This came up on another thread and got me curious. So just an informal survey here. Who amongst you (martialtalk forum readers) was taught that (or believes that) the Wing Chun empty-hand methods were based upon and derived from the Pole methods?
Origins of Wing Chun?
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,283
- Reaction score
- 312
Danny T
Senior Master
Wasn't there and don't really care.
Good training and development is form (structures, presentation), moving of the body unit while maintaining the structures, experimentation for application development vs as many different situations one may need to use one's skills against. Weapons are a part of that development.
Good training and development is form (structures, presentation), moving of the body unit while maintaining the structures, experimentation for application development vs as many different situations one may need to use one's skills against. Weapons are a part of that development.
- Thread Starter
- #7
Nope. I said it was an odd idea and you seemed to think it was standard knowledge. I could very well be wrong, so I'm asking if anyone else learned it that way.
If it was, shouldn't the pole form be complete when being a core part of WC? Since it is most definitively not, how could it be our main foundation? Does that mean that a way to fight empty handed was derived from a form that was only partially known/kept?
Rather than the fact that parts of pole form were added because it emphasized core aspects of WC empty handed fighting?
Seems just like raising a statement such as WC was the supreme martial art from which all other arts were derived and western boxing was an evolution made by a westerner that saw Siu Nim Tao and has since evolved to another martial art due to its isolation from other martial arts.
That and I am Bruce Lee spirit resurrected.
Or it is just a statement having no solid ground and of little to no interest due to its impact being none.
Rather than the fact that parts of pole form were added because it emphasized core aspects of WC empty handed fighting?
Seems just like raising a statement such as WC was the supreme martial art from which all other arts were derived and western boxing was an evolution made by a westerner that saw Siu Nim Tao and has since evolved to another martial art due to its isolation from other martial arts.
That and I am Bruce Lee spirit resurrected.
Or it is just a statement having no solid ground and of little to no interest due to its impact being none.
Eric_H
Black Belt
Weapons came first, though it's harder to believe that as much from the perspective of YM lines. The sword and pole work I've seen there is very simplified. I'm betting that as a reductionist YM only kept what he felt benefitted his empty hand work.
- Thread Starter
- #11
For anything "Battlefield" oriented, weapons would definitely be the first priority in training! But that still wouldn't say that Wing Chun is derived from and based upon the Pole. It would only suggest that the Pole method may have predated the empty-hand method before they came together in one system.
Superfluous parts removed I would guess. Or superfluous parts added elsewhere.
I wouldn't say that
- Thread Starter
- #14
The alternate explanation is that the core of Wing Chun empty hands already existed when the Pole was added. Then elements of the Pole method were used to refine and develop the empty hand method and likewise the empty hand method probably had influence on changes in the Pole method. And this explanation matches the historical legends told by many Wing Chun lineages that Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai met on the Red Boats and exchanged information, with Wong contributing empty hand Wing Chun and Leung contributing the Pole methods he had learned from Chi Sim.
This wouldn't make sense unless the pole and empty hands evolved to use the same principles and concepts independently (seems unlikely), or the pole so influenced the empty handed core that it completely transformed it.
I don't believe in legends. I think wing chun was created in current form around mid 19th C. at the earliest. Leung Jan is the first verifiable real person who knew wing chun.
- Thread Starter
- #16
I think it makes good sense. You seem to be the only one that sees this strong Pole-based "principles and concepts" in the empty hands. I see no reason at all to think that the empty hands wouldn't have developed the principles and concepts we use independently. They may have been "fleshed out" a bit from concepts from the Pole, but I see no reason to believe that they are based entirely on the Pole.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,283
- Reaction score
- 312
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,283
- Reaction score
- 312
The kwan is an inert object. Many Filipino ma-s begin with weapons then move on to hands. Wc is the opposite- you master empty hands,
then with guidance and appropriate wc principles go to weapons.
Other southern styles also use the kwan and the do bot how wing chun uses them are different.
Poles and knives were already available in south China by many styles. Wing chun artists changed shapes and purposes for their own usage,.
then with guidance and appropriate wc principles go to weapons.
Other southern styles also use the kwan and the do bot how wing chun uses them are different.
Poles and knives were already available in south China by many styles. Wing chun artists changed shapes and purposes for their own usage,.
I don't take the legends literally either and agree with what you say about Leung Jan being the first historically verifiable WC master. But WC has roots that go back well before Leung Jan as do the other related systems of Southern Chinese Short-Bridge boxing.
The pole system is not the core of the WC I train. It does share core principles and is useful for training, but it is not the core and like KPM, I believe it was a 19 Century addition to the early empty-handed art. The fact that the two, pole and empty-hands, have been combined for nearly two centuries would explain how they integrate so tightly. I don't believe you have to assert that one produced the other.
Consider this: I teach Escrima and WC and have been working both arts since the early 1980s, although I started WC a little earlier. To me they are still separate arts, but even so, it's gotten to the point where I can explain almost anything I do in my Escrima in terms of WC principles. That's after just a few decades. As noted above, WC has included the pole for nearly two centuries, perhaps longer. Wouldn't you expect the pole and empty hands to share core principles by now?
