Yip Man's curriculum changes

[KPM]

That's interesting. The same is said of the empty-hand work in some JMA (Daito-ryu and Ueshiba's Aikido have both had that said of them, though I know at least some of those who say so base it on a misinterpretation of "Daito"). Can you point me to some reading about this history of WC/VT development?

Gerry, you won't find that idea in any written history of Wing Chun development. That's because it is unsupported and nobody actually thinks that way but LFJ and Guy and maybe a few others that have drunk the WSLVT/PB koolaide.

 

[Vajramusti]

Actually Juany...if I recall he (@LFJ ) and Guy stated previously that VT is derived from the pole (I think). Not sure what their views are WRT the knives and empty hand though...
(I think this was before your arrival on this forum)...?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relying on gossip
about "history" is pointless. In Ip Man wingchun- logically and practically
one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.

Agree! You need to learn how to walk before you can learn how to run. Weapon is the extension of your arms. That's the way all CMA use and WC is no different.

The western swordsmen training may be different, but I assume we are talking about CMA here.

In the following clip, one can see the 1/2 circle "spear parry" skill is used in the WC staff form. If weapon form first and open hand later, the "spear parry" strategy should exist in the WC 3 open hand forms. But we just don't see it there (or not emphasized enough).

 

[DanT]

The staff (6.5 point pole) is a simplified version of a much longer form practiced by Yeun Kay Shan. Yip Man did not learn a staff form from Chan Wah Shun because there was no "form" to learn. He just learned various techniques. It was only later that he actually acquired a form from Yeun Kay Shan, and then simplified it. The knives also had no form, just drills. Yip Man created a form based on these drills. The knives are used the same way the hands are. The techniques of the knives are derived from the hand techniques.

 

[Juany118]

Eh?
Just an FYI dude...not all WC stands there like a statue attempting to grip a goat or whatever you call it.

That isn't what he is referring to. He is referring to the fact that a sideways stance, also with the torso, violates centerline theory where you need to defend and attack with both arms simultaneously when unarmed.

 

[DanT]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relying on gossip
about "history" is pointless. In Ip Man wingchun- logically and practically
one needs substantial control over one's movement before adding weapons.

Almost every style of Kung fu emphasizes strong hand and leg techniques before learning weapons. I agree 100%.

 

[Juany118]

Almost every style of Kung fu emphasizes strong hand and leg techniques before learning weapons. I agree 100%.

Yes, the curriculum pretty much proves it as well. A system starts teaching students based on the core because it makes very little sense to put at the end what a system is based on.

 

[Juany118]

Actually Juany...if I recall he (@LFJ ) and Guy stated previously that VT is derived from the pole (I think). Not sure what their views are WRT the knives and empty hand though...
(I think this was before your arrival on this forum)...?

Which I have always found contradictory. On the one hand, it's based on the pole (which makes no sense based on the story of the arts creation as told by YM, where in the pole was added when the art finally met the red boat crew) but also because the same people said the pole was largely a tool to better understand and execute the punch, which to them is THE purpose of WC.

 

[Juany118]

You and Guy B. are the only ones I've ever seen that believed that. I don't believe that at all. For one, it is well known that Leung Jan did not teach the knives. The Yuen Kay Shan lineages say they were added to the system by LJ's classmate Fok Bo Chuen. Knives were not taught by LJ in Ku Lo Village. None of the lineage histories/legends state that the weapons came first. In short, your claim is entirely unsubstantiated other then your claim to an "insiders" knowledge of the "entire" system. That just sounds to me like you are making connections to suit yourself. That doesn't mean they are right!

I don't even know if that's the case. I think they have just said what came to mind to defend what ever point they were trying to make at the time. If it benefits their point to say the pole came before the empty hand they say. If it benefits the point to say the pole exists primarily to build upon what you already learned about the empty hand they say it.

 

[Vajramusti]

The staff (6.5 point pole) is a simplified version of a much longer form practiced by Yeun Kay Shan. Yip Man did not learn a staff form from Chan Wah Shun because there was no "form" to learn. He just learned various techniques. It was only later that he actually acquired a form from Yeun Kay Shan, and then simplified it. The knives also had no form, just drills. Yip Man created a form based on these drills. The knives are used the same way the hands are. The techniques of the knives are derived from the hand techniques.

===========================
I don't think that Ip Man learned much from YKS- just look at motions rather than listening to IKS gossip

 

[DanT]

===========================
I don't think that Ip Man learned much from YKS- just look at motions rather than listening to IKS gossip

I agree with you that he didn't "learn" that much from him. It's more like he just learned a cool new form that he didn't know before, simplified it, and added it in. This is not uncommon in Chinese martial arts tho.

 

[LFJ]

Can you point me to some reading about this history of WC/VT development?

Unfortunately, no "history" of WC/VT development is reliable. Fact is though, YM only taught a few people the knives, so indeed very few people had the complete picture. Of course it wouldn't be widely known.

 

[LFJ]

Obviously this was not practical any more so yip man changed it.

It was never practical, and I don't buy that.

A similar way of thinking can be found in many other styles. In Hung Gar it's not uncommon to learn nothing but the horse stance and straight punch for a year. In Northern Shaolin, only very basic techniques and stances are taught for the first 2 years. Etc.

Again, I'm not buying that.

I've spent years in China training other styles, including up north at Shaolin, and they all have this saying, but it's not meant literally!

It is just to emphasize the importance of stance training, and to say that after 3-5 years you'll be very solid.

It does not mean that anyone in history has ever actually done nothing but stance training and such for years without moving through the curriculum. That only happens in Wuxia novels and Kung fu movies.

 

[LFJ]

Wait, so now you claim WC started as a weapon based art and worked backwards!? Going to call you out here point blank for Be because this is the only time I have ever seen this claimed, ever.

There's bound to be a lot you've never seen. You had also never known that other lineages, and YM himself had kicks in the CK form until just this last week, so...

Actually most every Tale of YMWC starts with empty hand and adds the weapons later. Example..YM's own tale WC period (not his personal style) says the pole wasn't added until AFTER it was passed onto the Red Boat actors.

Fantasy stories aren't history.

So you can prove an empty hand art did a 180 and became a weapon based art? I await the sources and evidence.

That's not even what I said...?

 

[LFJ]

I don't believe that at all. For one, it is well known that Leung Jan did not teach the knives. The Yuen Kay Shan lineages say they were added to the system by LJ's classmate Fok Bo Chuen. Knives were not taught by LJ in Ku Lo Village. None of the lineage histories/legends state that the weapons came first.

VT empty hand can obviously be taught without knives. That says nothing of its origin.

If people weren't taught the knives, it's obvious they wouldn't be taught the connection.

In short, your claim is entirely unsubstantiated other then your claim to an "insiders" knowledge of the "entire" system.

It's true there are clues throughout the system. It's also true that the weapon methods existed long before the empty hand. They can be found in other styles, yet VT empty hand is unique in the TCMA world and is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.

That it is taught empty hand > pole > knives doesn't mean that's the order in which each was developed.

 

[Juany118]

There's bound to be a lot you've never seen. You had also never known that other lineages, and YM himself had kicks in the CK form until just this last week, so...



Fantasy stories aren't history.



That's not even what I said...?

First not only YM but every WC lineage I can think of says that about the pole. It is actually logical as well if you consider that poles of that length are commonly used to move boats and small barges down stretches of rivers not just in China, but throughout all of Asia.

As for the last, it's semantics. I believe you said

It's the opposite direction from what you're thinking. Not that the weapons came from empty hand, but that empty hand came from the weapons.

So if the empty hand is born of the weapon the weapon can be said to be the "base."

 

[LFJ]

First not only YM but every WC lineage I can think of says that about the pole. It is actually logical as well if you consider that poles of that length are commonly used to move boats and small barges down stretches of rivers not just in China, but throughout all of Asia.

That describes the possible origin of the pole that was used as a weapon, not the history of the pole method.

So if the empty hand is born of the weapon the weapon can be said to be the "base."

Yeah, so, no "empty hand art did a 180".

The pole and knives already existed in other styles with very similar methods. The tactical guidelines of both were combined into a very unique approach to empty hand combat, et voilà, VT.

 

[Juany118]

VT empty hand can obviously be taught without knives. That says nothing of its origin.

If the blade is the "base" of the empty hand portion it makes very little sense to put that training towards the end. It is akin to teaching someone how to read a word before you teach them the alphabet.

It's true there are clues throughout the system. It's also true that the weapon methods existed long before the empty hand. They can be found in other styles, yet VT empty hand is unique in the TCMA world and is a combination of tactical guidelines from the pole and knives.

First, simply because the general manner the pole is used may be shared with other systems that predate WC doesn't lead directly to

...but that empty hand came from the weapons.

Second no one said the pole techniques

... came from empty hand...

Regarding the blades here is what Sifu Lam has to say about what he learned from WSL

...Traditionally the Baat Jaam Do was reserved only for students close to completing their formal training; this is due to the fact that skill with the double knives is directly linked to an advanced ability in the empty hand techniques. It is said that if the open hand techniques are good then the knives will also be good... Thus Wong by example reiterated the truth of Baat Jaam Do understanding and usage, the practitioner must master Wing Chun first if the hands are to become knives...

Also, first paired short sword/knife use is a lot less common in CMA than Dao/broad sword. With that in mind the method of use of the Baat Jaam Do in WC is quite different than the way Hung Ga uses what they call Ji Mo Seung Dao, as but one example. The blade shape preference can even be subtely different because while we stab in WC of course most Hung Ga practitioners I know were trained using blades, sometimes subtlely, sometimes obviously, a bit more biased to stabbing than slicing and chopping. I suspect this is because it is an older style than WC and in that time frame the knives of this type, thus far found archeologically, typically had an obvious negative rake making them more suitable for stabbing. Your weapon use typically conforms to what the weapons design is most efficient at.

On the other hand Baat Jaam Do, in my experience tend to try to either split the difference with zero rake and a tip aligned with the spine straight back or would be just bad for piercing period because they actually have a positive rake, but damn does that make an efficient "chopper".

So where you say only the empty hand techniques are unique is beyond me. Simply because you are stabbing, slicing or chopping with a blade doesn't make the methods similar. That would be like me saying that simply because a western boxer punches with a vertical fist at times that they are using a WC punch.

 

[LFJ]

If the blade is the "base" of the empty hand portion it makes very little sense to put that training towards the end. It is akin to teaching someone how to read a word before you teach them the alphabet.

No. That would not be intelligent. I think we all agree hands should be learned first.

Take Esperanto for example, a constructed language based on several existing languages.

If you were to teach or learn Esperanto, you would not just jump straight into dialogue, or spend years learning all the languages it was based on, but would also learn the alphabet, phonetics, and such first.

Doesn't matter that it was constructed from something else. You need not learn that first.

Same with a newly constructed empty hand fighting method. You don't have to learn what it was based on first before starting, especially if it was weapons! A beginner can be shown the knife and pole ideas to get a view of the big picture from the start, but they shouldn't start with training the knives.

While the tactical guidelines are shared, the overall strategy between knives and empty hand is still quite opposite. Best not to confuse the student with contradictory training from the start. It will do more harm than good.

But worse, if you transfer hand ideas straight to knives you will get dead real quick. So, it's important to know clearly what you're working with.

Simply because you are stabbing, slicing or chopping with a blade doesn't make the methods similar.

Have you learned VT knives or any other similar TCMA knives? From a post you made a while back, it seems that you haven't. So, I don't know how you can compare.

 

[Juany118]

No. That would not be intelligent. I think we all agree hands should be learned first.

Take Esperanto for example, a constructed language based on several existing languages.

If you were to teach or learn Esperanto, you would not just jump straight into dialogue, or spend years learning all the languages it was based on, but would also learn the alphabet, phonetics, and such first.

Doesn't matter that it was constructed from something else. You need not learn that first.

Same with a newly constructed empty hand fighting method. You don't have to learn what it was based on first before starting, especially if it was weapons! A beginner can be shown the knife and pole ideas to get a view of the big picture from the start, but they shouldn't start with training the knives.

While the tactical guidelines are shared, the overall strategy between knives and empty hand is still quite opposite. Best not to confuse the student with contradictory training from the start. It will do more harm than good.

But worse, if you transfer hand ideas straight to knives you will get dead real quick. So, it's important to know clearly what you're working with.



Have you learned VT knives or any other similar TCMA knives? From a post you made a while back, it seems that you haven't. So, I don't know how you can compare.

First I totally agree that you do not HAVE to start with empty hands, I don't think anyone is saying that. However if you have weapons in your system, while not via an exact 1-1 transfer, if you have both empty hand striking and shorter single handed weapons, there are times where you can see, if you know what you are looking for, connections and if a practitioner feel, even if it is not obvious.

As for the Baat Jaam Do, no I have yet to progress that far, however I have a lot of experience with weapons usage in terms of functional (read non-sport) martial arts, specifically Kali which does extensive double sword work. Due to this, since I mentioned it first, I have made a study of the construction of swords and knives, not just materials but blade shape and edge geometry. So when I look at the knives often used in Hung Ga I can see the differences that also often exist from those used in WC.

Next the techniques. Here is a very short list of the many differences I see.

When I look at WC:

1. I see a lot more of what are commonly called "wrist cuts". Quick and dirty description? You essentially drive the arm forward almost like a punch and then as it gets close to the target "snap" (for lack of a better) the wrist so the blade cuts the target.

2. while there is actual "slashing" from angles, say 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock (for me these are angles 1 and 2), your are performing the slashing with a not unfamiliar upright body structure and with (compared to other arts) excessive upper body rotation, in this way both blades are always in a position to attack and defend. There is also not a lot of what (again WC compared to other arts) one would call "excessive" preloading. So when you work the angles you don't start with you blade to far off, nor do you end to far off of the centerline. When your slashing blade does go off, to the extent it does, you other blade is on the centerline to defend.

3. The primary thrusts are very much like the punch in terms of overall body mechanics. They go along the centerline plane and you do not push off with your trailing leg to add power, leaning into the target, you maintain consistent structure.

4. As you move the blades you still adhere to centerline theory, even if you do not always stand square on to your opponent with the knives.

When I look at Hung Ga:

1. Not as much in the way of "wrist cuts"

2. Overall deeper stances, some MUCH deeper.

3. When you "work the angles" there will be more rotation of the body to power the slash, also sometimes you will rotate in such a way that your other blade can not be said to effectively defending the centerline. Additionally when you start and stop the blade itself, not accounting for body rotation, they will start and end further off the centerline, very reminiscent of some of the 5 animals elements of the empty hand portion of the art.

You may even power a slash with a "thrust like" propulsion using the trailing leg, almost leaning into the target.

4. Actual thrusting can definitely involve a stereotypical sword thrust propulsion from the trailing leg, sometimes as deep as an Olympic fencer. Sometimes they will be so "deep" into the thrust that their other blade will be behind them.

5. In short centerline theory, as we know it, is almost non existent.

This is but a short list of the differences between the two methods of knife/sword fighting BUT if you understand large knife and/or sword combat, you can easily see the numerous differences in technique and principles. My friend who only studies HEMA sees them and he knows nothing about CMA. Why? Because even if he doesn't know the names of the forms, couldn't even name the MAs just by looking at them, he knows how to fight with swords and long knives.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk