for you, but yes, it is common knowledge to those who know the system. Guy and I have never met or discussed it before sharing the info on this forum.
I also gave you a link to a thread from some years ago of someone who said he saw others discussing it. So, people do know of it. Go search around or ask about if you're interested.
Impossible. The tactical guidelines from the pole and the knives are the entire basis of the empty hand fighting concept and everything in the system.
I explained in your thread on the 6.5 points, how each matches in concept to the empty hand actions, and the strategy and tactics.
Strawman.
The identical pole method in a pre-existing style proves the pole was not picked up and adapted to VT empty hands.
---Are you using the "Trump strategy"? You know....the more times you say something the more it makes it true?
If it were adapted to VT empty hands, the VT version wouldn't still be exactly the same as a pre- and non-VT style.
The conceptual base is the method. Without the conceptual base, there is nothing left.
Take out the pole and knife ideas, and you have nothing. There is no method apart from this.
It is the same discussion. VT empty hand is a combination of pole and knife ideas. The weapons are the foundation upon which the empty hand system was conceptualized and developed. If instead you apply empty hand thinking to knives, you will die.
I find all this argumentation pointless. The argument that Wing Chun may have some common roots with Fukien White Crane could have merit. But, there just aren't enough facts for this to convince everyone. Are the strategies and tactics distinct? Knowledgeable people like LFJ say so. OK. But then he also insists that the strategy and tactics of WSL VT are very different from the other branches of YM WC he has seen.
Well if such differences can arise in a single generation, think about the changes that can evolve over centuries. Just my observation.
Well if such differences can arise in a single generation, think about the changes that can evolve over centuries. Just my observation.
wckf92
Master of Arts
Thank you!
That's not how science works. You don't make up a story and look for things to support it.
If researching a culture, you look at all the available facts, form a hypothesis and continue to research from there.
---You just love to argue don't you??? Do you actually know anything about anthropology? The examples I gave were perfectly valid. The anthropologist isn't making up any stories! Once again you are leading me to believe that you have trouble putting together good logic.
Following just fine? I told both you and Juany the name and you were looking at videos of the pole from that system.
---Then you are being very confusing. You posted videos from the Hung Kuen system. And then you stated that short sequence of the form you were referring to came from an older system. So I asked what that system was and if you had video. And now you are saying that is Hung Kuen? Make up your mind. Is your mythical proto-Wing Chun system Hung Kuen, or something older?
I've not ignored it. I just told you I'm not going to speak for others besides myself or take a survey for you, but yes, it is common knowledge to those who know the system. Guy and I have never met or discussed it before sharing the info on this forum.
---I asked WHO in the WSL system is teaching this theory? Who came up with it and has been telling it to everyone else? Why is that so hard to answer? You and Guy heard it from someone. You are clinging very tightly to it despite the fact that there is clearly not much at all to back it up. So I assume it must be PB or some other prominent WSL teacher that has been telling people this. So who is it? Why do you keep ignoring that question? Three times now!!!
I explained in your thread on the 6.5 points, how each matches in concept to the empty hand actions, and the strategy and tactics.
---But you are too lazy to make the effort to do it again to support your own theory??? I guess you don't take this discussion very seriously then.
---Look, as I said before....if you are just going to keep repeating the same thing with the belief that each time you say it it becomes more true we can just stop right here. If you are unwilling to actually answer questions or elaborate on something that may provide some support for your theory, then there is no need to continue this discussion. I am far from convinced. It simply isn't plausible and has nothing so far to support it. There is no need to just keep saying the same things over and over.
If researching a culture, you look at all the available facts, form a hypothesis and continue to research from there.
---You just love to argue don't you??? Do you actually know anything about anthropology? The examples I gave were perfectly valid. The anthropologist isn't making up any stories! Once again you are leading me to believe that you have trouble putting together good logic.
Following just fine? I told both you and Juany the name and you were looking at videos of the pole from that system.
---Then you are being very confusing. You posted videos from the Hung Kuen system. And then you stated that short sequence of the form you were referring to came from an older system. So I asked what that system was and if you had video. And now you are saying that is Hung Kuen? Make up your mind. Is your mythical proto-Wing Chun system Hung Kuen, or something older?
I've not ignored it. I just told you I'm not going to speak for others besides myself or take a survey for you, but yes, it is common knowledge to those who know the system. Guy and I have never met or discussed it before sharing the info on this forum.
---I asked WHO in the WSL system is teaching this theory? Who came up with it and has been telling it to everyone else? Why is that so hard to answer? You and Guy heard it from someone. You are clinging very tightly to it despite the fact that there is clearly not much at all to back it up. So I assume it must be PB or some other prominent WSL teacher that has been telling people this. So who is it? Why do you keep ignoring that question? Three times now!!!
I explained in your thread on the 6.5 points, how each matches in concept to the empty hand actions, and the strategy and tactics.
---But you are too lazy to make the effort to do it again to support your own theory??? I guess you don't take this discussion very seriously then.
---Look, as I said before....if you are just going to keep repeating the same thing with the belief that each time you say it it becomes more true we can just stop right here. If you are unwilling to actually answer questions or elaborate on something that may provide some support for your theory, then there is no need to continue this discussion. I am far from convinced. It simply isn't plausible and has nothing so far to support it. There is no need to just keep saying the same things over and over.
That might be your problem. There is no "the" HK system.
It's HK. There are a number of styles with this label with vary large differences. There are the so-called "old" village styles that are pre- and non-WFH, and the "new" or modern styles that are most widespread today.
Some of the old styles are much more similar to VT than to modern HK, with "short bridge" and narrow stances like YJKYM. See the first half of this form, for example.
You might think it resembles White Crane too. Likely because they share origins. But VT functions very differently than all these village styles, because it's the only one based on weapon methods.
This LDBG I've shown you comes from one of the old styles, Hung-Syun Hung-Kyun, a three form system including 6.5 pole, double knives, and empty hand. It is quite different from the modern HK styles.
The LDBG of this style was embedded into the NLBGG form you saw by LSW who learned it from his grand-uncle prior to training under WFH. It is a markedly different style.
This is why I posted the video of NLBGG. It is one of the only places you'll find it preserved and readily available for viewing on Youtube.
The originator/s of the method came up with it. WSL taught it and he learned it from YM.
If you're trying to single people out, like PB, to come with another strawman of who's right, who's wrong, you can forget it. If you want to take a survey, be my guest. But we don't need any Appeals to Majority, or Appeals to Authority. The data speaks for itself.
Lazy? I've been typing up a walls of text for you.
1. fong-lung-cheung (releasing dragon spear) = punch
2. ping-cheung (leveling spear) = lan-sau
3. leung-yi (two moves) = jam-sau, defends while lining up the punch, hence "two moves"
4. lau-seui (stirring water) = bong-sau or gaang-sau, low deflection
5. kam-gwan (covering pole) = jat-sau, knocks the pole down after lau-seui taking the attack line
6. dang-gwan (ascending pole) = arching lan-sau motion at the start and finish of the form
6.5 che-cheung (slanting pole) = final action recovering poor position, half point because it starts from extension, not from body like other actions
It is the exact same LDBG method in the HSHK style. Each of these match in concept and function between the pole and hands, as well as in tactical importance.
The primary and auxiliary hand actions map to the primary and auxiliary pole actions, i.e. fong-lung-cheung (pole thrust) and the punch are the main actions, leung-yi and kam-gwan are auxiliary actions for the pole to open the line for the thrust, just as paak-sau and jat-sau do for the punch. All other actions are for returning to the primary.
Tactically, the guidelines are using short shocking power for displacement and aggressively capturing space for the strike. The shaft displaces while the tip remains aimed and blasts in with the strike. There is no stick and follow.
In empty hand, we face squarely to enable simultaneous use of "two poles", using the forearms (shaft) to displace while maintaining aim and striking with fist (tip). This ability is developed in daan-chi-sau, where two "poles" are in a face-off to develop the other's ability. Initially two beats for training become one in fighting.
Without knowing the tactical guidelines from the pole, and that they are the basis of the empty hand method, many get trapped in a game of "stick, follow, roll" instead of displace and hit directly. In fighting, the former doesn't work, the latter does.
Now, it is impossible for the VT empty hand method to coincidentally map so completely and seamlessly to the pole if it were not conceptualized and developed in large part based on the pole method.
If you say the pole method could have been modelled after the VT empty hand method, then the exact pole method should not exist in a pre- and non-VT style.
But it does. This is a flaming fact!
VT empty-hand method came in part from this pole. Knife thinking is the other element that makes fighting close-range against the opponent's "two weapons" effective.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
Bowing out after this but here we go. If we look at the history of Wing Chun we actually can't find any verifiable evidence of its existence prior to the 19th Century. So if we are going to go based on facts that we can prove we have to say that the art is only about 200 years old. Because of this logic dictates that WC, across the board from empty hand must be the product of previous arts, even if a different strategic mindset resulted in greater adaptation in terms of the empty hand form.
I say this because while weapons are a "force multiplier" and provide additional options such as potentially greater reach, they actually can result in additional limitations. If you lose a long staff or pole arm it can limit your stances, mobility and require both hands. If you use swords, edge alignment and the degree of your arcs of attack can be limited. Example if you use a blade like this (my personal favorite)
You better get used to it because the nature of the curve means you can bite yourself if you are used to more traditional curved blades.
Because of the limitations on the weapon you wield you and then add in the fact of the tactical considerations of facing a weapon and you will likely see MORE similarities than you will unarmed BUT simply because there are more similarities with weapons doesn't mean that there are none when it comes to the unarmed portion.
I say this because while weapons are a "force multiplier" and provide additional options such as potentially greater reach, they actually can result in additional limitations. If you lose a long staff or pole arm it can limit your stances, mobility and require both hands. If you use swords, edge alignment and the degree of your arcs of attack can be limited. Example if you use a blade like this (my personal favorite)
You better get used to it because the nature of the curve means you can bite yourself if you are used to more traditional curved blades.
Because of the limitations on the weapon you wield you and then add in the fact of the tactical considerations of facing a weapon and you will likely see MORE similarities than you will unarmed BUT simply because there are more similarities with weapons doesn't mean that there are none when it comes to the unarmed portion.
---Ok. Now this is a good post! Why did you not do this 2 pages ago rather than just repeat over and over that you had "proved" something that you had not??
It's HK. There are a number of styles with this label with vary large differences. There are the so-called "old" village styles that are pre- and non-WFH, and the "new" or modern styles that are most widespread today.
---Now this is interesting and good info! Do you have any more video of this particular style? But my question would be this....if this is a 3 form system, has empty hand that resembles Wing Chun, has the LDBK form and the knives, why you NOT think that the WHOLE system was an ancestor of Wing Chun rather than just the pole (and the knives to some extent)?
Some of the old styles are much more similar to VT than to modern HK, with "short bridge" and narrow stances like YJKYM. See the first half of this form, for example.
----It is similar to the Crane portion of the Hung Gar "Tiger/Crane" form.
You might think it resembles White Crane too. Likely because they share origins. But VT functions very differently than all these village styles, because it's the only one based on weapon methods.
---I would say they all three resemble each other likely because they all three share origins! Wing Chun functions differently simply because it has evolved and developed along a different pathway over the last 100 years or more. Maybe because it evolved to be more in-line with the weapons. Still doesn't prove is was developed entirely FROM the weapons!
This LDBG I've shown you comes from one of the old styles, Hung-Syun Hung-Kyun, a three form system including 6.5 pole, double knives, and empty hand. It is quite different from the modern HK styles.
---Again, very interesting info. I'd like to see more of this particular style. Is that name specific for this style?
The originator/s of the method came up with it. WSL taught it and he learned it from YM.
---Once again, you are being rather confusing in the way you are writing things. Are you saying that both YM and WSL taught that Wing Chun empty hands was developed entirely from the weapons?
If you're trying to single people out, like PB, to come with another strawman of who's right, who's wrong, you can forget it. If you want to take a survey, be my guest. But we don't need any Appeals to Majority, or Appeals to Authority. The data speaks for itself.
---I'm not trying to create a strawman. I'm just curious about who originally came up with this idea and has started teaching it to people. And I'm trying to understand why you would so stubbornly support it when there obviously isn't really much to back it up.
Lazy? I've been typing up a walls of text for you.
---Until this post, you have simply been repeating the same thing over and over. You could have provided the information here 2 pages ago!
1. fong-lung-cheung (releasing dragon spear) = punch
2. ping-cheung (leveling spear) = lan-sau
3. leung-yi (two moves) = jam-sau, defends while lining up the punch, hence "two moves"
4. lau-seui (stirring water) = bong-sau or gaang-sau, low deflection
5. kam-gwan (covering pole) = jat-sau, knocks the pole down after lau-seui taking the attack line
6. dang-gwan (ascending pole) = arching lan-sau motion at the start and finish of the form
6.5 che-cheung (slanting pole) = final action recovering poor position, half point because it starts from extension, not from body like other actions
---We would make similar correlations and even more in Tang Yik pole! But no one has ever claimed it was because all of the empty hand methods were based on the pole! And I pointed out that this is rather generic when you posted it before. But I'll go through it again.
1. LOTS of southern CMA's have a centerline straight punch!
2. Plenty of southern CMA's also have a Lan Sau-like motion, heck Tai Chi does that a lot and uses stances and mechanics more similar to the pole than Wing Chun empty hands!
3. You don't think other CMA's line up and punch directly from a defensive motion? Southern Mantis comes to mind.
4. Nearly every martial art has a low deflection technique that resembles a low Bong or a Gan!
5. Southern Mantis most definitely has a "Jut Sau"-like motion.
6. You don't point out an empty hand correlation here. Empty hand doesn't include an "arcing" Lan Sau. In fact, I think by your definition that would be "chasing hands"!
6.5 No empty hand correlation noted here either.
--- Heck, I can do better than that with the Tang Yik 6.5 pole:
1. Cheung (full thrust) = straight punch
2. Chin (semi-circle) = Huen Sau
3. Si (to tear or rip) = Fak Sau
4. Tan (striking down on the opponent's pole) = Jum Sau
5. Tik (half thrust) = Biu Gee
6. Choat (ascending pole) = Sao Sau or Tun Sau
7. Got (big swinging strike) = Gwai Choi
8. Po Kwun = Gan Sau
9. Lan Kwun = Lan Sau
10. Gan Kwun = Gan Sau
11. Recovery from the Cheung = Jut Sau
12. Angling from side to center is a central strategy in both pole and empty hand
---But again, no one in Weng Chun circles have ever concluded that the empty hands derived from the pole! They simply acknowledge that if the empty hand and the pole go together in the same system, you would expect them to have commonalities!
It is the exact same LDBG method in the HSHK style. Each of these match in concept and function between the pole and hands, as well as in tactical importance.
---That's all you've got? You really think that "proves" that the entire empty hand method derived from the pole? Again, there is nothing there to suggest that both the pole AND the existing empty hand methods weren't "adjusted" or "adapted" to fit each other better over several generations of development.
Tactically, the guidelines are using short shocking power for displacement and aggressively capturing space for the strike. The shaft displaces while the tip remains aimed and blasts in with the strike. There is no stick and follow.
---Southern Mantis also uses short shocking power and aggressively capturing space. That is not unique to Wing Chun at all.
In empty hand, we face squarely to enable simultaneous use of "two poles", using the forearms (shaft) to displace while maintaining aim and striking with fist (tip). This ability is developed in daan-chi-sau, where two "poles" are in a face-off to develop the other's ability. Initially two beats for training become one in fighting.
---Nothing unique here either. Southern Mantis and other Hakka styles have one arm exercises to develop something similar and then progress to two arm exercises. I'd be willing to be bet that your Hung Syun Hung Kyun style does as well.
Without knowing the tactical guidelines from the pole, and that they are the basis of the empty hand method, many get trapped in a game of "stick, follow, roll" instead of displace and hit directly. In fighting, the former doesn't work, the latter does.
---But that does not rule out the possibility that someone took the game of "stick, follow, roll" and realized that seeing it with the tactical guidelines of the pole would improve it and make it better! IF the empty hands were developed from the pole, wouldn't everyone being avoiding the game of "stick, follow, roll" because it would never be taught that way?
Now, it is impossible for the VT empty hand method to coincidentally map so completely and seamlessly to the pole if it were not conceptualized and developed in large part based on the pole method.
---"Completely"???? What you showed was certainly not "complete", nor particularly unique to Wing Chun. You can keep telling yourself you have "proven" something if you want to. That doesn't make it true.
If you say the pole method could have been modelled after the VT empty hand method, then the exact pole method should not exist in a pre- and non-VT style.
---I never said that! I said simply that the pole was an add on to the system and that both the pole and empty hands both likely adapted somewhat to suit that marriage.
But it does. This is a flaming fact!
---How many times do I have to point out that the pole form existing before Wing Chun was developed is not proof of anything. Early Wing Chun developed from White Crane/Emei snake....or from combining elements of the original Shaolin styles.....or from the evolution of a village style like your Hung Syun Hung Kyun.....could easily have added the older LDBK pole method and then further evolved the empty hands to align with it. NOTHING you have presented says that the only way Wing Chun could have been developed was by deriving it entirely from the weapons!
It's HK. There are a number of styles with this label with vary large differences. There are the so-called "old" village styles that are pre- and non-WFH, and the "new" or modern styles that are most widespread today.
---Now this is interesting and good info! Do you have any more video of this particular style? But my question would be this....if this is a 3 form system, has empty hand that resembles Wing Chun, has the LDBK form and the knives, why you NOT think that the WHOLE system was an ancestor of Wing Chun rather than just the pole (and the knives to some extent)?
Some of the old styles are much more similar to VT than to modern HK, with "short bridge" and narrow stances like YJKYM. See the first half of this form, for example.
----It is similar to the Crane portion of the Hung Gar "Tiger/Crane" form.
You might think it resembles White Crane too. Likely because they share origins. But VT functions very differently than all these village styles, because it's the only one based on weapon methods.
---I would say they all three resemble each other likely because they all three share origins! Wing Chun functions differently simply because it has evolved and developed along a different pathway over the last 100 years or more. Maybe because it evolved to be more in-line with the weapons. Still doesn't prove is was developed entirely FROM the weapons!
This LDBG I've shown you comes from one of the old styles, Hung-Syun Hung-Kyun, a three form system including 6.5 pole, double knives, and empty hand. It is quite different from the modern HK styles.
---Again, very interesting info. I'd like to see more of this particular style. Is that name specific for this style?
The originator/s of the method came up with it. WSL taught it and he learned it from YM.
---Once again, you are being rather confusing in the way you are writing things. Are you saying that both YM and WSL taught that Wing Chun empty hands was developed entirely from the weapons?
If you're trying to single people out, like PB, to come with another strawman of who's right, who's wrong, you can forget it. If you want to take a survey, be my guest. But we don't need any Appeals to Majority, or Appeals to Authority. The data speaks for itself.
---I'm not trying to create a strawman. I'm just curious about who originally came up with this idea and has started teaching it to people. And I'm trying to understand why you would so stubbornly support it when there obviously isn't really much to back it up.
Lazy? I've been typing up a walls of text for you.
---Until this post, you have simply been repeating the same thing over and over. You could have provided the information here 2 pages ago!
1. fong-lung-cheung (releasing dragon spear) = punch
2. ping-cheung (leveling spear) = lan-sau
3. leung-yi (two moves) = jam-sau, defends while lining up the punch, hence "two moves"
4. lau-seui (stirring water) = bong-sau or gaang-sau, low deflection
5. kam-gwan (covering pole) = jat-sau, knocks the pole down after lau-seui taking the attack line
6. dang-gwan (ascending pole) = arching lan-sau motion at the start and finish of the form
6.5 che-cheung (slanting pole) = final action recovering poor position, half point because it starts from extension, not from body like other actions
---We would make similar correlations and even more in Tang Yik pole! But no one has ever claimed it was because all of the empty hand methods were based on the pole! And I pointed out that this is rather generic when you posted it before. But I'll go through it again.
1. LOTS of southern CMA's have a centerline straight punch!
2. Plenty of southern CMA's also have a Lan Sau-like motion, heck Tai Chi does that a lot and uses stances and mechanics more similar to the pole than Wing Chun empty hands!
3. You don't think other CMA's line up and punch directly from a defensive motion? Southern Mantis comes to mind.
4. Nearly every martial art has a low deflection technique that resembles a low Bong or a Gan!
5. Southern Mantis most definitely has a "Jut Sau"-like motion.
6. You don't point out an empty hand correlation here. Empty hand doesn't include an "arcing" Lan Sau. In fact, I think by your definition that would be "chasing hands"!
6.5 No empty hand correlation noted here either.
--- Heck, I can do better than that with the Tang Yik 6.5 pole:
1. Cheung (full thrust) = straight punch
2. Chin (semi-circle) = Huen Sau
3. Si (to tear or rip) = Fak Sau
4. Tan (striking down on the opponent's pole) = Jum Sau
5. Tik (half thrust) = Biu Gee
6. Choat (ascending pole) = Sao Sau or Tun Sau
7. Got (big swinging strike) = Gwai Choi
8. Po Kwun = Gan Sau
9. Lan Kwun = Lan Sau
10. Gan Kwun = Gan Sau
11. Recovery from the Cheung = Jut Sau
12. Angling from side to center is a central strategy in both pole and empty hand
---But again, no one in Weng Chun circles have ever concluded that the empty hands derived from the pole! They simply acknowledge that if the empty hand and the pole go together in the same system, you would expect them to have commonalities!
It is the exact same LDBG method in the HSHK style. Each of these match in concept and function between the pole and hands, as well as in tactical importance.
---That's all you've got? You really think that "proves" that the entire empty hand method derived from the pole? Again, there is nothing there to suggest that both the pole AND the existing empty hand methods weren't "adjusted" or "adapted" to fit each other better over several generations of development.
Tactically, the guidelines are using short shocking power for displacement and aggressively capturing space for the strike. The shaft displaces while the tip remains aimed and blasts in with the strike. There is no stick and follow.
---Southern Mantis also uses short shocking power and aggressively capturing space. That is not unique to Wing Chun at all.
In empty hand, we face squarely to enable simultaneous use of "two poles", using the forearms (shaft) to displace while maintaining aim and striking with fist (tip). This ability is developed in daan-chi-sau, where two "poles" are in a face-off to develop the other's ability. Initially two beats for training become one in fighting.
---Nothing unique here either. Southern Mantis and other Hakka styles have one arm exercises to develop something similar and then progress to two arm exercises. I'd be willing to be bet that your Hung Syun Hung Kyun style does as well.
Without knowing the tactical guidelines from the pole, and that they are the basis of the empty hand method, many get trapped in a game of "stick, follow, roll" instead of displace and hit directly. In fighting, the former doesn't work, the latter does.
---But that does not rule out the possibility that someone took the game of "stick, follow, roll" and realized that seeing it with the tactical guidelines of the pole would improve it and make it better! IF the empty hands were developed from the pole, wouldn't everyone being avoiding the game of "stick, follow, roll" because it would never be taught that way?
Now, it is impossible for the VT empty hand method to coincidentally map so completely and seamlessly to the pole if it were not conceptualized and developed in large part based on the pole method.
---"Completely"???? What you showed was certainly not "complete", nor particularly unique to Wing Chun. You can keep telling yourself you have "proven" something if you want to. That doesn't make it true.
If you say the pole method could have been modelled after the VT empty hand method, then the exact pole method should not exist in a pre- and non-VT style.
---I never said that! I said simply that the pole was an add on to the system and that both the pole and empty hands both likely adapted somewhat to suit that marriage.
But it does. This is a flaming fact!
---How many times do I have to point out that the pole form existing before Wing Chun was developed is not proof of anything. Early Wing Chun developed from White Crane/Emei snake....or from combining elements of the original Shaolin styles.....or from the evolution of a village style like your Hung Syun Hung Kyun.....could easily have added the older LDBK pole method and then further evolved the empty hands to align with it. NOTHING you have presented says that the only way Wing Chun could have been developed was by deriving it entirely from the weapons!
