Yip Man's curriculum changes

[geezer]

It's not surprising that LFJ and KPM can look at the same evidence and draw such different conclusions.

LFJ has used very similar logic to argue that Yip Man's VT did not evolve or change as many claim. Rather, he holds that that WSL-VT, by virtue of its functionality and systemic cohesion is correct VT as YM intended. I believe he has said that the other branches of WC he has experienced are different, lacking the effectiveness and logical integration or systemic cohesion. They are the result of incomplete learning and are "broken" VT.

His interpretation of earlier VT being created separately from other older boxing methods and being engineered so as to reflect the strategy of the long pole shows an identical perspective.

I understand the evidence, and his conclusions, but do not share his perspective. IMO it is far more likely that VT has developed organically and incrementally from what went before. Like KPM and others, I guess I have more of an evolutionist vs. creationist outlook.

 

[ShortBridge]

My consternation with the voice of WSL/PB on these forums is that they aren't offered as "the conclusions I've reached" as you suggested, but "Only we know the truth and you are ignorant of the facts".

I respond to those two positions very differently, as do I think, most people. It's tiring and disappointing, but I don't expect it to stop.

 

[Nobody Important]

Lam family Wing Chun consisted of 6 1/2 Point Pole, Arrow Palm fist set & Flowing Moon Double Knives. It was taught to Lam Sai Wing by his grandfather. Lam Sai Wing incorporated it into his Hung Kuen he learned from Wong Fei Hung. All three forms are contained mostly intact in Lam family Hung Kuen. 6 1/2 Point Pole was added to 8 Diagram Pole.

It was said that it was a method of Red Boat Wing Chun. The knives were choreographed by LSW's grandfather. The pole was based on the 5th Brother Pole of Siu Lam, and came via way of White Crane. Tibetan White Crane still has this form. Lam family Hung Kuen prays to White Crane ancestors on their alter.

Arrow Palm is a common theme in mainland Wing Chun, some say it is the "lost" 4th set of Wing Chun. It's legend states it was a form that came from White Crane via Fang Qiniang. It is widely accepted that Lao Hung Kuen & Wing Chun were taught side by side due to common ancestor, White Crane.

5th Brother pole is old and famous, over the years it has been modified to take on characteristics of the art it was absorbed by. Difficult to say it is responsible for the development of empty hand, more likely empty hand transformed the pole movements to create consistency. Concepts are pliable. 5th Brother Pole contains all elements of 6 1/2 Pole and more.

There is no evidence to support that Wing Chun was derived from pole movements. All history of Wing Chun stated pole and knives were added after empty hand art was developed.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^^ Welcome back! Glad to see you posting again! Good information above! 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." From what you are saying, it makes it sound even more like this a more likely theory than what LFJ has been describing. And this is very interesting. I have not heard of this style prior to this discussion. Do you know of any video of the "Arrow Palm" form? You say "widely accepted"....but widely accepted by whom? I haven't read this in any of the Wing Chun histories or in other people's research on Wing Chun origins.

 

[ShortBridge]

I have heard of a lost 4th form, but don't know anything about it or if it's true. I'd love to know the name of the Crane form that it is said to be related to if possible.

 

[Nobody Important]

^^^^^^ Welcome back! Glad to see you posting again! Good information above! 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." From what you are saying, it makes it sound even more like this a more likely theory than what LFJ has been describing. And this is very interesting. I have not heard of this style prior to this discussion. Do you know of any video of the "Arrow Palm" form? You say "widely accepted"....but widely accepted by whom? I haven't read this in any of the Wing Chun histories or in other people's research on Wing Chun origins.

This is one of the better examples. Form has taken on Hung Kuen characteristics though.

Arrow Palm/Fist concept seen throughout WC in War Punching exercise, Stretching Arrow Cut, Three Arrow Cut, Arrow Punching etc. Some branches even have an Arrow Palm and/or Arrow Fist set. Sometimes it is referred to as Post Set due to Jeung/Zhang (palm) being phonetically similar to Jung/Zhuang (post), depending on dialect.

 

[Nobody Important]

I have heard of a lost 4th form, but don't know anything about it or if it's true. I'd love to know the name of the Crane form that it is said to be related to if possible.

The form is said to be Jin Jeung (Arrow Palm), sometimes referred to as Post Fist. The Hung Kuen version of this form I posted above, remember though, that form has taken on Hung Kuen characteristics as it was absorbed by Hung Kuen.

 

[Nobody Important]

Part of You Choi lineage 4th form. Fok Chiu's Shooting Arrow Punch. This form, if I'm not mistaken, is based on the San Sik movements that were used to create the knife form & formal dummy set.

 

[ShortBridge]

Very interesting to see those forms, thank you for sharing.

 

[Juany118]

It's not surprising that LFJ and KPM can look at the same evidence and draw such different conclusions.

LFJ has used very similar logic to argue that Yip Man's VT did not evolve or change as many claim. Rather, he holds that that WSL-VT, by virtue of its functionality and systemic cohesion is correct VT as YM intended. I believe he has said that the other branches of WC he has experienced are different, lacking the effectiveness and logical integration or systemic cohesion. They are the result of incomplete learning and are "broken" VT.

His interpretation of earlier VT being created separately from other older boxing methods and being engineered so as to reflect the strategy of the long pole shows an identical perspective.

I understand the evidence, and his conclusions, but do not share his perspective. IMO it is far more likely that VT has developed organically and incrementally from what went before. Like KPM and others, I guess I have more of an evolutionist vs. creationist outlook.

The only thing is, and you may disagree, he presents evidence but not evidence that actually supports the conclusion. Yes other Arts have sections of their pole work that resemble WC. Other arts have knife work that resembles WC. The problem is this.

In order for the "weapons is the start" to have any validity the open hand form almost has to be unique. 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 an example, the quote I shared earlier regarding elbow focus and centerline actually came from a source on Southern Praying Mantis, the Chow Gar lineage to be precise.

So we have correlation becoming causation, but ultimately this only happens due to the following apparent thought process. WSLVT-PB is the one true YM-VT. YM-VT was not modified, it is the true translation of WC/VT. I was taught that WC empty hand is unique and started with weapons. Ergo this is the truth.

Now I can 100% agree with @gpseymour and you that the bit about "which first, weapon or empty hand?" I would argue the main land styles don't say this, some say the opposite and with YMVT being a child of these arts it seems unlikely BUT this isn't 100% conclusive.

The one issue though that I think is just wrong is the "empty hands are unique and the weapons aren't". You can have an art that is "it's own self" without a part of it being "unique." It actually beggars logic that a relatively younger TMA evolved in such a vacuum, and when you look at older arts that not only have similar techniques but similar foundational principles, it goes beyond simple deduction. /Shrug.

 

[DanT]

I didn't add this to keep it simple but:

-Wing Chun in non Yip Man lineages have 22 short forms that people learn before Sil Lim Tao. Yip Man got rid of these and only taught one "arrow punch" AFTER, not before Sil Lim Tao. It is normally taught now after wooden dummy as a preparation for the staff, but it's original purpose was a long range punching method, as I learned it.

 

[DanT]

List of the 22 short "forms" taught before Sil Lim Tao in non-Yip Man lineages:

1. Buddha Palm
2. Phoenix Eye Hammer
3. Tiger Tail Hammer
4. Pheasant Kick
5. Dragon Pearl
6. Small Heun Sao
7. Big Heun Sao
8. Three War Fist (Sanchin)
9. Plowing Bridge
10. Bong and Backfist
11. Po Pai Jeung Exercise
12. Obstruct and Prop
13. Hook and Slice
14. Fish Flip
15. Controlling Bridge
16. Crane Wing
17. Evade and Biu Sao
18. Double Dragon
19. Bowing Horse Hammer
20. Three Palms
21. Pulling Eight
22. Suppressing Tiger

A student would traditionally spend about a month on each short form. They wouldn't learn Sil Lim Tao until after all 22 were perfect. Each short form is usually 5-10 moves in length. Some of them mimic parts of Sil Lim Tao.

 

[Nobody Important]

Slightly larger section of Shooting Arrow Fist.

To me, it has some overlap with the Hung Kuen version.

 

[Juany118]

^^^^^^ Welcome back! Glad to see you posting again! Good information above! 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." From what you are saying, it makes it sound even more like this a more likely theory than what LFJ has been describing. And this is very interesting. I have not heard of this style prior to this discussion. Do you know of any video of the "Arrow Palm" form? You say "widely accepted"....but widely accepted by whom? I haven't read this in any of the Wing Chun histories or in other people's research on Wing Chun origins.

Here is a question? Why does their need to be A proto-WC? The more I look at things there was no single source. Now maybe I am projecting something from FMA scholarship here. While tradition states there is a "mother art" (aka proto-art) when you really look at it this is impossible due to circumstances. I think the same thing would be true here. You MAY be able to go back and find an art that is a common ancestor for WC and Hakka related arts from the Guangdong area with similar techniques (Baak Mei, various Southern Mantis), and even principles. Even TWC is said to perhaps be related to Hakka MAs because of the Hakka migrations resulting in Hakka being in both Fujian and Guangdong. Here is a Hakka shot

But did Hakka evolve entirely independently or was it influenced by the fact that Hakka tended to join the military due to living in mountains where farming prospects weren't that great?

Then you have what appears to be some elements related to "old"/village Hung Kuen, in the pole form, possibly elements of FWC as well. It seems to me that, in this case, searching for a single "proto-art" is search for a unicorn. That such a thing doesn't exist because WC appears to be an amalgam, with some refinement, of many arts and these arts in turn are likely amalgams, with refinement, of other arts. /Shrug

 

[Nobody Important]

List of the 22 short "forms" taught before Sil Lim Tao in non-Yip Man lineages:

1. Buddha Palm
2. Phoenix Eye Hammer
3. Tiger Tail Hammer
4. Pheasant Kick
5. Dragon Pearl
6. Small Heun Sao
7. Big Heun Sao
8. Three War Fist (Sanchin)
9. Plowing Bridge
10. Bong and Backfist
11. Po Pai Jeung Exercise
12. Obstruct and Prop
13. Hook and Slice
14. Fish Flip
15. Controlling Bridge
16. Crane Wing
17. Evade and Biu Sao
18. Double Dragon
19. Bowing Horse Hammer
20. Three Palms
21. Pulling Eight
22. Suppressing Tiger

What non-Yip Man lineages would these be from? Only about 2/3 are recognizable by name to me. In Yuen family we have 48 San Sik in total. 20-24 learned prior to Siu Lim Tau.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Part of You Choi lineage 4th form. Fok Chiu's Shooting Arrow Punch. This form, if I'm not mistaken, is based on the San Sik movements that were used to create the knife form & formal dummy set.

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"?

 

[DanT]

What non-Yip Man lineages would these be from? Only about 2/3 are recognizable by name to me. In Yuen family we have 48 San Sik in total. 20-24 learned prior to Siu Lim Tau.

Most non Yip Man lineages have 22-48ish. These in particular are from Gualo Wing Chun (non Cha Wah Shun).

 

[Nobody Important]

Here is a question? Why does their need to be A proto-WC? The more I look at things there was no single source. Now maybe I am projecting something from FMA scholarship here. While tradition states there is a "mother art" (aka proto-art) when you really look at it this is impossible due to circumstances. I think the same thing would be true here. You MAY be able to go back and find an art that is a common ancestor for WC and Hakka related arts from the Guangdong area with similar techniques (Baak Mei, various Southern Mantis), and even principles. Even TWC is said to perhaps be related to Hakka MAs because of the Hakka migrations resulting in Hakka being in both Fujian and Guangdong. Here is a Hakka shot

But did Hakka evolve entirely independently or was it influenced by the fact that Hakka tended to join the military due to living in mountains where farming prospects weren't that great?

Then you have what appears to be some elements related to "old"/village Hung Kuen, in the pole form, possibly elements of FWC as well. It seems to me that, in this case, searching for a single "proto-art" is search for a unicorn. That such a thing doesn't exist because WC appears to be an amalgam, with some refinement, of many arts and these arts in turn are likely amalgams, with refinement, of other arts. /Shrug

Everything comes from something. It's human nature to want to understand how things came to be. With Wing Chun proof is hard to come by, best to align yourself with ideas that support your belief. To do otherwise is to create confusion that you may not be able to untangle and compartmentalize.

 

[Nobody Important]

In this form, I only see the arms movement and I don't see the body movement. Why?

Best to ask the person who shot the video, maybe it's on purpose or an error, etc.

 

[Juany118]

Everything comes from something. It's human nature to want to understand how things came to be. With Wing Chun proof is hard to come by, best to align yourself with ideas that support your belief. To do otherwise is to create confusion that you may not be able to untangle and compartmentalize.

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. Then you have the effects of migrating through various regions. As an example, over time the Hakka, who used to be the ruling Han, migrated from the north to the south in waves, usually triggered by warfare and upheaval.

All I am saying is that there appears to be a strong possibility that in the end we see a history that looks 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.

Sorry, the would be history teacher has kicked in full force due to the turn this thread took