Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Gerry Seymour]

The strategies are fundamentally contradictory and the tactics of each are designed specifically to function in those terms. Flip the script and they no longer function.

Again, I'm unfamiliar with Southern Mantis, so this doesn't help.

This thread!

Ah, I think this is what you're referring to:

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.

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.

I didn't process those fully at the time, apparently. Those are significant alignments between pole and empty-hand (I'm assuming your assessment here is accurate - you'd know better than I). The issue is that this would also be the case if an empty-hand method existed, and was adjusted to be more effective. Again, it's not contradictory to your conclusion, but not contradictory to at least one of the other possibilities that have been presented.

Then it's pointless to talk about a "proto-style". It's indistinguishable from a fully new constructed one.

I've never really thought of it as a "proto-style". I've been considering the possibility that the physical principles were sourced from an existing art (perhaps one of those noted with superficial similarities, perhaps not). I suppose the possibility of a hybridization of empty-hand work is possible, which would yield a proto-style. Either way, if it originated as either a derived style or hybridization into a new style, including mostly or only empty-hand, and someone along the way started incorporating some principles to improve it (to, perhaps, avoid the stick, follow, and roll), they'd pull principles from somewhere. Perhaps they had some spear experience or knew someone who did, and used those principles to improve the style. Then they want a pole form (not wanting spear, because it's harder to come by or more dangerous to train with, or whatever), and start looking at other arts. They find this pole form that appears derived from spear. They see it as a good fit, borrow it with little or no adjustment, and then fit the training methods around it so it fits seamlessly into the art.

Or, they found the form first, thought it would be a good basis for empty-hand work, and borrowed bits and pieces from elsewhere (thus the similarities) and fit them around the tactics of the pole.

The evidence seems to work equally for both sides. There's no strong evidence that WC existed without the weapons (that anyone has presented here), and also none that it existed without the empty-hand. We know other arts have done both, so neither is all that unlikely.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's not the case with VT. That's why it is insulting, not just to PB, but to the entire WSL lineage.

No, it's not insulting. To either part of that. Let's look at this logically. Even assuming the grappling portion wasn't there, WSL almost certainly assumed he'd make some adjustments. He had to examine what worked and didn't while PB was learning. In the end, that examination may have meant there were no changes necessary, but he had to ask the question if he was to give his best to PB. In all likelihood, some change was necessary, at least early on. One of PB's arms is slightly shorter in reach, which means he either has to stand a couple of inches closer than would be ideal for his longer arm (a tiny adjustment), or he adjusts his stance slightly (physically a small adjustment, maybe larger in the context of VT), or he accepts that each arm has a slightly different set of best options at any given moment (no physical change, but seems the largest change from VT principles). Any of these might make little difference in PB's VT. All (except arguably the 3rd) might not even be noticeable to those not highly trained in the style. Now, if there had been techniques that just didn't make sense for PB to work with (not the same as saying he can't do them, by the way), then after WSL tried those with him, he might discard them or alter them (not saying he needed to, but that would be the most likely result if the case came up). If he finds that any adjustments he works out are beneficial (not just to PB, but to VT), he would certainly keep them and pass them along to others.

Here's a better analog, perhaps. I have knee problems. I don't often use deep stances any more. I've actually found that this improves a few of my techniques by adding mobility and fluidity. I now teach those techniques with shorter steps and more relaxed stances. That came about because my knees led me to investigate whether I could use those techniques that way, and that led to what I see as an improvement. There's no reason any of that should be insulting to me or to my students who learn from me.

 

[KPM]

Why would anyone put much stock in fairytales?

---When Ip Man provided info for that magazine article it was intended as a history, not a fairy tale. Why are you trying to discount it? Is it because it doesn't neatly fit with your theory??



Juany's strawman?

---Huh? Hardly!! You have said over and over and over on this very forum that the only system you have encountered that was the "real" VT and not a "broken" version was WSLVT. So now when you state that people that "know the whole system" will agree with your theory, all we can do is conclude that you are referring to WSLVT people. That's no strawman. That's just going by what you have argued in the past. So just who ARE you referring to?



No. But there is no evidence of the first theory in the case of VT.

---And no real evidence for the second theory either. This has been pointed out to you over and over. So both theories would seem to be equally valid.



It has 0 evidence.

---You can keep saying that all you want. That doesn't make it true. The "Trump approach" is not going to work here!



I can only speak about YMVT. I can't tell you what happened over more than 100 years in other lineages, but that they are completely different systems as they exist today.

---You didn't really answer my question. Probably because you won't admit what it would suggest.


You need to present evidence if you are going to propose this theory.

--Already have in the past. And you just ignored the point I was making.



Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.

---Correlation is correlation independent of the theory! Look, this discussion is now obviously going nowhere because you are back to just repeating everything, ignoring my points, and using faulty logic. It is clear that you are so dogmatically stuck on this theory that you won't even use good reasoning. I can only assume that this is because it is a theory supported by your hero PB (or someone similar since for some reason you refuse to tell us).


VT boxing and LDBG match completely at every level.

---And see here is proof that you cling to this theory so dogmatically that you aren't even using good reasoning. They absolutely do NOT "match completely at every level." Clearly the biomechanics used empty hand are quite different than those used with the pole. There are no low wide stances when empty hand, and no pivoting around the center with the pole. Very different!



There is no main teacher under WSL.

---That's not what I said and you know it! I asked who is the main teacher in the WSL lineage endorsing this theory.



I have explained in detail why I find this most convincing, and it is wholly through technical analysis and historical fact. I never once made an Appeal to Authority, thank you very much!

---But you state it as if it is a proven fact. Which it is not. That is the issue here! But you've said all you can say. You aren't listening to anyone else's reasoning, and you are purposefully ignoring questions. So, again, there really is no reason to continue this discussion. You have put forth an interesting theory, but that's all it is.

 

[KPM]

I don't speak in terms of absolute certainty when we have no historical records to officially verify. But the available evidence supports the theory I've presented, and no evidence supports an alternative or disproves this theory. So..., that's what we have to go on right now. Anything else is an unjustified leap.

"No evidence supports" he says....ignoring nearly 200 years of oral history passed from teacher to student. "No evidence disproves" he says...ignoring the fact that EVERY other Wing Chun method other than WSLVT lacks this "complete tracking" of the pole to the empty hands. "Anything else is an unjustified leap" he says....ignoring the fact that his theory is the one that goes against everything people have been taught about Wing Chun for generations now.

 

[LFJ]

The issue is that this would also be the case if an empty-hand method existed, and was adjusted to be more effective.

But, once again, there is no evidence for that theory, so why cling to it?

I prefer to stick to what we do have, what we do know, and what we can actually prove.

If you know the VT boxing method maps to the pole, you might look for older pole methods that function this way that it could have come from.

And the identical pole method is found to exist in a pre-VT style!

If you think the VT boxing method derived from older boxing methods, you might look for older styles that function like VT that it could have come from.

None exist. It is unique in TCMAs.

"Oh, but it could have! It's possible! You haven't proven that it's not possible!"

Okay, get back to me when you have evidence for it.

No, it's not insulting. To either part of that. Let's look at this logically. Even assuming the grappling portion wasn't there, WSL almost certainly assumed he'd make some adjustments. He had to examine what worked and didn't while PB was learning. In the end, that examination may have meant there were no changes necessary, but he had to ask the question if he was to give his best to PB. In all likelihood, some change was necessary, at least early on. One of PB's arms is slightly shorter in reach, which means he either has to stand a couple of inches closer than would be ideal for his longer arm (a tiny adjustment), or he adjusts his stance slightly (physically a small adjustment, maybe larger in the context of VT), or he accepts that each arm has a slightly different set of best options at any given moment (no physical change, but seems the largest change from VT principles). Any of these might make little difference in PB's VT. All (except arguably the 3rd) might not even be noticeable to those not highly trained in the style. Now, if there had been techniques that just didn't make sense for PB to work with (not the same as saying he can't do them, by the way), then after WSL tried those with him, he might discard them or alter them (not saying he needed to, but that would be the most likely result if the case came up). If he finds that any adjustments he works out are beneficial (not just to PB, but to VT), he would certainly keep them and pass them along to others.

Here's a better analog, perhaps. I have knee problems. I don't often use deep stances any more. I've actually found that this improves a few of my techniques by adding mobility and fluidity. I now teach those techniques with shorter steps and more relaxed stances. That came about because my knees led me to investigate whether I could use those techniques that way, and that led to what I see as an improvement. There's no reason any of that should be insulting to me or to my students who learn from me.

Well, look, where things start to get even more insulting is when people are told their actually history, but still carry on guessing and asserting absolute falsehoods. They don't even have enough respect to ask PB personally, or take it from those who have. They'd rather come back and tell you what they think is true about a system they have no experience with and people they don't know!

Yes, that is insulting, and it's also insulting to invalidate someone's feelings of insult.

 

[LFJ]

---When Ip Man provided info for that magazine article it was intended as a history, not a fairy tale. Why are you trying to discount it? Is it because it doesn't neatly fit with your theory??

Wrong.

You have said over and over and over on this very forum that the only system you have encountered that was the "real" VT and not a "broken" version was WSLVT.

All that exists is what I've encountered?

---And no real evidence for the second theory either. This has been pointed out to you over and over. So both theories would seem to be equally valid.

Wrong.

---You can keep saying that all you want. That doesn't make it true. The "Trump approach" is not going to work here!

---You didn't really answer my question. Probably because you won't admit what it would suggest.

I don't know or particularly care what happened within other systems over 100 years. They are so different as to be meaningless to me anymore.

Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.

---Correlation is correlation independent of the theory!

What?

There are no low wide stances when empty hand, and no pivoting around the center with the pole.

Because we aren't holding a pole. There is no pivoting around the center unarmed either.

I asked who is the main teacher in the WSL lineage endorsing this theory.

There is no main teacher in WSLVT doing anything.

I have explained in detail why I find this most convincing, and it is wholly through technical analysis and historical fact. I never once made an Appeal to Authority, thank you very much!

---But you state it as if it is a proven fact.

I have not. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that is not my claim because VT history is unrecorded!

I have stated that the facts are proven facts, because they are, and that the conclusion I've presented based on the facts is the only one with evidence, therefore, the most likely to be true and only one worth talking about until actual evidence comes in for an alternative theory.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But, once again, there is no evidence for that theory, so why cling to it?

I prefer to stick to what we do have, what we do know, and what we can actually prove.

If you know the VT boxing method maps to the pole, you might look for older pole methods that function this way that it could have come from.

And the identical pole method is found to exist in a pre-VT style!

If you think the VT boxing method derived from older boxing methods, you might look for older styles that function like VT that it could have come from.

None exist. It is unique in TCMAs.

"Oh, but it could have! It's possible! You haven't proven that it's not possible!"

Okay, get back to me when you have evidence for it.

I think I've been quite clear that the evidence you put forth isn't exclusive to your argument. It provides roughly equal support to other possibilities. Unless you have some evidence that supports your preferred argument either uniquely or at least substantially better, there's no sense getting uptight about others not having different evidence than yours.

You want to stick to what we know and can prove. All we know (from the arguments here, anyway) and can prove (again, accepting your statements because you know more than I on this topic) is that VT's empty-hand and pole are tightly related, and that a nearly identical pole form apparently pre-dates VT. Anything presented here beyond that has been an attempt to draw a conclusion from those facts, or is a claim disputed by one side or the other (so, cannot be taken as "proven").

Well, look, where things start to get even more insulting is when people are told their actually history, but still carry on guessing and asserting absolute falsehoods. They don't even have enough respect to ask PB personally, or take it from those who have. They'd rather come back and tell you what they think is true about a system they have no experience with and people they don't know!

Yes, that is insulting, and it's also insulting to invalidate someone's feelings of insult.

It's not insulting to discuss issues like this. It requires ZERO knowledge of the system to discuss what I've been discussing, as it simply addresses the concepts and the approach an instructor would take if someone has a limitation. Your feeling of being insulted is your own feeling. I can't change that, but I can (and will) argue that there's nothing insulting about the comments I've read in this regard. They've been respectful of PB, and in some cases actually seemed to be saying quite good things about his perseverance. And, no, I'm not going to ask PB. I don't know him, and really have no need to know one way or the other. If I was studying under him, I'd probably be interested in hearing about that period of training, and how he overcame what many instructors considered an impossible limitation.

All I've done is address whether the comments made were insulting. I haven't addressed your feeling about them, at all. That's not mine to discuss. Your reaction here makes it appear that you really want this to be insulting. That may not be the case, but it appears that you feel defensive about PB. No reason to be. Whether significant adjustments were needed or not, he has excelled. That he's missing a hand is just a fact. It's just a thing, and a thing he hasn't let hinder him. He deals with it, and performs better than many who don't have to deal with it.

 

[KPM]

Because we aren't holding a pole. There is no pivoting around the center unarmed either.

---You pivot in Chum Kiu don't you? No pivoting with the pole. The mechanics used empty hand and the mechanics used with a pole are very different. Therefore they do not "match completely at every level" as you stated before. Because the biomechanics used during execution of the method is certainly a very important "level"!!!



There is no main teacher in WSLVT doing anything.

---Once again you are either being evasive, or you are really being somewhat dense. I didn't ask about one "main" teacher in WSLVT. Let me try and state it again is as clear a fashion as I can so you can understand it......What prominent teacher within the WSLVT system is teaching this theory to people within that lineage?




I have stated that the facts are proven facts, because they are, and that the conclusion I've presented based on the facts is the only one with evidence, therefore, the most likely to be true and only one worth talking about until actual evidence comes in for an alternative theory.

---The only facts that you have presented is that there is a version of LDBK very similar to the WSLVT version that predates WSLVT, and that WSLVT empty hands tracks very closely with pole strategy and tactics. Everything else you have said is a theory.

---And two things can have correlations independent of any theory of how those correlations came about. You don't understand that simple aspect of reasoning????

---Now, do want to continue sounding stupid? Or are you ready to drop this discussion?

 

[LFJ]

I think I've been quite clear that the evidence you put forth isn't exclusive to your argument. It provides roughly equal support to other possibilities.

It doesn't. If you want to suggest a possible preexisting style, you need to show additional evidence supporting that.

All we know (from the arguments here, anyway) and can prove (again, accepting your statements because you know more than I on this topic) is that VT's empty-hand and pole are tightly related, and that a nearly identical pole form apparently pre-dates VT. Anything presented here beyond that has been an attempt to draw a conclusion from those facts, or is a claim disputed by one side or the other (so, cannot be taken as "proven").

Not just form, but indeed the theory and application of the method.

What we get from this is that VT boxing came from this pole method. That is was developed exclusively through translating weaponry into empty hand is possible and has all the evidence it needs to be a valid theory.

If you want to say it came from the pole plus another boxing method or methods, you need to provide additional evidence for that. Discussing possibility or likelihood is not enough.

It's not insulting to discuss issues like this. It requires ZERO knowledge of the system to discuss what I've been discussing,

But the answer has already been given. End of discussion. It is disrespectful to ignore that and continue asserting falsehoods like Juany always does.

 

[lklawson]

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.

The first time I saw it suggested was as an article in the pages of Black Belt magazine way back in the mid-1980's. Wish I'd kept that issue. I don't remember the author. IMS, among other things he did was compare an old photo of London Prize Ring boxer John L. Sullivan to a drawing of Ip Man. He drew comparisons in the stance, foot-base, hand position, and head position. He then argued that there is no reliable documentation of WC existing prior to contact with 19th Century British sailors who, he argued, likely practiced London Prize Ring rules boxing.

Wish I could find that article again.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[LFJ]

---You pivot in Chum Kiu don't you? No pivoting with the pole.

Wrong.

What prominent teacher within the WSLVT system is teaching this theory to people within that lineage?

To my knowledge, every single one that learned the system fully and hasn't changed it.

---The only facts that you have presented is that there is a version of LDBK very similar to the WSLVT version that predates WSLVT, and that WSLVT empty hands tracks very closely with pole strategy and tactics. Everything else you have said is a theory.

Those are facts. Thank you. They prove the pole was not adapted to fit VT.

The theory, that VT boxing is based on this pole is therefore rooted in fact.

There are no facts to support a proto-VT boxing style theory.

---And two things can have correlations independent of any theory of how those correlations came about.

There is no correlation between the boxing methods of VT and any other TCMA.

 

[KPM]

The first time I saw it suggested was as an article in the pages of Black Belt magazine way back in the mid-1980's. Wish I'd kept that issue. I don't remember the author. IMS, among other things he did was compare an old photo of London Prize Ring boxer John L. Sullivan to a drawing of Ip Man. He drew comparisons in the stance, foot-base, hand position, and head position. He then argued that there is no reliable documentation of WC existing prior to contact with 19th Century British sailors who, he argued, likely practiced London Prize Ring rules boxing.

Wish I could find that article again.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yeah Kirk. I remember that to. It was an article by Karl Godwin.

 

[LFJ]

IMS, among other things he did was compare an old photo of London Prize Ring boxer John L. Sullivan to a drawing of Ip Man.

That's what people come up with looking at photos and drawings.

 

[KPM]

Wrong.

---Maybe for WSLVT? I'm not even convinced of that! Certainly not wrong for most every other version of Wing Chun!



To my knowledge, every single one that learned the system fully and hasn't changed it.

---So PB teaches this theory? All WSLVT instructors other than DP and Gary Lam teach this theory? Strange that we haven't heard it more often! After all, PB has been teaching publicly and traveling doing seminars for how many years now?



The theory, that VT boxing is based on this pole is therefore rooted in fact.

---No, as I stated those facts seem to only apply to WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general. And THAT should be a huge red flag as far as origin theories go! But if we wanted to generalize it, then the theory that VT boxing at some point added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole is just as consistent with those 2 facts.


There is no correlation between the boxing methods of VT and any other TCMA.

---Wow! You still aren't following are you??? Let me lay it out for you:

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

I replied: And you would need to demonstrate the opposite! All you can show is correlation, and that does not prove origins at all.

Then you said: Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.

(The "alternate theory" being that an existing empty hand system added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole method. NOT whether Wing Chun empty hands correlate with other TCMA.)

My response was then: Correlation is correlation independent of the theory!
And I followed it up with: And two things can have correlations independent of any theory of how those correlations came about

---So, let me lay that out for you as well since on this thread you have been very good at being evasive and seem to purposefully miss points: Just because there are correlations between the pole method and the empty hand methods does not prove or even explain how those correlations actually came about. Those correlations could have been established by developing an empty hand method directly from the pole method, or those correlations could have been established by taking an existing empty hand method and reworking it to line up with the pole method. The simple fact that correlations exist does not prove one theory or the other. The fact that there is a pre-existing LDBK form that matches closely with the WSLVT pole form does not prove that the entire WSLVT empty hand method or any other Wing Chun empty hand method derived from that form. It only proves that WSL's form came from that older version of LDBK. The "alternative" theory of the pole form influencing an existing system of empty hands so that it developed close correlations with that pole form is still a very valid theory based upon those 2 facts. Now if you don't have the logical capacity to follow that, I can't help you!

---So, do you want to call it good, and admit that you have an interesting theory that is still far from being proven. Or do you want to continue sounding, well....let's just say somewhat irrational?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It doesn't. If you want to suggest a possible preexisting style, you need to show additional evidence supporting that.

Except that I didn't suggest it. I simply pointed out it is as possible within the evidence you provide. I don't need to show additional evidence, because I'm not trying to prove it as a theory. I'm simply showing that the evidence you are using isn't evidence exclusive to your theory. Providing alternatives is how we test evidence. If the evidence supports alternatives, then we either need more evidence to draw a conclusion, or we need a new conclusion.

Not just form, but indeed the theory and application of the method.

Which he found when he found the form. My point is that he (whoever this would be) would have found the form first, and verified it fit his needs (the theory and application).

What we get from this is that VT boxing came from this pole method. That is was developed exclusively through translating weaponry into empty hand is possible and has all the evidence it needs.

If you want to say it came from the pole plus another boxing method or methods, you need to provide additional evidence for that. Discussing possibility or likelihood is not enough.

Why do you think I'm arguing that? I've said multiple times that I think the evidence supports both conclusions. Discussing possibility is precisely how evidence is tested. If it supports multiple possibilities, then you need more evidence to determine which is the correct conclusion.

But the answer has already been given. End of discussion. It is disrespectful to ignore that and continue asserting falsehoods like Juany always does.

I've never seen a clear statement that there were no alterations. It may well be that there were not, though someone would have to explain how one of those three minor physical adjustments for arm length didn't happen. It seems a given one of those must have occurred, though at least two I can see happening without any significant impact on the overall system - indeed, without any impact that would be seen in the next generation. Beyond that, I've only seen a small group argue that there was never grappling and another small group argue that there probably was.

 

[LFJ]

---Maybe for WSLVT? I'm not even convinced of that!

Funny.

Strange that we haven't heard it more often! After all, PB has been teaching publicly and traveling doing seminars for how many years now?

How much training in the system have you had? None. That's why you haven't heard it.

Have you been to one of his seminars? Why not go and ask?! His students most certainly know the relationship between VT empty hand and weapons.

---No, as I stated those facts seem to only apply to WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general.

I said VT. That means YMVT. Other systems are very different in every part.

But if we wanted to generalize it, then the theory that VT boxing at some point added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole is just as consistent with those 2 facts.

Highly unlikely. If you want to propose such a theory, you need additional evidence to support it.

(The "alternate theory" being that an existing empty hand system added the pole and then evolved under the influence of the pole method. NOT whether Wing Chun empty hands correlate with other TCMA.)

There is absolutely nothing to support a preexisting empty hand system.

---Now, do you want to call it good, and admit that you have an interesting theory that is still far from being proven. Or do you want to continue sounding stupid?

Did I say the theory was proven, or did I say there is no record to officially verify it?

No reason to get rude.

 

[LFJ]

If the evidence supports alternatives, then we either need more evidence to draw a conclusion, or we need a new conclusion.

There is no more evidence to draw the alternative conclusion, or enough to even suggest it, and all the evidence needed for the original conclusion to be a valid theory. Recorded history would officially confirm it. Without that, and without any evidence to go in any other direction, we are left with one valid theory.

My point is that he (whoever this would be) would have found the form first, and verified it fit his needs (the theory and application).

There is no evidence of anything those needs could have been added to, no preexisting boxing style compatible with that theory and application. All neighboring styles from the time and area are in direct conflict with VT.

I've said multiple times that I think the evidence supports both conclusions.

It doesn't, and that conclusion requires additional evidence to be a valid theory. Otherwise there is a huge gap that makes this conclusion not even plausible.

I've never seen a clear statement that there were no alterations.

There were no alterations.

 

[lklawson]

That's what people come up with looking at photos and drawings.

Maybe. We're going my my memory on an article I read somewhere around 30 years ago. Do you remember the details of an article you only read once, 30 years ago?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[LFJ]

Maybe. We're going my my memory on an article I read somewhere around 30 years ago. Do you remember the details of an article you only read once, 30 years ago?

No, but Yip Man Ving Tsun and Old School Boxing styles don't work the same way at all. There are a few superficial similarities, like with other TCMAs, that don't really amount to anything.

 

[lklawson]

Yeah Kirk. I remember that to. It was an article by Karl Godwin.

Bingo!

That's the one.

Quick google search yielded:
Black Belt

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk