wing chun history is not important

[guy b.]

Wing chun history is not important. It doesn't really matter if hands developed from pole in 1854, if Yip Man stole his pole from Tang Yik, if he lifted the story of Ng Mui from a trashy work of fiction, if someone saw western boxing and tried to copy it but ended up creating wing chun, or if WSL made up VT himself after learning nothing from YM. These things are interesting to discuss, and certain theories make more sense than others, but they mean nothing in the end.

All that is meaningful to us now is the system we can learn in the present. To judge this against alternatives we can look at its effectiveness in fighting, how sensible and adaptable its central concepts and theories are, how simple and optimised it is for the job it is designed to do, how much baggage it contains, its learning method in terms of time spent vs effectiveness, and its general culture and the kind of people it attracts.

Falling out about history is stupid. It is not worth making such things personal.

 

[KPM]

Funny, coming from the guy that has been so insistent that his theory represents "truth" regardless of what the majority believes, regardless of what has been passed down through lineages as tradition, and regardless of logical arguments presented against it! I believe the word here is "ironic." ;-)

 

[guy b.]

I've never pretended to speak from a perspective other than my own. Truth is not a popularity contest, but at the end of the day historical truth is not really that important in a fighting system. Other things are much more important.

Some methods of judging such a system are presented above, please discuss.

 

[KPM]

I've never pretended to speak from a perspective other than my own. Truth is not a popularity contest, but at the end of the day historical truth is not really that important in a fighting system. Other things are much more important.

Some methods of judging such a system are presented above, please discuss.

In case you may not have realized it, your theory was about the HISTORICAL origins of Wing Chun empty hands. Hence the irony. ;-)

 

[guy b.]

There's no irony because I have not fallen out with you. I just find these things interesting to discuss. You are the only one that seems upset.

 

[geezer]

There's no irony because I have not fallen out with you. I just find these things interesting to discuss. You are the only one that seems upset.

Yeah. I also find these things interesting to discuss and I agree that, from a practical point of view, some of these unresolvable historical arguments are unimportant compared to maintaining good and effective WC in the present. That also means less emphasis on lineage and keeping an open mind about different approaches that prove to be practical.

On the other hand, Keith was right. You did make a pretty big deal about the pole coming first. Which it might have I guess. But I just thought you were nuts. And that's exactly how a lot of people feel about me. So I felt a kindred spirit. Nothing like a bit of argument to keep things lively, anyway.

Imagine my disappointment when LFJ weighed in and I found that you are not a lone nutcase, but rather your point of view was actually a WSL lineage thing.

Anyway what's more interesting to me than what's "right or wrong" is why you felt the pole is so essential to the nature or WC hands. That could be useful information for the practice of WC in the present, regardless of the history of the art.

 

[guy b.]

You did make a pretty big deal about the pole coming first. Which it might have I guess. But I just thought you were nuts. And that's exactly how a lot of people feel about me.

That's ok with me, lol. You can think what you like.

Imagine my disappointment when LFJ weighed in and I found that you are not a lone nutcase, but rather your point of view was actually a WSL lineage thing.

It is pretty standard WSLVT. The historical part is an extrapolation for fun, but it makes sense in the context of the wing chun I practice.

Anyway what's more interesting to me than what's "right or wrong" is why you felt the pole is so essential to the nature or WC hands. That could be useful information for the practice of WC in the present, regardless of the history of the art.

I have tried to elaborate on this, and there is some info there in the threads, but KPM's (over) zealous fire fighting job on the issue kind of extinguished the discussion. Feel free to pick it up again if you like.

 

[Marnetmar]

How the hell does one come to the conclusion that YM got his pole form from Tang Yik? Those two forms are literally nothing alike.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Wing Chun, Taijiquan, Karate, The Car, the Computer, the light bulb, gardening, US, Europe, China, World......History is important.

 

[guy b.]

How the hell does one come to the conclusion that YM got his pole form from Tang Yik? Those two forms are literally nothing alike.

No idea

 

[guy b.]

Wing Chun, Taijiquan, Karate, The Car, the Computer, the light bulb, gardening, US, Europe, China, World......History is important.

It is important if you know what happened. If you don't then...

 

[KPM]

There's no irony because I have not fallen out with you. I just find these things interesting to discuss. You are the only one that seems upset.

Oh, I'm not upset. I just found it ironic that you are writing a post to say how history is unimportant after spending so much time trying to convince us of the truth of your own theory on Wing Chun's historical origins. If you don't see the irony in that....well....

 

[KPM]

How the hell does one come to the conclusion that YM got his pole form from Tang Yik? Those two forms are literally nothing alike.

No one here has come to that conclusion!

 

[guy b.]

Oh, I'm not upset. I just found it ironic that you are writing a post to say how history is unimportant after spending so much time trying to convince us of the truth of your own theory on Wing Chun's historical origins. If you don't see the irony in that....well....

It's not ironic to find something ultimately unimportant to be interesting, provided you are aware of its unimportance

If you aren't upset then answer Tang Yik questions please

 

[KPM]

It's not ironic to find something ultimately unimportant to be interesting, provided you are aware of its unimportance

If you aren't upset then answer Tang Yik questions please

But wait...didn't you just ask me to stop posting on your threads?

 

[Xue Sheng]

It is important if you know what happened. If you don't then...

Then you don't, but it does not make it any less important

 

[guy b.]

But wait...didn't you just ask me to stop posting on your threads?

Respond whenever you feel happy and relaxed, otherwise please don't

 

[mograph]

Then you don't, but it does not make it any less important

It's important to know the difference between recorded history and speculation.

 

[JPinAZ]

History is always important to know where we are, where we were and how we got there.
Since WSL lineage has been a subject lately, it is widely known that WSL himself removed/stripped down several aspects of WC system/curriculum from what Ip Man had taught to better fit with how he (WSL) applied WC in his fights. Knowing this can better explain why WSL lineage might now view taan sau as something that only teaches the punch and elbow function, where most other lines coming from Ip Man see it as more than that being a bridging action with straight arm/hand for 'spreading' or dissipating incoming forces on the bridge. Or where that same line may see WC hands coming from the pole.
And I'm not saying WSL is right or wrong in his views - it's simply how he chose to interpret and define the action of taan sau or maybe how viewed the technology of the relationship between the hands and pole . But if someone from the WSL doesn't even know this common history, then they may have a hard time accepting when others say Taan Sau is much more than just training a punch/elbow.

WSL aside, sometimes these things are just a simple case of Ip teaching things differently to different people or different points in his teaching career. Or, people passing thru, or not being 'indoor students', or whatever, and maybe not seeing the whole entirety of his curriculum or teaching methods and only having seen one aspect of it. Without knowing the history, we quickly get into right/wrong type arguments on subjects like these.

And some might argue none of it matters and all that matters is how we can apply what we have, and that's fine too! But then how can those same people really have a strong point to stand on in the forums when discussions go beyond just basic application (as often happens)? IMO, history is always important if we want to know more than just the 'how'. Without some deeper understanding of history, as well as philosophy, culture, etc (even if it's lineage specific), it makes it a lot harder to really understand the whys & whens (and to a degree the 'hows') of what we are doing. If we don't even have an idea of the purpose and intention for the creation of WC system, how can we truly say we understand all of it's goals, principles and concepts?

 

[guy b.]

it is widely known that WSL himself removed/stripped down several aspects of WC system/curriculum from what Ip Man had taught to better fit with how he (WSL) applied WC in his fights.

It is not known if WSL removed/stripped down, or if he added/built up, or if he recreated, or if he merely received the full teaching. All that we know is that WSL VT is a bit different to some other interpretations. Of course WSL lineage has its reasons for this and of course other lineages have different reasons. Deciping upon the former option is a decision you have taken based upon little evidence and is a really good example of the use of history to frame and control debate.

Knowing this can better explain why WSL lineage might now view taan sau as something that only teaches the punch and elbow function, where most other lines coming from Ip Man see it as more than that being a bridging action with straight arm/hand for 'spreading' or dissipating incoming forces on the bridge. Or where that same line may see WC hands coming from the pole

There are simpler explanations for these differences.

And I'm not saying WSL is right or wrong in his views - it's simply how he chose to interpret and define the action of taan sau or maybe how viewed the technology of the relationship between the hands and pole . But if someone from the WSL doesn't even know this common history, then they may have a hard time accepting when others say Taan Sau is much more than just training a punch/elbow

It is not a historical fact that differences between WSL and others are due to WSL's difference in interpretation.

And some might argue none of it matters and all that matters is how we can apply what we have, and that's fine too! But then how can those same people really have a strong point to stand on in the forums when discussions go beyond just basic application (as often happens)?

There is a lot more than basic application in what we are presented with today. History is important within groups, not so much between them.

IMO, history is always important if we want to know more than just the 'how'. Without some deeper understanding of history, as well as philosophy, culture, etc (even if it's lineage specific), it makes it a lot harder to really understand the whys & whens (and to a degree the 'hows') of what we are doing. If we don't even have an idea of the purpose and intention for the creation of WC system, how can we truly say we understand all of it's goals, principles and concepts?

All lineages have "histories" for these purposes. How many are created after the fact for validation purposes? Impossible to know.