---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)?
Most of the old style has been absorbed into the Lam family Hung-Kyun. That is the best place to see it's influence. It's rare to find on its own. The most relevant is the pole work, though, and there are more vids of that that clearly show the same VT pole method and training, if interested.
As I said, the VT empty hand method functions in a very unique way, unlike any other style from the time and area. Superficial similarities like hand shapes, narrow stances, short strikes, etc. don't add up to much if the strategy and tactics are actually very different.
I look deeper than the surface before giving serious consideration.
---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.
They all likely share relatives, but VT boxing shares little that is not superficial with other hand methods. The only clear relationship is via the weaponry.
---Again, very interesting info. I'd like to see more of this particular style. Is that name specific for this style?
Yes. The "old" Hung-Kyun styles have different names. This one is what Lam Sai-Wing learned from his grand-uncle. It was kept by the males in the Lam family. So, few others learned it and it was absorbed into the modern Hung-Kyun curriculum he later learned from Wong Fei-Hung, that actually removed a lot of elements from the old styles.
---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?
Well, since the history is unrecorded we can't point to historical documents for official confirmation, but this is certainly what the system and history of the weapons show, and yes, how the system is interpreted via WSL > YM.
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.
Whoever created the system must have come up with the concept. There is actually a lot to back it up. Having the big picture makes complete sense of the method. The presence of these ideas throughout every part of the system is overwhelming.
---Until this post, you have simply been repeating the same thing over and over. You could have provided the information here 2 pages ago!
Was busy with you essentially coming back at me saying these two guys aren't identical twins because one has a freckle on his forehead. That's the significance of minor differences in their forms. YM's form has more repetition. It's undeniably the same pole method in theory and application.
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.
Individual analogues for a few actions don't add up to the same method, especially if they are not used in the same way for the same purpose. Southern Mantis is quite contradictory to VT strategy.
No other TCMA employs all the same tactics in the same way, aligning primary and auxiliary actions in the same specific strategy as VT boxing and the LDBG.
In other words, no other TCMA is a "two pole" boxing method.
---But again, no one in Weng Chun circles have ever concluded that the empty hands derived from the pole!
Because it didn't, and is quite different?
---That's all you've got?
No. There is a ton more, at every step of the way through the system, but I can't realistically walk you through the entire system on a forum. So, I had to keep it general.
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.
I really hope you won't make me say this again, but the LDBG method is exactly the same between HSHK and YMVT. This proves there was no adjustment or adaptation for it to fit VT.
---Southern Mantis also uses short shocking power and aggressively capturing space. That is not unique to Wing Chun at all.
Not at all in the same way with the same strategy and tactics.
---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.
Not similar. No other style functions like this.
Look here. If you know what you're looking at, it's clearly a "two pole" boxing method.
There is no Southern Mantis or Hakka style that is a "two pole" boxing method like this.
---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?
No, lol, because very few people learned the whole system from YM. "Stick, follow, roll" is a result of not knowing. Many people teach what they don't know.
---"Completely"???? What you showed was certainly not "complete", nor particularly unique to Wing Chun.
Yes, complete, and yes, unique to YMVT. It is just impractical to explain every detail of the system on here.
---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.
Which has been demonstrated to be false by the exact method existing in a pre- and non-VT style. Why do you keep going back to this theory?
---How many times do I have to point out that the pole form existing before Wing Chun was developed is not proof of anything.
It being exactly the same between HSHK and YMVT is proof that it wasn't adapted to fit VT hands.
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.
Unlikely, given that it is not just a move here or move there added to something unrelated, but is in fact the entirety of the system from ground up. It all maps to the pole theory, plus some knife thinking to make it effective.
Even if there was a previous boxing method, it would have undergone such a complete overhaul that it is meaningless to even mention now.
It's indistinguishable from an original style having been completely removed and replaced, or from there having been no previous boxing method.
Upon further reflection........consider another theory. "Old school" western boxing MUST have developed directly from the LDBK as well! In fact, I think the empty hand method of "London Prize Ring" era western boxing fits with the LDBK even BETTER than Wing Chun empty hands! Therefore is MUST be true!
1. OSB (old school boxing) has a very straight centerline punch, just like Wing Chun.
2. OSB uses the forearm to "bar the mark" or defend punches to the mid-section and also use the forearm to push an opponent away to make space to hit that is very similar to a Lan Sau
3. OSB will block or deflect inward with the forearm to line up on the center and follow up immediately with a straight punch just like doing a Jum Sau and punch.
4. OSB uses a "rolling parry" with the forearm for a low punch that is very much like a Bong Sau, also blocks outward against a low punch with a technique very much like a Gan Sau
5. OSB is known to use a downward blow like a hammerfist against an opponent's guard to help make an opening for a follow up punch.
If you look at body mechanics.....OSB stood in a "side-facing" posture rather than a more "squared" posture and resembled the pole method more than empty hand Wing Chun does. While both arms were used in OSB, the lead arm was put forward extended directly on the centerline just like the ready position with the pole. The punch was most certainly the "main action." The parries used in OSB were also seen as "auxiliary actions" to make it possible to simply punch the opponent. Everything was very direct....remove an obstacle from your path when necessary and then strike straight.....return to the primary! No sticking or rolling. None to very little kicking. Very linear. OSB fighting looked much more like Wing Chun pole than Wing Chun empty hands do!
Therefore, old school western boxing MUST have been derived from the LDBK! How could it be otherwise!
And like SPM or any Hakka style, it doesn't function as a "two pole", or even one pole boxing method with the same theory and application of strategy. Also doesn't contain the LDBG in its training.
You're picking at hairs. Must look deeper.
