Tang Yik pole vs "others"

[KPM]

How does the article's info "jive" with discussion we had further up this thread?

 

[wckf92]

But my feeling is...yes...likely the essential moves in those other forms are also found in the longer Tang Yik form.

Seems to be what the article is hinting at...

And yet I look at the whole Tang Yik form and think "it doesn't need to be that elaborate!" There should be a happy medium in there somewhere!

Maybe if you deleted the "emphasized" moves...it would be shorter and more 'to the point'?

Also the history of the Tang Yik lineage notes that Chi Sim's pole form was combined with a spear form at some point.

The article mentions that more circling type motions are not in line with the directness normally associated with WC. Makes one wonder...if a WC pole form contains large or larger Huen methods, is it no longer WC?

Another school of thought says that Wing Chun was originally a loose collection of techniques and short drills....San Sik

I'm starting to think the "original" WC (empty hand and/or both weapons) may well have been in the San Sik format. Just my gut feeling.

I've heard it said that when Leung Jan was teaching the San Sik format in Ku Lo village he was returning to an older version of the system.

The more I read the more I'm starting to see this could be the case...

This would make it very natural to have originally learned both the knives and the pole in a similar format.....short drills or San Sik with applications that were later organized into longer forms.

Might also explain why now we have SOOOO MANY different versions of it all... haha

As I pointed out, it could be just as likely that Wing Chun started as San Sik

How does the article's info "jive" with discussion we had further up this thread?

It seems to say that YM's pole came from Tang Yiks...but that there is a 3.5 pole out there too.
Also, some of the listed "principles or points" look familiar with others' as stated in this thread and the one you had started a while back.

 

[Eric_H]

Originally Wing Chun only had the empty hand methods. The BJD were added in first, but it is now unknown who incorporated them into the system.

Sorry man, but that statement makes my BS detector go off so hard it broke. Gate theory is a pole/spear concept (live + dead side) and Chi Sao is very clearly derived from the double swords. Per my own line's history, WC was made by a fusion of monk + military knowledge (debatable, I know). From what I've studied, what we do comes from the weapons, not the other way around. If you look outside of WC, this is pretty consistent across many TCMA.

 

[geezer]

... From what I've studied, what we do comes from the weapons, not the other way around. If you look outside of WC, this is pretty consistent across many TCMA.

There is so much in WC empty hand theory that relates to weapon usage that I totally get where you are coming from. Bruce Lee famously made connections with fencing. And I encounter conceptual parallels with weapons usage in Escrima and Hema all the time... but as to which came first? That's a "chicken or the egg" argument. Both the empty-handed and weapons concepts that are at the core of WC existed long before the WC lineages we practice today emerged in the 19th Century. Most likely they evolved together with a shared conceptual base.

On the other hand, one guy I know, who is very well informed, does believe that the Biu Tze form was specifically designed to incorporate principles taken from the Baat cham dao.