Luk Dim Poon Kwan differences

[couch]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to watch Yip Pui's and Moy Yat's LDPK videos.

Both had close sources to Yip Man, right? Yip Pui learned from one of Yip Man's sons, and Moy Yat learned from Yip Man himself.

I wanted to watch the videos to clear up any problems that I was having with the forms.

The loaded question: (and be nice...I just want some honest opinions)
Why the heck are they so different? Yip Pui is saying that he never changes the forms to keep the art pure. The form is lacking a lot of biu kwans that are done in the Moy Yat version (as well as others that I've seen). The Yip Pui version is much shorter and has very little movement. I believe that the essence of the moves are all there...it's weird, I guess.

Did Yip Man teach different versions of the forms? Has anyone seen and compared the Yip Chun/Ching versions to the Yip Pui and can comment on this?

Thanks for the help.

Sincerely,
Kenton Sefcik

[reneritchie]

There are several possible reasons:

1) Human memory is imperfect and errors over the years have resulted in different paths for what was originally the same teaching (broken telephone)

2) For reasons of humility or to avoid annoyance people have made changes they sincerly believe has improved the set but do not want to take any credit for doing so, in the Chinese tradition have just left the credit with a previous generation. Or they've made changes for commerical reasons (longer, prettier sets) and for the same reasons call it the original.

3) Everyone who claims to have learned 'directly' may not actually have done so (just like politicians who claim they won't raise taxes sometimes do ;) ) and have instead learned indirectly, pieced something together, or created it whole, leading to different versions. Theoretically, everyone may have done this.

4) There was no set form and Yip Man taught the basic points over the years with varying choreography and consistency and so different students from different time periods or even different sessions have, essentially, the same content but have it strung together in different ways. While everyone likes the idea of 'the' set, it may always have been 'sets'.

5) There is no pole and people are just punk'ing ya! :)

[stonecrusher69]

Since we know YM has taught different versions of the empty hand forms it seems logical to assume the weapons would be no different.I know my si-gung has at least 3 or 4 different version of chum kui,Bil Gee, and pole and knife forms that he taught to different students.

[YongChun]

At one time I had 8 different versions of the Wing Chun Bat Jam Do form on video or book. All were very different and all claimed to be the original unchanged authentic version. Obviously that's not possible it would seem. So as Rene said, maybe there was no form and the students just pieced together the basic ways to attack and defend with these weapons. For the pole the main thing is poking, Tan, Bong and Fook. For the knife you have chopping , poking for attack and Gan, Kwun for defense. With both weapons you can approximate the 18 or so hand techniques so that with the pole you also have Huen (Circle), Lan (Bar), Man (Search), Wu (Guard), Jut (Jerk) etc. In all the original knife forms the basic cutting and blocking was about the same. The big difference is that some people flip the knives and some don't. Some people have created long forms to try to get to the 108 number and others don't care about that and have the forms as short as possible while keeping the key ideas. The pole form I learned had 27 movements. Randy Williams has a 108 movement pole form. Pole and knife forms are a dime a dozen in China and most are more impressive than the Wing Chun forms (which represent just some key ideas). I think it doesn't matter whose forms you do as long as you train the skills.

Ray

[reneritchie]

Since there is pretty much consistent SLT, CK, and BJ even beyond the Yip Man lineage, yet the dummy, pole, and knife while usually having the same core movements, can have wildly different choreography, I lean towards the idea that those elements weren't formalized as far back as the base boxing sets, and have been passed along in a "looser" manner, leading to greater variety nowadays.

[Lindley]

One of the important things transcended by Grandmaster Moy Yats teachings is self discovery. How a student learns based on their own experieces without the bias of (Moy Yat's) experience or influence. "A good martial art needs a system. A martial art that depends on a system is not a good martial art..." The System gives us the foundation and the guide. Siu Nim Tao, Chum Kiu, and Bil Je are forms that evolve and are dissected over time. They have "hidden" answers, that are unlocked by each students experience and relentless pursuit of improving their kung fu. To keep our Kung fu balanced, we must play the "forms" in their completeness, while one can take a single section of the Jong to play and study it without (necessarily) playing the other sections. The Jong introduces an advanced way to approach learning the system.

The weapons are a level where one expresses their kung fu knowledge, not an extension of a beginner by copying. Hence, the weapons forms are merely a guide and should be different from person to person (ideally). If you continue to take the "connect the dots" attitude to the learning of Kung fu, you are limiting your kung fu growth. You will merely seek to copy someone. Someone being "right" or "correct" will demonstrate Ving Tsun concepts in their play.

Sigung Moy Yat learned his Kwan from Chop Sticks. This means that Yip Man gave him the principles and allowed him to use his own Kung Fu to manifest it into "his form", his understanding. Sigung passed his form as a guide, not absolute. I have seen other masters perform the pole and there are general similarities. However, true masters of the art can language their kung fu and express themselves through the weapon.

Kenton, if you are trying to pick whose pole form is correct, then you are not ready for the weapons. Otherwise, you can use one persons as a base, while observing other master's pole form and use your Kung Fu knowledge to determine how to build "Kenton's" Kwan Form.

[Phil Redmond]

Luhk Dim Bun Kwan (6 1/2 point/strike pole). I learned the Koo Sang version from Alan Lamb and the William Cheung version which is close, but different. As long as you have the 8 1/2 strikes you can call it LDBK. ;)
Phil
Correction made.

[Vajramusti]

Lukh- 6

Bun- half

dim-dot,point

6 1/2 point pole


Many more than 6 or 6 1/2 0r 8 or 8 1/2 strikes with kwan, fwiw, imo

joy chaudhuri

[ghostofwingchun]

Why does it matter if form sequence is same or different?

Thanks,

Ghost

[couch]

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I did not know that Yip Man had taught different versions of what he learned throughout his teaching career. Very informative and very important. This sets to rest the way of "wanting the true and original" pole form. Everyone (other than for marketing purposes) can call their pole form the true version that Yip Man taught them, if they were of a different time period! Very cool.

To some who question why I want to get "one" pole form under my belt, this is because I am more concerned with the core movements being there and I am also concerned with the way Moy Yat has taught it to his students. Guess it's a respect thing for me. My prerogative.

My Sifu's version of the pole was missing only one element (more of a transitional movement) in our version he learned from his Sifu that we noticed when we watched the Moy Yat seminar video. I've now "fixed it" and perform it with this new movement...incorporating it into what my Sifu has taught me previously.

Lindley, I understand what you're saying about using one as the base...but to keep things as consistent in the family as I can is important to me. Thanks again!

[anerlich]

The forms IMO are not commandments burned in stone by the finger of a vengeful WC god. They are patterns of effective movement, and IMO are designed to for exploration and experimentation by the intermediate and advanced student. Thus to me the variations come as no surprise.

[Phil Redmond]

Lukh- 6

Bun- half

dim-dot,point

6 1/2 point pole


Many more than 6 or 6 1/2 0r 8 or 8 1/2 strikes with kwan, fwiw, imo

joy chaudhuri

Thanks Joy, it was a typo. I learned 3 versions of the Kwan, two from Yip Man lineage. All three had 6 1/2 strikes in the form. Hence the name. There are of course more movements but there are 6 1/2 "special" strikes. Yes, there is a half strike in the form. ;)
Phil

[Tom Kagan]

What are you so worked up about? The form is only choreography.

You also need to contemplate that any tape is only one snapshot in time and usually only meant for one audience at a certain stage in training. In a way, other people viewing any instructional tape are seeing something taken out of context and should be mindful of this issue.

Even though the pole form is one of the shortest complete unit sequences within the style, many nuances of the pole and variations within its form with which you can play do not become apparent until you spend some time working it on your own and with partners, and by spending time discussing it with your Sifu.

If I may ask out of curiosity, which Moy Yat tape on the pole did you see? Was it the one in Virgina w/Miguel and Pete, or was it the one he did after his stroke that I edited, or was it some other that I haven't seen?

[Liddel]

I agree with some of the calls already made here.
But IMO Forms need a balance of similarities and differences between lineages.

The differnces can be many and varied but the similarites "should" a big "should" have the fundimentals. i.e power usage etc

I believe another important issue is the drills that accompany the form.
These are the actions that bridge raw movements (if you will) into the actual use in fighting. Sticiking with the pole etc... then free fighting and so on.

These IMHO are what you should look more closly at and see if they suit your mindset and can help you bridge the skill attained from forms into real use.
:)
Some one may have great looking form but you may be able to run them through with your pole, Not that i condone that sort of thing.
:eek:

[couch]

If I may ask out of curiosity, which Moy Yat tape on the pole did you see? Was it the one in Virgina w/Miguel and Pete, or was it the one he did after his stroke that I edited, or was it some other that I haven't seen?

The video I got to watch was the seminar with Miguel and Pete with that giant roof support in the way. :)

All the best,
Kenton

[Phil Redmond]

The forms IMO are not commandments burned in stone by the finger of a vengeful WC god. They are patterns of effective movement, and IMO are designed to for exploration and experimentation by the intermediate and advanced student. Thus to me the variations come as no surprise.
Wasn't WC an eclectic fighting art in the beginning anyway? I can't see rebels wanting to kill Manchu caring about what technique was used.
Phil

[TenTigers]

Years ago, Robert Chu taught the set-it was basically, six and a half moves.Period. It was simply an encyclopedia of the basic movements. The sets that have more moves, simply repeat sections, ad turns, etc, The isea is to extract the movements and drill them. You can have a set with six tan-gwun moves, or you can drill tan-gwun a thousand times. Which makes more sense to you?
Too many people are overly concerned with collecting and comparing. Funny, how a style based on simplifying technique becomes overcomplicated in each generation. Backwards evolution.