Yip Man's curriculum changes

[geezer]

As I follow this thread, I see both LFJ and KPM making valid points from their personal perspective, but they will never agree since their basic view on WC/VT are so different to begin with!

The Hung Gar pole form LFJ posted does closely resemble the LDBK form I learned. So these kinds of pole movements and, yes the strategy may have existed previously to the evolution of the VT/WC that was taught by Yip Man. Heck, Yip Man's story of the origin of his art states as much with the attribution of the pole techniques to Chi-Shi who taught them to Leung Yee Tai. Legends often contain a grain of truth.

Probably the pole was an old skill separate from the hand system that was assimilated, and may well have strategically informed and directed the development of the empty hands, ultimately yielding the WC/WT that we see today.

How far you want to take this is up to you. Certainly many WC/VT practitioners have noted theoretical and strategic relationships between spear, pole, and even Western fencing and WC/VT empty hands. LFJ insists that the pole must be the foundation for VT empty hands. OK fine. To me that seems a bit dogmatic and strongly opinionated. But I do see his point. KPM has a sort of allergic reaction to dogma. I get that too.

Oh well... I guess there's no solving that disagreement. Carry on...

 

[Juany118]

---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)?

I have to agree because I have heard this from a couple people who are Sifu's and very Familiar with HG (aka HK). They speak of the "old" form. I even heard one describe that to assist in doing the forms they had a square separated into a grid like pattern but the total size was quite small (can't remember how small) to encourage the "short stepping" and more angular foot work. Also I have been told the "short bridging" methods are similar. I think part of the issue was that as the better known "Wong" version of HG is firmly built upon the "old/village" version I see it as a direct evolution so say Grandfather to Grandchild vs Cousins. My main issue from the jump has been the ideas that

1. Wing Chun is built around, or starts, with the weapons
2. The empty hand form is unique.

Regarding point 1. There is correlation, not causation. One of many reasons some people may say that 1. is true is because it is in BJD that the "long step" for lack of a better term is clearly introduced, in some WC lineages. The "longer stepping" at times is something I immediately notice when I see BJD. I even mentioned the need for longer stepping when confronting weapons in a thread some months ago when someone was speaking of having issues with addressing someone armed with a knife in training. The problem is while one could say "you sometimes need longer step in empty hand" can also fall into the "correlation does not = causation" because while is it POSSIBLE that it starts with weapons? Yeah. At the same time you run into two logical issues.

1. It makes no sense to have one of the key foundations of your MA taught at the end.
2. It is equally likely someone said "okay, with empty hand we can short step" but that is not an option when confronting weapons so when weapons are in play we my expand our stepping."

---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!

Regarding point 2 as the above kinda falls into that. As I said above I have spoken with HG Sifus who speak of the similarities in the older versions, including the empty-hand (again back to my main point that the empty hand is unique.)


I have also heard some people say they see at least as much Southern Praying Mantis, if not more than White Crane, in WC.

Many of the Southern Praying Mantis Styles tie themselves to the Hakka people of the Guangdong region either directly or indirectly. Here is an interesting article on the Hakka arts I stumbled across last night, that also speaks of WC. Wing Chun and the Hakka Arts: Is there a connection?

All of that said I will go back to the conclusion I have come to after this interesting discussion. Now the following may annoy some people on all sides but here we go...

With the obvious similarities between the WC and FWC origin stories. I have begun to think, that as many MAs do, that the story was used to make WC appear older than it is. What sounds better? "this art has been taught in secret by those who fight against tyranny for 200 years?" or "over the last few decades we have been refining this art based on many of the arts in the Guangdong region." ?

Based on the age of the Bubishi (17th century?), and WC's first emergence into the public eye (19th century), I suspect now that WC while it's own art indeed took many bits and pieces from a host of arts; FWC? Hakka based arts (such as Chow Ga)? Who knows what else, then cut and pasted an existing story, changing the names to "protect the innocent" (aka story), in order to give the appearance of more ancient beginnings . As far as which came first in terms of weapons and unarmed, I will simply say again correlation doesn't = causation and I will rely on points 1 and 2 that I made above in terms of the logic that "weapons" came first, and while some of the core principles may be unique to WC, tell me what art these principles are from?

...[the] techniques are centered at the elbow whilst most martial arts use the shoulder as the pivot or launch point for a strike. Elbow-centric techniques are best for self-defense because:-

• They need less room for execution.
• Strikes happen more rapidly because there's less distance for the hand to travel.
• It is harder for the attacker to defend himself because he has less time to react.
• Positioning the elbows towards the centerline allows faster response to any attack and directly covers the chest.

So I find it off to say the "empty hand" is unique simply based on similarities we can see in techniques and some core principles.

Just a thought before bed.

 

[Darrencowan]

This is a short summery on research I have done through both readings and speaking to various Sifus on the historical changes to Yip Man's wing chun curriculum, from teaching in Foshan to Hong Kong.

Age 24 (1917 - Yip Man returns to Foshan):
-Mook Jong had several different short forms
-Bat Jam Do form non-existent, drills used instead
-Chi Sao not practiced till after Cham Kiu (approx 3 years)
-Siu Nim Tao practiced for at least 2 years before Cham Kiu learned
-No footwork till Cham Kiu (just turning stance)

Age 45 (1938 - Yip Man teaches neighbours wing chun for self defence vs Japanese):
-curriculum restructured to increase combat skills quickly
-Footwork taught almost right away
-kicks simplified
-wooden dummy forms combined, result is one single form of 72? moves
-only kick on wooden dummy now is front kick
-Cham Kiu taught after 1 year
-Chi Sao introduced after a few months
-No Bat Jam Do or Staff taught

Age 56 (1949 - Yip Man flees to Hong Kong, teaches full time):
(At this point, he needed a curriculum that would keep students interested and quickly start wining at beimo fights to attract more students. The curriculum also needed to last longer to retain students over a longer period of time):
-Mook Jong form increased from 72? Moves to 108 then 116 then back to 108
-footwork and chi sao still introduced as soon as possible
-more kicks reintroduced to Mook Jong
-Bat Jam Do form created? Or at least learnt from Yeun Kay Shan and the taught
-Staff form taught / created

As you can see from above, Yip Man's curriculum changed depending on the circumstance he found himself in.

Awesome thread. Thank you so much for sharing. Very educational. Bows.

 

[KPM]

The Hung Gar pole form LFJ posted does closely resemble the LDBK form I learned. So these kinds of pole movements and, yes the strategy may have existed previously to the evolution of the VT/WC that was taught by Yip Man. Heck, Yip Man's story of the origin of his art states as much with the attribution of the pole techniques to Chi-Shi who taught them to Leung Yee Tai. Legends often contain a grain of truth.

Probably the pole was an old skill separate from the hand system that was assimilated, and may well have strategically informed and directed the development of the empty hands, ultimately yielding the WC/WT that we see today.

...

But you just essentially stated what I have been saying about the pole's relationship to Wing Chun the entire time!

 

[KPM]

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


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.

.

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!

 

[Juany118]

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!

Heck some people have said that WC was in part a result of British Sailors beating Kung Fu practitioners with bare knuckled Western Boxing. @lklawson I believe noted this once, though partially tongue in cheek I believe.

 

[Danny T]

 

[Gerry Seymour]

View attachment 20351

Bull****. That's not a stick yet. The image is clearly cropped to exclude the tree it's still attached to. That's a ******* branch.

 

[LFJ]

---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.

 

[LFJ]

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.

Premise: VT is only about 200 years old.
Conclusion: VT must be a product of previous boxing arts.

Logic? This is a non sequitur.

One of many reasons some people may say that 1. is true is because it is in BJD that the "long step" for lack of a better term is clearly introduced, in some WC lineages.

That's not my reasoning. Who says 1. is true for that reason?

It makes no sense to have one of the key foundations of your MA taught at the end.

This has already been explained to you.

Everyone agrees beginners should train hands before knives. This doesn't mean that is the direction in which the system was developed.

Knife thinking can and should be explained to a beginner to give the big picture and goal, but their training starts with hands.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Isn't that basically what differentiates any one art from another, though? If two arts shared all those points, it would be difficult to argue they are different arts.

 

[LFJ]

Isn't that basically what differentiates any one art from another, though? If two arts shared all those points, it would be difficult to argue they are different arts.

That's exactly why those are all different arts and not based on the pole like VT. It's the full package, not a similar hand here or there.

That's also exactly why the LDBG pole method of HSHK and YMVT are the same method. They are indistinguishable in theory and application.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's exactly why those are all different arts and not based on the pole like VT. It's the full package, not a similar hand here or there.

That's also exactly why the LDBG pole method of HSHK and YMVT are the same method. They are indistinguishable in theory and application.

My point was that this level of uniqueness isn't...well, unique. It's the difference between any two arts. As for the non-uniqueness of the staff work, from a purely external viewpoint, neither of those things has much to do with which is the original part of the art. There are Japanese arts that have sword forms that are clearly from another style. Those sword forms fit very snugly into the style with little or no changes. Yet there's significant documentation and/or oral history showing that the sword work was added to the art after formation (in some cases) or sword and empty-hand methods were sourced from different arts because someone found two parts that fit together that well.

I'm not saying that means the weapons weren't the original bits of WC/VT, with the empty-hand added later. I'm just pointing out that the uniqueness of the empty hand doesn't prove anything specific, nor does the non-uniqueness of the weapons work, nor does the close fit between them.

In the arguments I've seen in this debate, I've seen nothing convincing of either position. I'm also not sure how much it should matter.

 

[LFJ]

The Hung Gar pole form LFJ posted does closely resemble the LDBK form I learned. So these kinds of pole movements and, yes the strategy may have existed previously to the evolution of the VT/WC that was taught by Yip Man.

Appreciate your honesty. I know I'm not the only one to immediately recognize the method in there!

Probably the pole was an old skill separate from the hand system that was assimilated, and may well have strategically informed and directed the development of the empty hands, ultimately yielding the WC/WT that we see today.

The reason I don't go this route is that the VT boxing method so completely and seamlessly maps to the LDBG theory and application that any preexisting base style is unrecognizable in the system. Meaning there is nothing that is not pole or knife based (anymore?), meaning, it is really meaningless to speak of a possible preexisting base style when the result is indistinguishable from VT having been developed just from the weapons.

 

[LFJ]

I'm just pointing out that the uniqueness of the empty hand doesn't prove anything specific, nor does the non-uniqueness of the weapons work, nor does the close fit between them.

In this case, I disagree. As I've been saying;

The level to which the VT boxing method explicitly maps to the pole in theory, form, drilling, and application is impossible to be coincidence.

And the fact that the exact pole method in another style predates the boxing method proves it was not adjusted/modified/altered/evolved to fit VT.

You could say VT boxing came from a preexisting base style that evolved to align with the pole method, but it is indistinguishable from being purely weapon based from inception, and therefore meaningless.

It only makes sense based on the observable evidence that pole + knives = boxing, in the case of YMVT.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In this case, I disagree. As I've been saying;

The level to which the VT boxing method explicitly maps to the pole in theory, form, drilling, and application is impossible to be coincidence.

And the fact that the exact pole method in another style predates the boxing method proves it was not adjusted/modified/altered/evolved to fit VT.

You could say VT boxing came from a preexisting base style that evolved to align with the pole method, but it is indistinguishable from being purely weapon based from inception, and therefore meaningless.

It only makes sense based on the observable evidence that pole + knives = boxing, in the case of YMVT.

As I pointed out, it need not be coincidence. There are Japanese styles where the weapons and empty-hand come from clearly different sources and fit together (including the "mapping" you refer to) snugly. They were selected from those sources because of it. So, if someone is creating an art and has a great empty-hand method, he might research staff methods from other arts looking for a reasonable fit. He might find a perfect fit, or might find a nearly-perfect fit that informs some changes in the empty-hand method.

A key point in this is that our brains are pattern-matchers. We're hard-wired to try to fit things into matching patterns, and our brains will do so with high clarity, even when the match isn't exact. I'm not saying that's all there is to this close mapping, but it remains a possible explanation for there being this very close matching that seems absolute, while others see some differences that seem key to them.

 

[LFJ]

As I pointed out, it need not be coincidence. There are Japanese styles where the weapons and empty-hand come from clearly different sources and fit together (including the "mapping" you refer to) snugly. They were selected from those sources because of it.

I highly doubt it's to the same degree. Easier if all you're matching are general ideas. More difficult if it's an entire training system from ground up, including each part of each form and drilling leading to the same strategic end.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I highly doubt it's to the same degree. Easier if all you're matching are general ideas. More difficult if it's an entire training system from ground up, including each part of each form and drilling leading to the same strategic end.

You're missing that the training system was put together by one person/set of people. They can use the right words, principles, and imagery to fit perfectly together that which fit pretty danged well to start with. If they selected an external source for the pole (which seems likely in either case), they would have selected one that fit closely enough that some adjustments (to either the pole, or in this case to the empty hand) would make them fit better, and then the teaching is done in such a way that it all comes together perfectly.

Again, we could easily reverse what I've just said, and it fits either way. The result would be the same whether the pole is found and added to empty-hand work, or the empty-hand work is either found/added or developed based on the pole. The same evidence works for both (actually all three) scenarios.

Would a perfect fit be likely? No, but that doesn't mean it never happens. It may even be that you're both partly correct. Perhaps the empty-hand came first, but was heavily adjusted to fit with this "found" pole method. That fits the evidence, as well.

 

[KPM]

^^^^ That is exactly what I have been saying!!

 

[KPM]

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.

---Good information. Thanks!



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.

---Well then, it seems rather odd that we have an article written by YM himself for a HK magazine and he mentions nothing of this at all! It also seems rather odd, that YM's group of close long-time students other than WSL don't know this history or theory. Is this another one of those things that YM taught ONLY to WSL? And did WSL teach this to all of his close students? I've never seen anyone else talk about it! If WSL believed it to be true, it seems like it would be pretty common knowledge at this point.



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.

---Are these ideas present throughout every part of non-YM Wing Chun systems? Are they present throughout Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK? Are they present throughout Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK? Are they present throughout Yiu Choi WCK?




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.

---There was adjustment, even if was just to remove the angulations and make it more linear. Anyone with two eyes can see in those comparison videos that they are not identical. And even if the LDBG form was used exactly "as is", that still does not rule out it being added to an existing empty hand method and then that empty hand method being reworked to some extent to align its strategies and tactics with that of the pole. I really hope you won't keep making me point out this obvious fact to you. And now I'm not the only one that has pointed it out!




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.

---But realize that your theory of Wing Chun origins would predate YM and apply to ALL Wing Chun. Not just YM Wing Chun. If WSLVT is the ONLY form of Wing Chun that thinks this way and has such close correlations between pole and empty hand, then that should be a huge red flag that there is something wrong with your theory! Do those same correlations "track" between pole and empty hand even for Ho Kam Ming WCK? Or Tsui Tsung Tin WCK? Or Leung Sheung WCK? Or is it just WSLVT?



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?

---I was really hoping you wouldn't make me say this again....buuuuttttt.... JUST BECAUSE IT PRE-EXISTED PRIOR TO WING CHUN EMPTY HANDS PROVES NOTHING AND MAKES NOTHING "FALSE"!!! Geez! Use a little logic! I'm not the only one that has recognized this!




Even if there was a previous boxing method, it would have undergone such a complete overhaul that it is meaningless to even mention now.

---I disagree. There is no reason to think that a style of empty hands similar to the Hakka arts or Fukien White Crane could not have taken strategy and tactics from the pole and used that to rework the system. It would then be a different system, but not unrecognizable.