Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Nobody Important]

In this form, I only see the arms movement and I don't see the body movement. How can you generate maximum punching power if you don't "put your body behind your punch"?

The form was only posted to illustrate the "Arrow" method in Wing Chun as possible relationship to Red Boat Hung Gar Wing Chun "Arrow" method and not on validity of performance.

 

[Nobody Important]

I totally agree that there is a beginning to everything, and the scholarship should be done to discover those beginnings. That is not the same as saying there is a single "alpha", or proto-art.

The mental artifacts man creates, whether a martial art, a science, literature, painting etc are almost always influenced by other things. Nothing evolves in an vacuum. So if you have an art like WC, that appears to have Hakka and non-Hakka influences how can one say that there is a single "Alpha".

I am not saying we can't say "okay there's a bit of Mantis, here is a bit of Baak Mei, there is a bit of FWC, there is a bit of "old"/village HK." The thing is though that these each take us in different directions. We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources.) Then maybe some influence from the more "straight ahead" arts taught to the Imperial Army.

All I am saying is that there appears to be a strong possibility that in the end we see a history that look at it like a family tree in reverse. The art you are looking at, in this case WC, is the "Omega". As we go back into the past the tree expands to multiple sources, rather than narrowing to one. It is interesting indeed to try and figure out all the possible twists and turns. All I am saying is that if we insist on looking for a single "Alpha" we blind ourselves to other possibilities.

Who's saying that there is a single "alpha" method from which WC comes? Not me, but I also can't subscribe that it comes from a gigantic collective pool of bits & bobs. Too, over analytical. Wing Chun is diverse, each branch has reason as to why they believe what they do, and is 100% valid. It doesn't mean it's true for others. There is a source, but that is only part of the equation, what others have added is what makes their interpretation, it is also what makes them unique. It would be a boring world if we never evolved ideas.

 

[Juany118]

Who's saying that there is a single "alpha" method from which WC comes? Not me, but I also can't subscribe that it comes from a gigantic collective pool of bits & bobs. Too, over analytical. Wing Chun is diverse, each branch has reason as to why they believe what they do, and is 100% valid. It doesn't mean it's true for others. There is a source, but that is only part of the equation, what others have added is what makes their interpretation, it is also what makes them unique. It would be a boring world if we never evolved ideas.

It seems to be LFJ's argument, hence why @KPM mentioned proto-WC. LFJ earlier stated that WC started with the weapons. He specifically noted to pole form of "old" village HK as a point of origin. This formed the base in his opinion and then a new and unique empty hand form was built upon it. Hence KPM's statement...

...My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."...

Sorry if I didn't make my initial post more clear on the point.

 

[Juany118]

... Not me, but I also can't subscribe that it comes from a gigantic collective pool of bits & bobs.

Oh to further clarify I agree, I am not saying WC is a giant collective in and of itself. I am sure some similarities are down to simple biomechanics. If you have an overall methodology in mind then techniques will be used that conform to the methodology, the human body can only move in so many ways after all. The "spreading" family tree I speak of is a consequence of moving into the past.

Example, pure mental floss here, do not take this as an actual theory. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that WC's primary "original sources" are FWC, Southern (Hakka) Mantis and "old"/village HK. Now if we keep looking back into the history of each of these arts, what is their ancestry? And then what is the ancestry of the "great grand parent" etc. So it becomes gigantic but only as a general intellectual exercise, not in terms of direct influence on WC/VT.

I also agree with you in terms of the other styles of WC. Each evolved in their own way for their own reasons. As an example I think the idea of a video I posted in another thread as well as the beginning of this thread, explains why YM WC is different... An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong

In short a guy who made his art his own and never thought he would have to teach finds himself forced to teach as a matter of survival. He thus had to remember/create from whole cloth a curriculum that suited his purposes and environment.

 

[Nobody Important]

It seems to be LFJ's argument, hence why @KPM mentioned proto-WC. LFJ earlier stated that WC started with the weapons. He specifically noted to pole form of "old" village HK as a point of origin. This formed the base in his opinion and then a new and unique empty hand form was built upon it. Hence KPM's statement...



Sorry if I didn't make my initial post more clear on the point.

No problem, if that is what LFJ believes and that's how his method is structured, I don't have issue with it anymore than I do with those that claim crane & snake heritage or distillation of Siu Lam methods. My issue is, and always will be, with the statement that one's dogma is applicable and true for all. It is readily apparent that not all Wing Chun systems subscribe to the same theories, methods or concepts outside a few core ones.

Weapons methods can clearly be seen within the empty hand movements of some arts. Invariably it can be a chicken or egg thing. It could be that some actually used weapons to refine empty hand instead of deriving from. The old methods of CMA taught weapons first, an empty hand is useless on the battle field. Empty handed arts came into being during times of peace and historically have been used to train and instill military spirit, not actual combat use. Makes no sense to severely injure your soldiers by repeatedly testing them with live weapons. Boxing & grappling have long been used as a means to safely train a warrior spirit, some concepts between weapons and empty hand overlap. After all, the weapon is just an extension of the hand.

 

[Juany118]

No problem, if that is what LFJ believes and that's how his method is structured, I don't have issue with it anymore than I do with those that claim crane & snake heritage or distillation of Siu Lam methods. My issue is, and always will be, with the statement that one's dogma is applicable and true for all. It is readily apparent that not all Wing Chun systems subscribe to the same theories, methods or concepts outside a few core ones.

Weapons methods can clearly be seen within the empty hand movements of some arts. Invariably it can be a chicken or egg thing. It could be that some actually used weapons to refine empty hand instead of deriving from. The old methods of CMA taught weapons first, an empty hand is useless on the battle field. Empty handed arts came into being during times of peace and historically have been used to train and instill military spirit, not actual combat use. Makes no sense to severely injure your soldiers by repeatedly testing them with live weapons. Boxing & grappling have long been used as a means to safely train a warrior spirit, some concepts between weapons and empty hand overlap. After all, the weapon is just an extension of the hand.

The thing is that his method seems to be shared only by "his" YM WC. Never have I heard, nor my friends who study under 2 other "schools" of the Lineage (Yip Ching and Moy Yat, I asked them due to this conversation.). They all say that you need firm understanding of the unarmed arts to use the weapons and then the weapons help expand and reinforce your unarmed game but without the unarmed game you can't have the weapons game. This, to us and our Sifu's, means it started with the weapons. So this disconnect between YM Lineages confuses me. I even noted the "chicken and the egg" thing as a possibility, but the fact the foundation of the art is at the back end seems off.

Example, LFJ mentioned Kali as an example of a weapon based aren't and Kali, Arnis, Eskrima are indeed arts with the weapons as the base. Those weapons however are up front. The first things I learned? Doce Pares (literally the 12 pairs, but it is the 12 angles of attack) and Cob-Cob (a cooperative double stick drill), THEN you learn how the empty hand techniques fit in.

As for your last bit indeed, but one also has to take into account, with unarmed arts, that they were often taught when weapons were outlawed, so you could still defend yourself and avoid the "authorities" catching you "carrying." Since a weapon won't always be available to you, perhaps rarely you learn that first. Then you either select short weapons that are an extension of your arm (BJD) and/or something that is innocuous and common place, the pole. But you can't walk everywhere with a pole and BJD are only so concealable. The armed arts of FMA are different because it has descended from Warrior Arts akin to the various forms of Kenjutsu, armed HEMA, etc. I have always found it interesting that, at least today, a weapon focused Chinese MA doesn't seem to survive, or maybe never existed? There is no "Kenjutsu". Interesting thing to ponder.

Now this evolution of course isn't Universal, but there are so many reasons that Mas evolve the way they do it's not funny .

 

[LFJ]

---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.

YM taught only a few students the system. Why would he explain it to a magazine?

It is common knowledge to those who know the system. You haven't heard about it because you haven't studied the system.

---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?

It seems not, but that's irrelevant if as you say some of these went on without the weapon base.

If the weapons were not taught, the weapon theory wouldn't be taught, and over time it's conceivable that the boxing method would evolve in a different direction without the weapons to guide it.

---There was adjustment, even if was just to remove the angulations and make it more linear.

No angulations are removed. It's a linear method. The forms are just homework, anyway. If you want to talk about the methods you need to talk about theory and application. In this, they are 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.

That's a guess without supporting evidence.

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.

Other systems appear to be doing something very different as far as boxing methods. As I said, without the weapon theory, the boxing method is free and likely to evolve into something else, which seems to be the case.

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!

I did not say "just because".

It is the fact that it preexisted AND remains unchanged between the preexisting style and YMVT.

This rules out the theory of the pole having been adjusted to match VT so seamlessly.

You can say a preexisting base style was readjusted to match the pole, but you need to demonstrate that.

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.

This is a theory without evidence.

Any such preexisting base style is now unrecognizable because no other TCMA functions like VT.

A paak-sau here, a laan-sau there, or a vertical-fist punch do not add up to a recognizable base system if the overall strategy and tactics are contradictory.

My question to LFJ was that if this older version of HK had 3 forms, LDBK, and knives why would he think only the weapons and not the whole thing could have been a "proto-Wing Chun."

Because there is no evidence to support that theory.

Based on all observable facts, the only part that clearly shows relationship to VT with far more than superficial similarity is the weaponry.

My theory is a conclusion based on solid evidence. Your theory is a guess without evidence.

If you want to propose a possible preexisting base style, you must support it with solid evidence. There is none.

 

[LFJ]

Yes other Arts have sections of their pole work that resemble WC.

Why are you still here if you're not going to pay attention?

It's not a section. It's an entire form from a distinct pole method. It is just short, like YMVT pole.

In order for the "weapons is the start" to have any validity the open hand form almost has to be unique.

It is.

The problem is many southern Mantis schools (and other Hakka arts, TWC and, according to many HG Sifus the "old HG", all have elements that are share the same similarities to WC. This is ignored however.

As I told KPM, superficial similarities do not add up to anything. Otherwise, you could be saying Old School Boxing was the preexisting base style of VT.

The real problem is, all those styles are contradictory to VT strategy and tactics, and there is 0 evidence that any of them could have been a base style of VT.

You are guessing without evidence.

WSLVT-PB is the one true YM-VT.

You've gotta be kidding me............ Again?!

We have dismantled this strawman 1,000 times! What is your problem?!

I guess it has been a week since you last said it.

The one issue though that I think is just wrong is the "empty hands are unique and the weapons aren't".

I've shown an identical LDBG method. Now show me an even similar "two pole" boxing method.

 

[Nobody Important]

Leung Yee Tai was said to be a practitioner of Fut Gar. He knew the 5th brother pole from Siu Lam which was taught to Wong Wa Bo who simplified it to conform with Wing Chun as it contained similar principles. It became known as 6 1/2 Point Pole because when the 5th Yang brother retreated to Siu Lam he removed the spear head from his pole and created staff techniques based upon 6 1/2 major points, though minor points are included.

Wing Chun theory consists of more than 6 1/2 points.

Often when weapons or empty hand forms are absorbed into a system, they take on many of the characteristics and principles of that system, sometimes making them unrecognizable.

Weapons are said to have no family.

 

[Juany118]

Why are you still here if you're not going to pay attention?

It's not a section. It's an entire form from a distinct pole method. It is just short, like YMVT pole.



It is.



As I told KPM, superficial similarities do not add up to anything. Otherwise, you could be saying Old School Boxing was the preexisting base style of VT.

The real problem is, all those styles are contradictory to VT strategy and tactics, and there is 0 evidence that any of them could have been a base style of VT.

You are guessing without evidence.



You've gotta be kidding me............ Again?!

We have dismantled this strawman 1,000 times! What is your problem?!

I guess it has been a week since you last said it.



I've shown an identical LDBG method. Now show me an even similar "two pole" boxing method.

I will only comment on "superficial" similarities. First one could say your argument, using the pole video is "superficial." However here is a description of a firm Mantis principle.

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.

They also use virtually the same concept of "gates" among other things. The number of similarities go beyond what we can superficially see in terms of the empty hand. Now this doesn't mean there aren't differences, there sure as heck are. If there weren't we would be studying Chow Gar and not WC/VT but WC didn't not evolve, empty hand or armed, in a vacuum. Sometimes I have wondered if the reason people so focus, at times exusively on Fax is because of the similarities in the legend of creation and the fact WC often uses the Crane in symbology, because if you look closer to home you see an art right there that clearly also shares many fundamental principles. Is it iron clad? No but having not only similarities in practice but in some very fundamental principles makes it worthy of consideration vs dismissal.

 

[LFJ]

Leung Yee Tai was said to be a practitioner of Fut Gar. He knew the 5th brother pole from Siu Lam which was taught to Wong Wa Bo who simplified it to conform with Wing Chun as it contained similar principles. It became known as 6 1/2 Point Pole because when the 5th Yang brother retreated to Siu Lam he removed the spear head from his pole and created staff techniques based upon 6 1/2 major points, though minor points are included.

There is nothing to prove these people existed, and there was never historically a "Southern Shaolin Monastery" either.

The furthest back we can prove real people for the VT boxing method is to Leung Jan, and for the LDBG pole method is to Lam Geui-Chung, both from the early 19th century.

The rest is unsubstantiated legend.

 

[LFJ]

First one could say your argument, using the pole video is "superficial."

Looking at video without understanding anything in it, but still not.

It's the exact same actions in practically the same sequence.

The important thing is that they are identical in both theory and application.

However here is a description of a firm Mantis principle.

It is superficial because the strategy and tactics between SPM and VT are actually contradictory.

SPM and other Hakka styles function similarly. But they are all contradictory to VT theory and application.

It doesn't matter if they share visually similar hands or the concept of a centerline, because their interactions with centerline are very different.

WC didn't not evolve, empty hand or armed, in a vacuum.

Yes, but if you wish to propose a preexisting base style for VT, you need to substantiate that with solid evidence.

Otherwise, you're just guessing based on what you think seems likely.

 

[Nobody Important]

There is nothing to prove these people existed, and there was never historically a "Southern Shaolin Monastery" either.

The furthest back we can prove real people for the VT boxing method is to Leung Jan, and for the LDBG pole method is to Lam Geui-Chung, both from the early 19th century.

The rest is unsubstantiated legend.

There is always a kernel of truth in oral legends. No need to heed them if skeptical, no need to dismiss if they don't coincide with your belief of Wing Chun origins. They are just stories, yet when laid out , logic gives a glimpse into validity of these old tales. Sometimes the characters aren't as important as the message. Please excuse me if I don't suddenly start burning incense to your "new" founder of Wing Chun, the venerable Lam Guei-Chung.

 

[Juany118]

Looking at video without understanding anything in it, but still not.

It's the exact same actions in practically the same sequence.

The important thing is that they are identical in both theory and application.



It is superficial because the strategy and tactics between SPM and VT are actually contradictory.

I was waiting for you to revert to the "strategy" trope. A strategy that apparently only WSLVT-PB people know and which you have yet to enlighten us on, if even only superficially. The fact that you have yet to prevent this strategy also shows that at best you are doing the same thing I am doing, make a conclusion here without presenting the evidence to back it up. However the more you look the more you see things such as this...

For a skilled practitioner in a defense position, it is not necessary to block an attacker's punch. Instead, the short-range powers can be used initially to control the attacker's force. It is difficult for a non-Southern Praying Mantis practitioner to understand this kung fu fighting concept, but a skillful Southern Praying Mantis practitioner, if attacked, won't block for defense, though he will follow through with his own punch.

I laughed my butt off when I read the "...It is difficult for a non-Southern Praying Mantis..."

And simply because some overarching strategy isn't met doesn't mean that the similarities are superficial. Many techniques and base principles can be refined to fit multiple strategies. Admittedly not all but many. Since you won't enlighten the rest of us as to the "secret" strategy of WSLVT-PB however I suppose the walls of the Ivory Tower stand.

 

[LFJ]

There is always a kernel of truth in oral legends. No need to heed them if skeptical, no need to dismiss if they don't coincide with your belief of Wing Chun origins. They are just stories, yet when laid out , logic gives a glimpse into validity of these old tales. Sometimes the characters aren't as important as the message.

Well, that's fine, but if they don't lead to anything that can be substantiated, they are not a reliable pathway to truth.

Please excuse me if I don't suddenly start burning incense to your "new" founder of Wing Chun, the venerable Lam Guei-Chung.

I did not say he was the founder. As far as I know, there's no evidence he had anything to do with VT. It could have started with LJ and others, or even further back before either of these guys.

I have not written an origin story, because VT history is unrecorded.

But looking at observable facts, VT's only clear and undeniable relationship with any other system is to the weaponry of HSHK.

 

[LFJ]

I was waiting for you to revert to the "strategy" trope.

This it what defines the system.

I've doubted your experience in WC, but I'm beginning to think you're not even a real MAist.

A strategy that apparently only WSLVT-PB people know

Strawman.

The fact that you have yet to prevent this strategy also shows that at best you are doing the same thing I am doing, make a conclusion here without presenting the evidence to back it up.

We've discussed it a thousand times before.

And simply because some overarching strategy isn't met doesn't mean that the similarities are superficial.

Not only isn't met, but is directly contradicted!

Since you have no experience in VT or SPM, you should stop googling for similarities when you understand neither.

 

[Nobody Important]

Well, that's fine, but if they don't lead to anything that can be substantiated, they are not a reliable pathway to truth.



I did not say he was the founder. As far as I know, there's no evidence he had anything to do with VT. It could have started with LJ and others, or even further back before either of these guys.

I have not written an origin story, because VT history is unrecorded.

But looking at observable facts, VT's only clear and undeniable relationship with any other system is to the weaponry of HSHK.

HSHK is a version of Wing Chun, this I heard directly from a disciple of Lam Jo. By your own admission you believe Wing Chun to be formulated from LDBK. Lam Guei Chung is only verifiable ancestor of LDBK method, therefore by deduction he must be the founder of Wing Chun.

Your stories are no more definitive than anyone else's. I cannot prove the existence of my great, great, great grandfather, I rely on stories told to me by my father, his father and others that knew him or of him. Simply because I cannot "prove" his existence doesn't mean he never existed. I am living proof that he did. He, like many ancestors in Wing Chun, we're not famous. No great tales exist about him just as no great tales exist about Leung Lan Kwai or Wong Wa Bo. Why would anyone lie about knowing, learning from or being related to someone insignificant by most accounts? Sure, stories become myth and are elaborated over time, things get misconstrued, but when there isn't anything fabulous about that story why can't it be true?

 

[Nobody Important]

Left Handed 6 1/2 Point Pole of Lam Guei Chung. The story behind it is that it was taught by Ji Sim to the Opera performers. Same story as Leung Lam Kwai learning it from Ji Sim and passing it on to Wong Wa Bo. It is also said to be orthodox Siu Lam (Fut Gar) and that it was paired with Jin Jeung (aka: Heat Penetrating Palm & Post Fist) and Hang Yuet Seung Dao, all related to what some consider the last art to come out of Siu Lam, White Crane. It is nearly identical to Yuen family pole, minus a few things. Looks similar to Yip Man and Kulo 3 1/2 point pole as well.

 

[Juany118]

This it what defines the system.

I've doubted your experience in WC, but I'm beginning to think you're not even a real MAist.



Strawman.



We've discussed it a thousand times before.



Not only isn't met, but is directly contradicted!

Since you have no experience in VT or SPM, you should stop googling for similarities when you understand neither.

As hominem's followed by a false accusation of strawman. Ultimately in many an argument, and if you wish I will link all the times, you dismiss a counter argument with the "strategy" of WSLVT-PB argument. Everytime someone has asked you "well elaborate on the strategy, what is in that strategy that makes this argument not correct?" Believe it or not, while I can't speak for others, if you were to answer this one simple question it might actually allow me to see where you are coming from, hell I because both you and Guy repeatedly made it clear that the other YM VT Lineages, in you opinion lack this core strategy. Hence the comment regarding WSLVT-PB. People here from the Ching and Chun, Moy Yat, Cheung, not just Main Land have all asked what this different strategy is and the requests are simply ignored or condescendingly dismissed.

You have even used this to defend your position that your VT is the true YM VT today. Yet you have yet to explain it. If you don't see how simply saying "the strategy is wrong", with explanation as to why or what that strategy is, can actually hinder polite discussion and creates discord and toxicity, I don't know what to say.

Really this entire debate could possibly be solved, even if it was simply people saying "okay I guess we'll just agree to disagree" if you would simply explain what this "strategy" is.

 

[LFJ]

HSHK is a version of Wing Chun, this I heard directly from a disciple of Lam Jo. By your own admission you believe Wing Chun to be formulated from LDBK. Lam Guei Chung is only verifiable ancestor of LDBK method, therefore by deduction he must be the founder of Wing Chun.

By faulty deduction. This conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The LDBG is said to go back further in history, but we don't have verifiable evidence of that.

Not being able to trace it back further doesn't justify the conclusion that LGC either invented the pole method, or the VT boxing method clearly based on it.

All we can say is that he is the first verifiable ancestor of the LBDG.

As far as VT, the furthest we can go is LJ.

The rest is folktale and guessing.

Sure, stories become myth and are elaborated over time, things get misconstrued, but when there isn't anything fabulous about that story why can't it be true?

A story isn't determined to be true based on how realistic it sounds. A truth claim requires verifiable evidence.

Legends aren't valid evidence unless they can be substantiated or lead to solid facts.

Left Handed 6 1/2 Point Pole of Lam Guei Chung...
...Looks similar to Yip Man

Don't forget, most importantly, it is also identical in theory and application.