An interesting story of the YM Mook Jong

[Juany118]

A preface.
1. I found this using the simple search that included "fighting" not wooden dummy. I clicked on it though because it seemed odd to be included in such a search.
2. Of course people will debate what he says but his description, if you remove the "halo" that surrounds names, simply felt right to me. Heck for me including the YM name it felt right because once I learned YM had served as a Police Officer I dived into studying his history the same way I did with Teddy Roosevelt when I discovered he was a Commissioner of New York City Police Department as a "would be" cop in the 90's.
3. In listening to this it also made sense due to what I have been taught. WC is a conceptual martial art. By definition that means WC is malleable, within certain limits of course as you can only stretch the envelope so far before you tear it.

 

[KPM]

Revisionist history. Ip Man did not bring the wooden dummy to Hong Kong, and he did not invent the wall mounting system. The Weng Chun guys brought the wooden dummy to Hong Kong. Probably either Chu Chong Man or Tang Yik. The first dummy was at the Dai Duk Lan, which was a market place. I've never heard any claim that they were the ones that actually invented the wall mount system, but Ip Man certainly first saw it at the Dai Duk Lan and copied it. That dummy was still there until relatively recenty.

Others say that Ip Man learned at least parts of his dummy from Yuen Kay Shan. So the portion about Ip Man having to later "reassemble" and essentially create his own form is very likely true. In the Pin Sun system the dummy is played "free form" based on the San Sik, so the part about Ip Man training that way makes perfect sense. This was probably somewhat standard practice. A "form" for the dummy was likely not standardized amongst the various Wing Chun families until pretty recently in history.

 

[wckf92]

but Ip Man certainly first saw it at the Dai Duk Lan and copied it.

KPM...do you mean he copied its physical parameters? Or the form?

 

[KPM]

KPM...do you mean he copied its physical parameters? Or the form?

He copied the physical parameters and mounting system. He may have seen them playing the form and copied elements of it, but I've haven't heard anyone claim that. They do say Ip Man copied elements of the pole form.

I have heard more than one story about Ip Man having Koo Sang make measurements of the dummy at Dai Duk Lan and then produce one for him. William Cheung tells a similar story but says that it was his own brother that took the measurements and built the first dummy.

Here, at the 2:50 mark:

Scroll down this page and there is a photo of a young Andreas Hoffman standing next to this dummy with GM Wai Yan:

Weng Chun Kung Fu med grandmaster Anreas Hoffmann

 

[Vajramusti]

The stories go on with different persons giving their own spin

 

[wckf92]

If DP is correct...and everyone everywhere is constantly modifying/working on/enhancing/simplifying their Muk Jong forms (and the other forms as well)...then there really isn't any conformity or consistency from "back then" (1800's) etc. So, nobody in todays era knows if their forms are "authentic or historically legit"???

 

[wingchun100]

The stories go on with different persons giving their own spin[/Q]

Sounds like a typical day in Wing Chun Land.

 

[wingchun100]

If DP is correct...and everyone everywhere is constantly modifying/working on/enhancing/simplifying their Muk Jong forms (and the other forms as well)...then there really isn't any conformity or consistency from "back then" (1800's) etc. So, nobody in todays era knows if their forms are "authentic or historically legit"???

If everyone would realize that, then maybe these silly lineage p*ss*ng matches would stop, and we could all actually LEARN from each other.

 

[KPM]

The stories go on with different persons giving their own spin

That's because the concept of real history was a bit "soft" at times. Things were not documented, then people either remembered wrong or purposefully adjusted what they remembered a bit to serve their own purposes. Or we have people that weren't there filling in gaps and making assumptions and then stating it as historical fact. There is no questioning the timeline that there was a dummy being used at Dai Duk Lan before there was dummy being used in Hong Kong by Ip Man. Therefore, Ip Man did not bring the dummy to Hong Kong as DP stated. More than one person/lineage has mentioned Ip Man taking measurements from that dummy at Dai Duk Lan. Given that the wall mount system was not typical on the mainland, and the dummy at Dai Duk Lan preceded Ip Man having a dummy and had this wall mounting system....chances are very good that he did indeed see it and copy it. No spin there.

 

[Juany118]

The main point of of my OP wasn't so much the "little" details, such as the dummy and how it came to Hong Kong. It would be insane to think that over about 300 years a look bong never got there.

It was more about the YM. Some may not know he was a police officer on the main land before the Communists won. So we have, when we look at history in general


-Cop comes to HK not by choice but circumstance.
-Cop starts teaching WC in HK when he thought his side would win the Civil War. If not he would still be on the mainland.
-Cop has to start remembering things as someone never expecting to be a teacher needs to remember
-It takes time but it still works.

This exemplified to me the idea that WC is a conceptual art. And tbh Ym as a teacher. I didn't actually see this video as that big a deal. If I did I never would have posted it.

The video was supposed to be about the overall story, how arts can evolve. How two people can say "I studied under YM and he taught me this" and be different.

I don't even study that lineage (DP is WSLVT). Hell mine is sometimes considered the red headed step-child, but the overall tone seemed consistent with how I understand WC, to this point.

Tbh if I knew the little crap would click before the big stuff? I never would have posted this.

 

[KPM]

Nothing wrong with the "little crap" being discussed as well. And I think I spoke to what you are saying when I pointed out that a "standardized" dummy form is likely a relatively recent thing for most Wing Chun versions.

 

[geezer]

I thought Peterson's presentation was pretty straightforward and jibes pretty well with my understanding. Yip Man wasn't a carpenter and it's pretty well known that he used the DDL dummy for a plan. I had heard that his was the first that had to have a wall mount, but if not, that's no big deal. After all, the original wall mount wasn't conceived as an improvement, but simply as an adaptation to living in an apartment! It was only after the fact that Yip Man and others found that training on a "live dummy" had certain advantages.

The more interesting points that Peterson makes are about the evolution of the dummy form. I heard pretty much the same story from my old sifu. Peterson seems pretty OK with the idea that the dummy form, and probably Yip Man's art in general continued to change and evolve during his years teaching in Hong Kong. Some others in the WSL-VT family have disputed this. In short, Peterson seems like a thoughtful, open minded sort of guy.

 

[wingchun100]

And it is of VERY special note that he is a WSL lineage guy who is open-minded.

 

[geezer]

Relating to the floor vs. wall mounted dummy -- as a student of YM-VT, I train with a wall-mounted dummy. It is said to have the advantage of being resilient and springy, flexing and giving better feedback than the "dead" or floor-mounted dummy.

But I've also heard that on the other hand, the "dead" floor-mounted dummy allows for more complete footwork and stepping past and behind the dummy to attack from an angle from the rear. We do use such techniques in training with partners, but of course that is impossible on a wall-mounted dummy. I've been told that you can find such movements in some old mainland forms that still use the floor-mounted dummy.

Does anybody --perhaps KPM-- have any knowledge of this?

 

[geezer]

And it is of VERY special note that he is a WSL lineage guy who is open-minded.

Must be because he didn't get the full indoctrination ...er ..I mean training!

 

[Vajramusti]

Must be because he didn't get the full indoctrination ...er ..I mean training!

------------------------------------------
Some comments on the dummy- the dummy itself does not teach you much. Of importance are the underlying concepts and the adjustments involved. Ip Man had already internalized the concepts in his own development.
He did not need a formal routine any more for his own purposes. But for TEACHING in hong kong he needed
a strategy and routines for students- hence the tinkering, Mounting the dummy gives you only half the bagua
circle. Empty hand dummy motions with ma bo footwork complements the dummy work . Ip Man's conceptual
understandings were different from his early Foshan fellow students and from YKS and weng chun.

 

[Vajramusti]

Must be because he didn't get the full indoctrination ...er ..I mean training!

------------------------------------------
Some comments on the dummy- the dummy itself does not teach you much. Of importance are the underlying concepts and the adjustments involved.Those are the things that bring dummy work "alive". Ip Man had already internalized the concepts in his own development.
He did not need a formal routine any more for his own purposes. But for TEACHING in hong kong he needed
a strategy and routines for students- hence the tinkering, Mounting the dummy gives you only half the bagua
circle. Empty hand dummy motions with ma bo footwork complements the dummy work . Ip Man's conceptual
understandings were different from his early Foshan fellow students and from YKS and weng chun.

 

[KPM]

Relating to the floor vs. wall mounted dummy -- as a student of YM-VT, I train with a wall-mounted dummy. It is said to have the advantage of being resilient and springy, flexing and giving better feedback than the "dead" or floor-mounted dummy.

But I've also heard that on the other hand, the "dead" floor-mounted dummy allows for more complete footwork and stepping past and behind the dummy to attack from an angle from the rear. We do use such techniques in training with partners, but of course that is impossible on a wall-mounted dummy. I've been told that you can find such movements in some old mainland forms that still use the floor-mounted dummy.

Does anybody --perhaps KPM-- have any knowledge of this?

That's a very good point and I've heard that as well. But I don't have any direct knowledge of the dummy being used that way. I haven't seen that in either the Pin Sun or Tang Yik Weng Chun lineages. Both are now using wall mounted dummies, so it could be that some of those kinds of applications have simply been lost.

 

[KPM]

forum being really wanky, triple post!

 

[KPM]

double post

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If DP is correct...and everyone everywhere is constantly modifying/working on/enhancing/simplifying their Muk Jong forms (and the other forms as well)...then there really isn't any conformity or consistency from "back then" (1800's) etc. So, nobody in todays era knows if their forms are "authentic or historically legit"???

I have a problem with the whole idea of any MA element being "authentic or historically legit". In every case, if it is accurate to a point in historic time, it's an arbitrary point. As for "authentic", that's such a vague term as to generally escape all attempts at definition.

I'll use BJJ as an example, because it's easy to show the problem using that art. Is the the newest guard authentic BJJ? Well, it works and fits within the context of the art. But it wasn't there when BJJ started being known as such. And it's not historically legit, because it didn't exist when BJJ was originally framed, and also wasn't found in the source arts. But the newest guard came about because people learned and found a better (or at least different, so better in competition for a while) way to do things. That process is how BJJ was formed, initially. It's how every well-formed art originally came about. So, anything that follows that process should be "authentic" to that art if it fits within the context of the art.

That goes for forms, as well. If an instructor changes a form because we know something better about the body (perhaps, what causes RSI in the shoulder) and changes how she teaches to improve students' longevity, that should probably be reflected in the forms. And if a particular movement is found to be superfluous after some evolution in the art, that movement should probably vanish from the form.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Double post