The Pole

[chusauli]

Jim,

I will try to answer as best I can..



Well you said earlier the "pole" was from the North... Is what you refer to above a Gwan?

Spear is Northern, but when it went down to the South, they took off the spear head and played with the staff.


Is the Gwan from the South?

The various arts of WCK, CLF, Hung Ga are, and the pole fighting reflects that Southern flavor. Northern systems use the Gwan, but it is generally the double headed one. Otherwise they use the spear shaft and practice spearing with it (go look at the youtube stuff I posted links to).


Is the Gwan WCK uses heavier than a "real Gwan"..

Yes, the ones used in training the pole are generally not used in fighting. The fighting pole is the lighter treated wax wood pole - it can be the same length, but generally 7 ' 2 " in length. The heavy pole we train with are akin to a suburito, rather than a bokken. A Suburito is a swinging practice sword, often heavier than a sword. A bokken is a wood practice sword, but more approximate to shinken (live blades).


Do you think the linear nature of the form is wrong?

The "form" is just a bunch of the exercises thrown together that summarizes the actual pole training...it is not a fighting form, but a toolbox, like SNT... its an aid to memory, but that is not the fighting. Exercises are the mechanics, the fighting requires movement.


Do you think WCK is mainly a linear art or something else?

WCK is not a linear art, but actively makes use of, in classical terms, "capturing the centerline", "controlling centerline", "changing centerline". The pole must be practiced in moving laterally, anteriorly, diagonally, and in all directions. Most people are robotic and lack pole knowledge passed on to them. Most WCK people's pole ability is pretty mediocre.


A bokken has little in common with the Gwan in size or weight.

The bokken is more like the fighting pole if you are still using that analogy.

Hope this helps...

[Vajramusti]

I'm sorry to have not posted but I've been too busy trying to see things from others perspectives and research every other pole form out there by following links to Youtube, THEN I'm trying to sift through the less repetative responses to actually see if there is ANYONE here who has actuallyu been taught the WING CHUN pole form directly from a reputable weaponry teacher? :confused:

(((!!!!???what's the point? I have...))joy

I find it strange that nobody has even the slightest idea why we do use the right hand in the front, and not the left?

(((I practice on both sides- I try to be ambidextrous))Joy

I find it so funny that theres confusion as to the use of a 'dim', whether linear or circular!

((De[ends on context-lines and circles- sometimes a coordination of both! este possible!))joy

I am basically trying to highlight that there seems to be 7 pages of advice on what the WC pole is NOT good for, and what OTHER pole forms are out there and how bloody great THEY are!

What I considered to be a good debatable subject matter has actually been a complete waste of time... :o

AGAIN :mad:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate and discussion are different things---you really don't expect sensible discussion here- do you? Much of what happens here is self stroking!

joy chaudhuri

[chusauli]

I don't like saying this BUT that is probably the worst bit of advice I've seen relating to the Wing Chun Pole.

With respect Robert, as an exceptionally talented researcher I'm sure that you know just a little bit more about the Wing Chun pole than you let on. And when you don't know just admit it and move on!

There is always something new to learn. Even for you.

FWIW Mun Gwun isn't the most favoured attack of the pole by far, it's the 1st point, which is why it's the first set in the form. :rolleyes:

Real stuff is real simple.

What I said speaks volumes. Notice I did not say you block or stick first?

You strike or stab, the opponent moves, and then its over (ideally).

Musashi did this, Illustrisimo did this, other famous escrimadors did this. Look at the African tribe stick fighting - that's exactly what they are doing.

Mun Gwun is enganyo - feinting of the FMA, also like prakcion (fraction of a beat). You don't block and lock with a pole... you strike. There is a flow, delay, differentiation of timing, interception, etc. The eyes must be sensitive. Its all dynamic.

I don't like to talk about techniques - those are examples in time. Also, this is not the medium to learn from - you have to feel it. Painfully.

And personally, I like to leave the mark of "C". :)

[YungChun]

Jim,

I will try to answer as best I can..




Spear is Northern, but when it went down to the South, they took off the spear head and played with the staff.



The various arts of WCK, CLF, Hung Ga are, and the pole fighting reflects that Southern flavor. Northern systems use the Gwan, but it is generally the double headed one. Otherwise they use the spear shaft and practice spearing with it (go look at the youtube stuff I posted links to).



Yes, the ones used in training the pole are generally not used in fighting. The fighting pole is the lighter treated wax wood pole - it can be the same length, but generally 7 ' 2 " in length. The heavy pole we train with are akin to a suburito, rather than a bokken. A Suburito is a swinging practice sword, often heavier than a sword. A bokken is a wood practice sword, but more approximate to shinken (live blades).



The "form" is just a bunch of the exercises thrown together that summarizes the actual pole training...it is not a fighting form, but a toolbox, like SNT... its an aid to memory, but that is not the fighting. Exercises are the mechanics, the fighting requires movement.



WCK is not a linear art, but actively makes use of, in classical terms, "capturing the centerline", "controlling centerline", "changing centerline". The pole must be practiced in moving laterally, anteriorly, diagonally, and in all directions. Most people are robotic and lack pole knowledge passed on to them. Most WCK people's pole ability is pretty mediocre.



The bokken is more like the fighting pole if you are still using that analogy.

Hope this helps...

Thanks Robert..

I see WCK expression/use more like a rapier than a katana..

But in any case I am sure you wouldn't say it doesn't matter how this form or any other form in WCK is done...

[Liddel]

Terrence You jump contexts like a hooker jumps johns. Keep it up this place is better for it judging by the mood :D


I find it strange that nobody has even the slightest idea why we do use the right hand in the front, and not the left?

Spencer Lok Yiu's line (which ive learnt) should teach the student about which hand predominantly drives the pole and also which hand predominantly drives the power. This depends on which hand your dominant with in everyday life and thats what lends us towards teaching a student how to use the pole and on which side. Beleive it or not but there should be some lefties out there doing the pole although ive never seen them.

As far as were concerned its not just one way for everyone.

Sadly i believe the VT pole is lost and if i were to believe my teacher who learnt from Lok Yiu and YM direct, there are less than a handfull of people alive that have actually been taught by people who attained skill with the Lok Dim Boon. Regardless there are people that give me hope. Respect to Sifu Bayer for one.

Anyway thats my fix of forum Fu for this year.

Good luck with training guys, regardless of your training methods its all character building and mad fun. :)

DREW

[Vajramusti]

Sadly i believe the VT pole is lost and if i were to believe my teacher who learnt from Lok Yiu and YM direct, there are less than a handfull of people alive that have actually been taught by people who attained skill with the Lok Dim Boon.(Liddell)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW-IMO- not lost. Correct that few people were taught the pole and finally the knives- in private lessons. Ho Kam Ming and WSL both learned the kwan and do. Sometimes some people were shown some moves.
The story of Ip man teaching the pole with chop sticks at a restaurant is not important IMO- you don't learn the pole that way.

Interesting controversy on teaching methods. In many arts and sciences-you build skills upon skills-
takes discipline and time and tuition to learn from the best.

Universities produce fewer top Ph.Ds than freshmen-though the latter accumulate credit.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer Lok Yiu's line (which ive learnt) should teach the student about which hand predominantly drives the pole and also which hand predominantly drives the power. This depends on which hand your dominant with in everyday life and thats what lends us towards teaching a student how to use the pole and on which side. Beleive it or not but there should be some lefties out there doing the pole although ive never seen them.

As far as were concerned its not just one way for everyone.

I agree to a point. Especially after witnessing a few lefties trying to 'force' the right handed pole from their being! One of the main problems of letting the lefties have their way is in the interactive training. It's harder to match the sets together.

And according to my research, our pole isn't a spear and shouldn't be used as one. Spear men or foot soldiers use the left in the front. The Generals, who tend to opt for the heavier weapon, use their right in the front. The Wing Chun Pole Form originates from a General, not a foot soldier.


Sadly i believe the VT pole is lost and if i were to believe my teacher who learnt from Lok Yiu and YM direct, there are less than a handfull of people alive that have actually been taught by people who attained skill with the Lok Dim Boon. Regardless there are people that give me hope. Respect to Sifu Bayer for one.

This is also what I've heard Drew, and what I've been trying to say for years. Lee Shing, Ho Kam Ming, Lok Yiu and Jiu Wan were some of the best weaponry men Ip Man produced. They were all also very close to eachother.

[LoneTiger108]

Real stuff is real simple.

What I said speaks volumes.

Okay, I have to agree with you there.


Musashi did this, Illustrisimo did this, other famous escrimadors did this. Look at the African tribe stick fighting - that's exactly what they are doing.

Mun Gwun is enganyo - feinting of the FMA, also like prakcion (fraction of a beat). You don't block and lock with a pole... you strike. There is a flow, delay, differentiation of timing, interception, etc. The eyes must be sensitive. Its all dynamic.

I don't like to talk about techniques - those are examples in time. Also, this is not the medium to learn from - you have to feel it. Painfully.

Again, you're using other arts to explain/justify what you do with your Wing Chun. Do you teach like this? I find it quite strange, originating from one teacher who also was only taught by one teacher.

He used other styles as examples, but not in the way you do. More in the way of highlighting strengths/weaknesses.

[Phil Redmond]

I agree to a point. Especially after witnessing a few lefties trying to 'force' the right handed pole from their being! One of the main problems of letting the lefties have their way is in the interactive training. It's harder to match the sets together.

And according to my research, our pole isn't a spear and shouldn't be used as one. Spear men or foot soldiers use the left in the front. The Generals, who tend to opt for the heavier weapon, use their right in the front. The Wing Chun Pole Form originates from a General, not a foot soldier. . . .
It's always to your advantage to be able to use the pole left or right handed. You said it's harder to match sets if one is left and the other is right handed. What happens if a right handed fighter meets a left handed and vice-versa? This also applies to empty handed fighting. South Paws give Orthodox fighters a hard time. The Pole also develops Cheung Kiu Lihk so you should train both side equally.

[LoneTiger108]

It's always to your advantage to be able to use the pole left or right handed. You said it's harder to match sets if one is left and the other is right handed. What happens if a right handed fighter meets a left handed and vice-versa? This also applies to empty handed fighting. South Paws give Orthodox fighters a hard time. The Pole also develops Cheung Kiu Lihk so you should train both side equally.

I'm not against learning the pole left handed, I just think you should get the form down with the right first before you switch it. There were reasons for this as we tended to use the pole to drill some empty hand attacks. Being naturally stronger on my right side I drilled that side first.

Dai Yat Dim is similar in many ways to Lee Shings 'Battle Fist', a cheung kiu lihk attack. ;)

[anerlich]

I agree to a point. Especially after witnessing a few lefties trying to 'force' the right handed pole from their being! One of the main problems of letting the lefties have their way is in the interactive training. It's harder to match the sets together.

I'm a leftie. I've had no such problems.

Sounds like you've been brainwashed by the righhanded hegemony, and perhaps other parties as well...

[Sihing73]

I'm a leftie. I've had no such problems.

Sounds like you've been brainwashed by the righhanded hegemony, and perhaps other parties as well...

My youngest appears to be a leftie. I am trying to mold her into the Right Wing Majority but thus far have been unsuccessful.

Of course, they do say left handed people are the only ones in their right minds :D

Funny thing, although I am right handed, I have always naturally used a left hand stance when swinging a bat in baseball and also tend to fight Southpaw.

I must be conflicted ;)

[YungChun]

My youngest appears to be a leftie. I am trying to mold her into the Right Wing Majority but thus far have been unsuccessful.

Of course, they do say left handed people are the only ones in their right minds :D

Funny thing, although I am right handed, I have always naturally used a left hand stance when swinging a bat in baseball and also tend to fight Southpaw.

I must be conflicted ;)

No, you're a converted/conflicted Lefty.. Probably where she got it from.. :)

Welcome to the Lefty club..

[YungChun]

I'm a leftie. I've had no such problems.

Sounds like you've been brainwashed by the righhanded hegemony, and perhaps other parties as well...

Do you do everything left handed? How about fighting lead?

Most lefties I know don't do everything lefty.. I sure don't...

[anerlich]

I'm a Southpaw, kick with my left leg, goofy foot surfing, left dominant eye - pretty left dominated.

I do use a knife and fork and the WC pole like a righty most of the time.

My right arm is slightly stronger than my left - for kettlebell presses, anyway.

[YungChun]

I'm a Southpaw, kick with my left leg, goofy foot surfing, left dominant eye - pretty left dominated.

I do use a knife and fork and the WC pole like a righty most of the time.

My right arm is slightly stronger than my left - for kettlebell presses, anyway.

Yeah it gets mixed and matched..

My left hand is dominant but I use a standard left lead naturally.. Throw lefty bat righty.. :cool:

[CFT]

Would I be digressing if I asked if the overriding principle to the pole should be the maxim "gwun mo leung heung" (the pole does not make two sounds)?

This maxim encapsulates the idea that pole usage should be primarily about the attack, not block then attack, etc. If your attack carries a defense (lin da dai siu as Wan Kam Leung puts it) then all the better. I can't really see how one would "control" with the pole (compared to the empty hand techniques).

(I write with my right, but throw with my left).

[t_niehoff]

Would I be digressing if I asked if the overriding principle to the pole should be the maxim "gwun mo leung heung" (the pole does not make two sounds)?

This maxim encapsulates the idea that pole usage should be primarily about the attack, not block then attack, etc. If your attack carries a defense (lin da dai siu as Wan Kam Leung puts it) then all the better. I can't really see how one would "control" with the pole (compared to the empty hand techniques).

(I write with my right, but throw with my left).

As I see it, "gwun mo leung heung" refers to making contact and staying in contact with the opponent's weapon/body/etc. -- which makes only one sound with the initial contact. That requires a fairly close range. The WCK pole is a much closer range weapon IMO than is typically demonstrated (where the opponent beyond the end of the pole, much like fencing with the pole). At that range, you really have no leverage, and leverage is what the pole is all about. Instead, your opponent is well within the "end" of the pole, and you are using leverage/pressure to keep your opponent off-balance, to limit his actions, etc. while you maneuver for openings. This also explains why the thrust isn't the main offensive action.

[CFT]

As I see it, "gwun mo leung heung" refers to making contact and staying in contact with the opponent's weapon/body/etc. -- which makes only one sound with the initial contact. That requires a fairly close range. The WCK pole is a much closer range weapon IMO than is typically demonstrated (where the opponent beyond the end of the pole, much like fencing with the pole). At that range, you really have no leverage, and leverage is what the pole is all about. Instead, your opponent is well within the "end" of the pole, and you are using leverage/pressure to keep your opponent off-balance, to limit his actions, etc. while you maneuver for openings. This also explains why the thrust isn't the main offensive action.Now I can see why you've written what you have so far.

I think one of the previous vids posted (Baji spear IIRC) with the padded up sparring was exactly as you described - both people beyond range of the pole/spear.

[LoneTiger108]

Would I be digressing if I asked if the overriding principle to the pole should be the maxim "gwun mo leung heung" (the pole does not make two sounds)?

This maxim encapsulates the idea that pole usage should be primarily about the attack, not block then attack, etc. If your attack carries a defense (lin da dai siu as Wan Kam Leung puts it) then all the better. I can't really see how one would "control" with the pole (compared to the empty hand techniques).

(I write with my right, but throw with my left).

Finally, someone mentions the infamous 'no two sounds' maxim!

This is connected to attacking concepts, and ideally should be implemented in pole work when drilling. Very similar to the way the wrist/forearm of your fistwork can clear the centreline for the strike. The pole does the same.

Mind you, there were some occassions where the one sound WAS the kill... :D and other 'training' occassions where there were limitless sounds of interacting sticks!

[CFT]

Finally, someone mentions the infamous 'no two sounds' maxim!

This is connected to attacking concepts, and ideally should be implemented in pole work when drilling. Very similar to the way the wrist/forearm of your fistwork can clear the centreline for the strike. The pole does the same.

Mind you, there were some occassions where the one sound WAS the kill... :D and other 'training' occassions where there were limitless sounds of interacting sticks!I think this concept is illustrated by knights jousting with the lance.

[chusauli]

Again, you're using other arts to explain/justify what you do with your Wing Chun. Do you teach like this? I find it quite strange, originating from one teacher who also was only taught by one teacher.

He used other styles as examples, but not in the way you do. More in the way of highlighting strengths/weaknesses.

Spencer,

Strange? I find that you're strange... :confused: ... maybe you need to see more of the world.

Perhaps if you learned from other systems and other teachers, you'd know that what I said has its parallel in other systems and WCK is not unique, and the people I mentioned are considered examples in their respective arts.

[k gledhill]

As I see it, "gwun mo leung heung" refers to making contact and staying in contact with the opponent's weapon/body/etc. -- which makes only one sound with the initial contact. That requires a fairly close range. The WCK pole is a much closer range weapon IMO than is typically demonstrated (where the opponent beyond the end of the pole, much like fencing with the pole). At that range, you really have no leverage, and leverage is what the pole is all about. Instead, your opponent is well within the "end" of the pole, and you are using leverage/pressure to keep your opponent off-balance, to limit his actions, etc. while you maneuver for openings. This also explains why the thrust isn't the main offensive action.

you have odd ideas about the pole ...it teaches [or in your case not] ballistic 'removal' of anything in its way, like vt hands , short sharp blasts of energy that will shock a pole out of your hands , thus clear the way for free hands to strike or pole tip to strike...not to make contact and stay in contact...thats a sticky idea from guys who dont know what they are doing, so take chi-sao to the pole too :D rolling pole :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

you have odd ideas about the pole ...


Actually, it's most WCK people who have"odd ideas" about the pole -- because that is ALL they have: ideas. And where did these ideas come from? From people who can't fight with the pole!

So we have the blind leading the blind -- people who can't do it telling others how it should be done.



it teaches [or in your case not] ballistic 'removal' of anything in its way, like vt hands , short sharp blasts of energy that will shock a pole out of your hands , thus clear the way for free hands to strike or pole tip to strike...not to make contact and stay in contact...thats a sticky idea from guys who dont know what they are doing, so take chi-sao to the pole too :D rolling pole :rolleyes:

Instead of rolling your eyes, why don't you spend your energy actually earning some experience with the pole -- get some partners, and it's critically important that they are nonWCK partners who aren't going to try and do what you do, and put in some significant time sparring (hard) with the pole? If you do that, as I have, I think you'll see that you won't be able to make your "ideas" work. (Interestingly, that is what the Dog Brothers did with the stick, and found that much of the "wisdom" in FMAs didn't work).

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer,

Strange? I find that you're strange... :confused: ... maybe you need to see more of the world.

Definitely. Although it's harder to get around these days with the family and work.

I've always been strange. I just like to be clear in one way. Study under one Sifu. I learn from everyone, and every experience, but I'll still always only have one Sifu. Does that make me bad? :cool:


Perhaps if you learned from other systems and other teachers, you'd know that what I said has its parallel in other systems and WCK is not unique, and the people I mentioned are considered examples in their respective arts.

I would love to, but in the UK most elder Wing Chun guys know me, or of me, so are shy in exchange. I'm very interested in other arts and have met some great people but I've never felt inspired enough to ask them to teach me anything. Although Neil Adams was as cool as Braulio Estima!

Especially when it's the Wing Chun Pole we're talking about... ;)

[chusauli]

In college, one has many teachers, in Masters programs, you have many teachers and in Doctorate programs you have many teachers.

There is no big deal in learning more. Who you say your "sifu" is personal, and that's fine. There is no good or bad in that.

One can always learn more.

[k gledhill]

Actually, it's most WCK people who have"odd ideas" about the pole -- because that is ALL they have: ideas. And where did these ideas come from? From people who can't fight with the pole!

So we have the blind leading the blind -- people who can't do it telling others how it should be done.



Instead of rolling your eyes, why don't you spend your energy actually earning some experience with the pole -- get some partners, and it's critically important that they are nonWCK partners who aren't going to try and do what you do, and put in some significant time sparring (hard) with the pole? If you do that, as I have, I think you'll see that you won't be able to make your "ideas" work. (Interestingly, that is what the Dog Brothers did with the stick, and found that much of the "wisdom" in FMAs didn't work).

whatever froggy... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: how deep is that well, well, well ....

[t_niehoff]

whatever froggy... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: how deep is that well, well, well ....

It's the people who never question what they are doing, who never critically examine or think about what they do, who blindly accept the views of their "master", who they believe is "great" and has "the right concepts", that are lost.

The blind following the blind.

[k gledhill]

It's the people who never question what they are doing, who never critically examine or think about what they do, who blindly accept the views of their "master", who they believe is "great" and has "the right concepts", that are lost.

The blind following the blind.


You will never see beyond the well your in....you need to travel more. crickets wont come to you all the time. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::D

[t_niehoff]

You will never see beyond the well your in....you need to travel more. crickets wont come to you all the time. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::D

Why don't you tell us what you believe are the main differences between the Yip Man, YKS, and Gu Lao pole sets?

What? You don't know and haven't seen the YKS or Gu Lao pole sets? You don't know numerous variations of the Yip Man pole sets?

OK, then, why don't you tell us about what you learned with your experience sparring with the pole against nonWCK people?

Oh, can't do that either. Hmmm.

I see. But I'm the one who should get out and see more. Right.

[LoneTiger108]

In college, one has many teachers, in Masters programs, you have many teachers and in Doctorate programs you have many teachers.

There is no big deal in learning more. Who you say your "sifu" is personal, and that's fine. There is no good or bad in that.

One can always learn more.

I'm open to learning more, as I've said before I learn every day. Maybe I'm not so into the formalities of education though.

To get back on subject, IMO the wing chun pole form itself, as taught by Lee Shing and my Sifu, would take more than three years of continued training to get close to a decent standard.

With a good foundation in Wing Chun first, three years become three months :D

[k gledhill]

Why don't you tell us what you believe are the main differences between the Yip Man, YKS, and Gu Lao pole sets?

What? You don't know and haven't seen the YKS or Gu Lao pole sets? You don't know numerous variations of the Yip Man pole sets?

OK, then, why don't you tell us about what you learned with your experience sparring with the pole against nonWCK people?

Oh, can't do that either. Hmmm.

I see. But I'm the one who should get out and see more. Right.

your like a child sometimes :D

[canglong]

Robert I suppose next you will be telling us Chusaulei.com is not your website.

originally posted by Robert Chu
I'm just a martial artist sick of the BS in TCMA...
Its all a process of being a work in process, and the honest conversations you have with yourself.
That may be the only time you are ever honest. In conversation with yourself and even that is questionable.


originally posted by Phil Redmond
Weak attempt at baiting.
I never said that people were taught wrong. What I can say is that there is more.
Sifu Redmond is a recognized master of TWC and has every reason to denounce your little attempt to denigrate
his art and his sifu. Fact William Cheung answered your c0cky questions with his own hands.
Fact Lei Mu San turned you away as a student.
Fact Moy Yat would not teach you starting at the weapons he wanted you to start from the beginning.
Terence readily admits he can not "make it work" it being Chusaulei. Obviously Hawkings Cheung could not "make it work" after his alledged fight with a couple none martial artist in an L.A. parking lot after which his own students said he disappeared for 3 months because he was so badly injured. Obviously Robert you didn't care to find out if you could "make it work" when you ran from Kenneth Chung in Monterey Park.

Clearly it is only your large and inflated ego which motivates you to lash out and bad mouth those you feel have wronged you in the past with your biased and uneducated critiques of others schools and families abilities and or training methods. There is no sincerity in your words and no honor in your actions and no one is falling for you or your students feeble attempts to come off as neutral on any topics on this forum. The only person not able to face the reality of this situation is you. Again just like Moy Yat tried to explain to you after lei Mu San gave up on you that it was in your own best interest to start over from the Siu nim tau level and you didn't understand. Now again it would be in your own best interest to start facing the truth of the matter which is Robert you can not "make it work" and if you yourself would commit to more practice and less talk maybe then you might possibly be able to make your wing chun work and we wouldn't have to lsiten to Terence cry all the time about how your wing chun "sucks". That alone would cut down on all the "BS" on this forum.

[m1k3]

Tony, I am confused by your post. You seem to think avoiding fights is shameful. You also imply that losing is a disgrace also. Personally I think avoiding a fight is the highest of skills and not an easy one. It is difficult to keep your ego in check during such high stress situations.

On the topic of losing, are you saying that your wing chun can not be beat, even against multiple opponents?

I don't understand what about Robert's post that upset you so? Perhaps you find the thought of cross training to be distasteful?

Sorry for the rambling post, I am still on my 1st cup of coffee.

Now, back on topic, would most of you consider the pole primarily a thrusting weapon or a striking weapon? And if it is a striking weapon wouldn't the pole's weight and size be a limiting factor on how it could be used in that fashion?

Thanks.

[t_niehoff]

your like a child sometimes :D

Really? Hmmm. You tell me that I should get out and see more (in a snide way, remember"cricket"?) and I point out that I've seen much, much more than you to rebut your remark. And this is your retort. Classic.

[chusauli]

Tony,

More blah, blah, blah. I realize this is your job.

Phil and I always have civil discussion without bringing in any fantasy emotional baggage. Actually, Phil and I go way back in NYC - I have only respect for him. I have no desire to denigrate him, TWC, or William Cheung.

IMO, the question (interpreted as "baiting" by Phil) has not been answered. If TWC has more to the pole - how much more is there? That still hasn't been answered.

Tony, maybe you can explain your tradition's 6 pole concepts and add constructively to this conversation?

[LoneTiger108]

... Now, back on topic, would most of you consider the pole primarily a thrusting weapon or a striking weapon? And if it is a striking weapon wouldn't the pole's weight and size be a limiting factor on how it could be used in that fashion?

Thanks.

Personally, to me thrusting IS considered striking. One method to strike. So, striking is what I would primarily think a cudgel is for. But lets not forget the Shaolin origins (if you believe that) where the stick was for defence only. ;)

The size and weight of pole normally seen, to me, are a target to achieve. It would be silly IMO to start your pole training under such stress! White wax wood sticks were used after a while, and the good old plumbing tubes were among my first learning experiences. Steadily progress, that's the key with all weaponry.

How the Wing Chun pole is 'used' has rarely been seen IMO.

[anerlich]

Tony,

I thought we had got past the HFY vs the world arguments a while back, after Benny left Garrett for Black Flag.

The forum arguments of the day are now MMA knuckleheads vs internalist Columbian airheads, and T's one man battle against evil theoretical non fighters, most of whom are so evil they don't even exist.

Still, if you want resurrect this stuff and join those morons, feel free.

[chusauli]

Andrew,

Tony is very simple. If Terence says anything about HFY (see for example the other post on where Terence is ridiculing their claims against MMA fighters at http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56047&page=2), it comes back to a personal attack on me, Hawkins Cheung, and who ever else I am friends with. Its their standard transparent MO, which happens over and over again - a feeble attempt at me, so I can reel in my student's comments. Its not hard to figure it all out. Perhaps Garrett Gee tells Tony to do this, or Richard Loewenhagen tells him this, but its trash talking. Moderator, perhaps you can step in and remove this?

Again, I have no censureship on Terence Niehoff's comments - he is a grown man capable of making his own decisions and voicing his own opinions which we all have heard. He represents himself and his opinion only. He doesn't like HFY or their claims, I have nothing to do with it. Perhaps people should try to understand what is behind the nature of these claims and what are they trying to protect.

[JPinAZ]

Seriously? This again? And Robert, how old are you?

In one breath you say T is a grown man capable of making his own decisions and voicing his own opinions, but in the previous breath you make assumptions that people are telling Tony what to say. So T speaks for himself, yet you imply Tony doesn't? What a joke.

Personally, I could care less what you say as long as you keep your arguments with those that are involved and leave any 'lineage wars' alone instead of stoking the fires.
If you have a problem with something Tony says, keep it between you and him. I think it is a show of low character and little class to drag others into this, talk of 'their MO' (whomever 'their' is), etc. and then cry for moderation afterwards. :rolleyes:
You talk about 'nature', your nature shines thru again. Maybe what Tony is talking about isn't so far from the truth...

[chusauli]

Ah, here comes JPinz! More SOP/MO! :)

What is so threatening about what Terence says? You can easily put him on ignore or not read his comments. He comments directly and laughs at you guys...

More to come...

[JPinAZ]

Oh Jeez, hiding behind T now?

Let me ask you back, why are you so threatened about what Tony says? If you don't like it, you could put him on ignore as well. But, if your want to continue to discuss things with him, there is no need to drag others into it, drop names, make accusations, etc. And, if you are going cry for moderation over something, maybe you shouldn't be guilty of the same things yourself.

Besides, what did Tony say that got you so upset anyway? Was he incorrect in what he said? :)

[duende]

Tony,

I thought we had got past the HFY vs the world arguments a while back, after Benny left Garrett for Black Flag.

The forum arguments of the day are now MMA knuckleheads vs internalist Columbian airheads, and T's one man battle against evil theoretical non fighters, most of whom are so evil they don't even exist.

Still, if you want resurrect this stuff and join those morons, feel free.

+1

Everyone comes here as individuals. Don't slander a whole group of people simply because you either have a disagreement with one person, or a statement made by one person.

[anerlich]

JP,

I brought T into this, not Robert. A mistake, probably, the last thing any of us need is T getting more attention.

As I said to all concerned, I thought we'd all got past that particular lineage war.

I'd be interested to hear any constructive comments you HFY guys have on the pole.

[duende]

JP,

I brought T into this, not Robert. A mistake, probably, the last thing any of us need is T getting more attention.

As I said to all concerned, I thought we'd all got past that particular lineage war.

I'd be interested to hear any constructive comments you HFY guys have on the pole.

We have a formal pole form, as well as a wooden dummy vs. pole drills.

In our form, one can see both thrusting and striking. And how it has benefited from technology taken from both the spear and the staff. The same can be said for our hand forms too though. For example, the tassles in the spear are used for trapping, the same way Tun Kiu is done with the hands.

The actual name for the HFYWC pole is the Hung Mun Saat Kwan. It employs both 6 1/2 point and the 3 1/2 point concepts/theories (single end or double end strategies) as well as live side/ dead side facing concepts. It originates back in the 1850's from our Hung Gun Biu ancestry.

[canglong]

Phil and I always have civil discussion without bringing in any fantasy emotional baggage. Actually, Phil and I go way back in NYC - I have only respect for him. I have no desire to denigrate him, TWC, or William Cheung. Robert your hypocritical contradictions are without end and you are an opportunistic charlatan of the worst kind. Always talking out of both sides of your mouth. This is the crux of your problem the public Robert and the private Robert. You have and will denigrate TWC, William Cheung and anyone else you have a rift with in private (I have seen the video) and then in public you are unwilling or unable to support your preposterous claims so then and only then is when we see and hear the public Robert. Clearly two different people.

[k gledhill]

Really? Hmmm. You tell me that I should get out and see more (in a snide way, remember"cricket"?) and I point out that I've seen much, much more than you to rebut your remark. And this is your retort. Classic.


getting into a conversation of ..."yeah?, yeah!.. oh yeah? , well I did this.. oh yeah! .... yeah, well I know that more ...is childish. Your missing the point.


Snide ? no just being polite ;) actually its not a 'well', its your a&s your heads stuck in so deeply...



'nough said terence, you get the idea ;)

[LoneTiger108]

I like keeping on subject, as I find all this character bashing and bad vibes just a pointless distraction really. It's gone beyond funny now, so why don't everyone who wants to have a pop at someone else over trivial matters just move on to another thread! :mad:


We have a formal pole form, as well as a wooden dummy vs. pole drills.

In our form, one can see both thrusting and striking. And how it has benefited from technology taken from both the spear and the staff. The same can be said for our hand forms too though. For example, the tassles in the spear are used for trapping, the same way Tun Kiu is done with the hands.

The actual name for the HFYWC pole is the Hung Mun Saat Kwan. It employs both 6 1/2 point and the 3 1/2 point concepts/theories (single end or double end strategies) as well as live side/ dead side facing concepts. It originates back in the 1850's from our Hung Gun Biu ancestry.

Duende - The HFY pole sounds, at first instance, VERY similar to the Lee Shing Family. We also have a 3 1/2 point 'way' which I'm familiar with as a method of practice (not an actual form)

It's also very interesting that you mention Hung Gun Biu as a founder ;)

[t_niehoff]

getting into a conversation of ..."yeah?, yeah!.. oh yeah? , well I did this.. oh yeah! .... yeah, well I know that more ...is childish. Your missing the point.

Snide ? no just being polite ;) actually its not a 'well', its your a&s your heads stuck in so deeply...

'nough said terence, you get the idea ;)

The point is that you don't know what you are tallking about. You only have a very superficial grasp of WCK and the pole. I haven't missed that.

[duende]

I like keeping on subject, as I find all this character bashing and bad vibes just a pointless distraction really. It's gone beyond funny now, so why don't everyone who wants to have a pop at someone else over trivial matters just move on to another thread! :mad:



Duende - The HFY pole sounds, at first instance, VERY similar to the Lee Shing Family. We also have a 3 1/2 point 'way' which I'm familiar with as a method of practice (not an actual form)

It's also very interesting that you mention Hung Gun Biu as a founder ;)

That is interesting. Maybe someday we can meet up to discuss. I know my Sifu is considering going to the UK sometime this year. If that happens, I'll let you know. Maybe we could arrange to meet.

Does Hung Gun Biu play a role in your lineage's history as well? Forgive my ignorance, I'm not that familiar with Lee Shing WC beyond it's YM connections.

[canglong]

Lonetiger108
Some additional info...

The HFY headquarters has received numerous request from both the general public
and our members for both detail writings on and workshops for HFY weapons.
Though there are currently no scheduled workshops should the request continue
to increase it is possible that our Grandmaster may find the time in his busy
schedule to include some weapons .

For now here is just a brief overview of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Pole and it's
training progressions.

Today's HFY understanding of the pole can be traced back to
early 1800's and the Hung Gun Boxer society.

The wooden pole in HFY called the Hung Mun Saat Gwan primarily has 3
training progressions.

1. Single end
2. Double end
3. Pole dummy training

Along with these progressions there are 2 forms
Hung Mun Saat Gwan 1 and Hung Mun Saat Gwan 2
They focus on the 6 and 1/2 point and 3 and 1/2 point pole
theory and principle applications.

For more information please continue to follow this forum and continue to
support the HFY headquarters and all its future workshops.


Bruce Stanberry
HFY secretary
http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&page=5
Often times even outside of wing chun you may have heard of the pole name referred to as the 6 and 1/2 point pole. This is not the case in Hung Fa Yi the pole name as duende gave you already is Hung Mun Saat Kwan and 6 and 1/2 point is actually one of the concepts used in the training progressions of the hung mun saat kwan.

[k gledhill]

The point is that you don't know what you are tallking about. You only have a very superficial grasp of WCK and the pole. I haven't missed that.

f-a-rt on ....; )

[t_niehoff]

f-a-rt on ....; )

Releasing more hot air, are we?

[YungChun]

If there are any two here that should work out together it's you two guys..

Kev and T..

Exact polar opposite and extreme views of the system IMO. Neither can see the POV of the other, or give an inch... The intercepting displacement only vs. the you must always have control/attachment first, opposites... LMAO..!

How one ensures control first with the pole is another question... (stun gun?)

I see both of you as correct and both incorrect.. Neither have a unique take on the system (while some may believe otherwise) other than perhaps to see 'true' WCK as the (exclusion?) of the other POV, that's what's so extreme...

IMO there is a time and place where each is correct and useful...

While I favor Kev's position in terms of simplicity and core WCK (economy, combined tool actions/uses) (which I know I really don't understand Kev) as Robert said in WCK less is more... True that.. But there is certainly merit to T's WCK controlling perspective under certain conditions as well and we see both aspects used and taught in the system, or at least I do..

[t_niehoff]

If there are any two here that should work out together it's you two guys..

Kev and T..

Exact polar opposite and extreme views of the system IMO. Neither can see the POV of the other, or give an inch...


Yes, my views are very different from his -- but I can see his POV. Hell, at one time I thought very much like him.



The intercepting displacement only vs. the you must always have control/attachment first, opposites... LMAO..!


It's not a question of "intercepting displacement" first or not -- there is no such thing as "intercepting displacement", at least not in fighting.

Even if you buy into the "intercepting displacement" stuff, the next question is WHY, for what purpose, are you intercepting and displacing? If it is just to hit, then when you fight you will find yourself in trouble.



How one ensures control first with the pole is another question... (stun gun?)


The method with the pole is not the same as with empty hands.

The point is how people who have absolutely no experience actually USING (fighting with) the pole want to tell others how it should be done. Blind leading the blind. All I can say is that from my experience sparring with the pole (and nonWCK people) that much of the "conventional wisdom" in WCK circles is simply wrong. Like the pole being mainly a thrusting weapon.



I see both of you as correct and both incorrect.. Neither have a unique take on the system (while some may believe otherwise) other than perhaps to see 'true' WCK as the (exclusion?) of the other POV, that's what's so extreme...

IMO there is a time and place where each is correct and useful...


Relativistic twaddle. I certainly don't have a unique view of "the system" -- whatever the f#ck the "system" is. My view of WCK is founded on the traditional, classical faat (method).



While I favor Kev's position in terms of simplicity and core WCK (economy, combined tool actions/uses) (which I know I really don't understand Kev) as Robert said in WCK less is more... True that.. But there is certainly merit to T's WCK controlling perspective under certain conditions as well and we see both aspects used and taught in the system, or at least I do..

You either see WCK as a close range, attached fighting method or you don't. If it is not an attached fighting method, then it is a form of kickboxing (unattached fighting). And I've yet to see anyone who can make WCK's tools consistently work at noncontact fighting. There is a reason WCK's defining drill/exercise is an attached drill/exercise.

If you see WCK as an attached fighting method (and the kuit tells us it is: Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma - Short Bridge, Close Body, Carriage Wheels), then you find that when on the inside and close if you don't have control, you will be in real trouble. Your opponent will have the freedom to do anything, including get control over you. That is the reality of it; that's what happens when you fight in a phone-booth. This is why the WCK faat, which comes from our ancestors tells us the first thing to do is dap (join, ride) with our opponent, then to jeet (cut off his offense, not intercept and displace), followed by chum (breaking his structure) -- and if we are good, to do all three in one action (Sam Jiu Yat Chai Dao - Three moves arrive together.)

[k gledhill]

The only real way to understand what WSL showed Philipp Bayer is direct ....the names are the same , tan, jum, jut ....but the way they are developed uses the whole system.
Many adopt a fragmented idea, imo it can come from overindulgence in the chi-sao. One begins to seek answers in the drill, rather than develop a greater idea 'using ' it ...not to be the slave of the 'system as WSL put it. Meaning dont enslave your thinking to the process of becoming an efficient fighter.
This enslavement shows itself as you think to control water ....ask yourself why VT isnt in the UFC ? simple its been adulterated beyond recognition. Many wouldnt even know VT if it walked up and punched them in the head, simply becasue of what 1/2 knowledge develops....
Like trying to put a hobby model together with some missing pieces and no plans...iow how do you know its complete with all the parts if your instructor never fought with it, developed thinking based on fighting , not drilling with others.

Terence you dont have a clue what Im doing ;) thats ok Im trying to write it..very hard to write energy ....same with pole ideas. its hard to stick to a pole that is 'displacing' you several feet each time...then holding the line to strike....Philipp walked into my gym a few years back and watched guys working out in various methods, upon seeing a guy doing a twirling stick action he mentioned that 'he would never do this if he knew vt" meaning he would have been hit as he did so.... straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea.

VT is simple ...

[t_niehoff]

The only real way to understand what WSL showed Philipp Bayer is direct ....


Who gives a sh1t what WSL "showed" Phillip Bayer?

The fundamentals of WCK are the fundamentals of WCK. All anyone can show anyone is the fundamentals. YOU apparently don't have them. If you do learn the fundamentals, then it is up to YOU to put them to work (put them into fighting), and by so doing, WORK OUT FOR YOURSELF how to make things work.

It doesn't matter what Ali showed someone about boxing. You learn to box by and through boxing.



the names are the same , tan, jum, jut ....but the way they are developed uses the whole system.
Many adopt a fragmented idea, imo it can come from overindulgence in the chi-sao. One begins to seek answers in the drill, rather than develop a greater idea 'using ' it ...not to be the slave of the 'system as WSL put it. Meaning dont enslave your thinking to the process of becoming an efficient fighter.
This enslavement shows itself as you think to control water ....


Fantasy.



ask yourself why VT isnt in the UFC ? simple its been adulterated beyond recognition. Many wouldnt even know VT if it walked up and punched them in the head, simply becasue of what 1/2 knowledge develops....


It's not in the UFC or MMA because the vast majority of WCK people are like you, bound in dogma, believing they have the "knowledge" and "understanding" of WCK which was given to them from their teacher who, of course, had the "real wing chun."



Like trying to put a hobby model together with some missing pieces and no plans...iow how do you know its complete with all the parts if your instructor never fought with it, developed thinking based on fighting , not drilling with others.


Who gives a rat's ass about what your instructor did? All your instructor can give you is the fundamentals. That's it. And, you don't even have the faat -- which is the organizing factor of WCK (what it is you are trying to do).

Tell me, WHO did WSL fight? Oh, I know he fought some scrubs, but tell me some names of good fighters that he fought? What? Can't name any? Hmmm.

You talk about not being a slave to WCK, but you are a slave to the memory of WSL!

When will you guys realize that those guys, WSL, Cheung, etc. weren't very good fighters? Sure they had fights. Fightslike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4



Terence you dont have a clue what Im doing ;) thats ok Im trying to write it..very hard to write energy ....same with pole ideas. its hard to stick to a pole that is 'displacing' you several feet each time...then holding the line to strike....Philipp walked into my gym a few years back and watched guys working out in various methods, upon seeing a guy doing a twirling stick action he mentioned that 'he would never do this if he knew vt" meaning he would have been hit as he did so.... straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea.

VT is simple ...

Your VT is a fantasy and is based on theory ("straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea"). And your theory is simply wrong. If you fought, you'd see that.

[LoneTiger108]

That is interesting. Maybe someday we can meet up to discuss. I know my Sifu is considering going to the UK sometime this year. If that happens, I'll let you know. Maybe we could arrange to meet.

You would be welcome if you travel to London. Email mail me closer to the time.


Does Hung Gun Biu play a role in your lineage's history as well? Forgive my ignorance, I'm not that familiar with Lee Shing WC beyond it's YM connections.

All I know is that who we trace the pole form to seems to differ from the conventional history. There has been mention of Hung Hei Gwoon, but it may only be speculation as we can't prove anything really. Research still needs to be completed.


Often times even outside of wing chun you may have heard of the pole name referred to as the 6 and 1/2 point pole. This is not the case in Hung Fa Yi the pole name as duende gave you already is Hung Mun Saat Kwan and 6 and 1/2 point is actually one of the concepts used in the training progressions of the hung mun saat kwan.

Thanks for the extra info on HFY.

Obviously, I'm familiar with saat kwan as each point can be drilled to kill (if that's what you mean by saat?) VERY hard to do! And dangerous to practise IMO. Still, it is another similarity we share.

As I've also mentioned before we translate to six point and half pole as I relate the number six to a traditional concept called 'six harmonies' which we sometimes called 'six joint force.' The half pole would be similar to your double ended ideas I think, like using a quarter staff, and its base theory comes from the yum yeurng (yin yang).

[k gledhill]

Who gives a sh1t what WSL "showed" Phillip Bayer?

The fundamentals of WCK are the fundamentals of WCK. All anyone can show anyone is the fundamentals. YOU apparently don't have them. If you do learn the fundamentals, then it is up to YOU to put them to work (put them into fighting), and by so doing, WORK OUT FOR YOURSELF how to make things work.

It doesn't matter what Ali showed someone about boxing. You learn to box by and through boxing.



Fantasy.



It's not in the UFC or MMA because the vast majority of WCK people are like you, bound in dogma, believing they have the "knowledge" and "understanding" of WCK which was given to them from their teacher who, of course, had the "real wing chun."



Who gives a rat's ass about what your instructor did? All your instructor can give you is the fundamentals. That's it. And, you don't even have the faat -- which is the organizing factor of WCK (what it is you are trying to do).

Tell me, WHO did WSL fight? Oh, I know he fought some scrubs, but tell me some names of good fighters that he fought? What? Can't name any? Hmmm.

You talk about not being a slave to WCK, but you are a slave to the memory of WSL!

When will you guys realize that those guys, WSL, Cheung, etc. weren't very good fighters? Sure they had fights. Fightslike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4



Your VT is a fantasy and is based on theory ("straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea"). And your theory is simply wrong. If you fought, you'd see that.

I give up your delusional....your beginning to believe your own mantra.....I searched a long time in other 'ways of vt or wck as you like to put it...one day terence one day...I wish i could hear you say the words others from wck sifu have also said.......

but I certainly dont give a sh&t about whether you find it or not either ;)

eject !! boooinnnnnggg:D

[t_niehoff]

I give up your delusional....your beginning to believe your own mantra.....I searched a long time in other 'ways of vt or wck as you like to put it...one day terence one day...I wish i could hear you say the words others from wck sifu have also said.......

but I certainly dont give a sh&t about whether you find it or not either ;)

eject !! boooinnnnnggg:D

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-and-why-we-lie-to-ourselves.php

[k gledhill]

your projecting ....keep walking son, the truth is out there....ask your teacher.

if your ever in NYC dont drop by, 'cause your going to have to walk on to Germany yourself :D

[YungChun]

Yes, my views are very different from his -- but I can see his POV. Hell, at one time I thought very much like him.


But then what happened? Assuming you do see his POV which I am not entirely sure you do.

Taking what "you think" he means, having failed to make it work and then dismissing what you *think* he means based on your own experience applying what you think he means is a bit off the mark of science.

What do you think Kev means by moving the line?

If you met Kev and just for the sake of argument he defeated you with his version of WCK would this prove anything or would you find other reasons to dismiss it?



It's not a question of "intercepting displacement" first or not -- there is no such thing as "intercepting displacement", at least not in fighting.


Sure it does.. The core of centerline theory is what this is about here, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time... This is the basis for JKD as well, to place the counter inside the path of the opponent's displacing it while countering. Bruce demo'd this concept at the Open event that was filmed in California in the 60's.....



Even if you buy into the "intercepting displacement" stuff, the next question is WHY, for what purpose, are you intercepting and displacing? If it is just to hit, then when you fight you will find yourself in trouble.


WCK's goal is to do damage..... You do that damage in WCK with strikes... Everything else in the system is intended to ASSIST the former.

There are cases when you need to actively control and issue energy/power specifically to do that, there are cases when you do not need to do that actively.

Also (and this is where you are off) structure of the opponent can be broken by WCK striking with WCK structure.... To not see that is to miss the most basic and core concepts/ideas/methods of WCK and WCK striking and structure, footwork, etc.

To wit..

From the 'master of functionality' himself...


In fact, I would say that the WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK. If you could just master that, most of real WCK is embodied in that. – Robert Chu.


Hmmm, no mention of control first....sounds like he needs a lecture on control vs kickboxing there T...



The method with the pole is not the same as with empty hands.


All the parts of the art have a common thread, the centerline for one, runs through all expressions of what is WCK, with or without weapons..



I certainly don't have a unique view of "the system" -- whatever the f#ck the "system" is.

I don't know about you Terence.. Get over this semantic minutia..

You have a major problem with the word 'system'? Then take it up with your bloody Sifu.



“Wing Chun is a system, not a style. A system is a training method; a style is personal expression.” – Robert Chu.


You say you don't have a unique take on the system but you do.. Robert has made that quite clear.. His version of WCK is different because it's the only "functional" version, oh that's all... LOL


You could say my WCK is the functional version of WCK. – Robert Chu.

So I guess Robert has fought lots and lots of good fighters eh?


My view of WCK is founded on the traditional, classical faat (method).

Based on your interpretation of this theory that is not without it's bumps and fudges..

Upon loss of contact regain that contact is not the Kuit nor the idea of WCK, THAT is in fact what WCK is NOT.



You either see WCK as a close range, attached fighting method or you don't. If it is not an attached fighting method, then it is a form of kickboxing (unattached fighting).

And I've yet to see anyone who can make WCK's tools consistently work at noncontact fighting.


You're logic circuits need an additional layer of heuristics.... You can't seem to understand problems that have non linear solution sets...

WCK is a simple idea of fighting... Robert has also stated this and he is right. The most simple expression of WCK is simply a single strike KO...

If you land your strike on your opponent and KO him in a single action did you use WCK or does it need to be more complicated in order to qualify as WCK?

Do you see the folly? At what level does it qualify?

Let's see

Again from the 'master of functionality'...


In fact, I would say that the WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK. If you could just master that, most of real WCK is embodied in that. – Robert Chu.


Wow sounds like it did qualify as 'real WCK' after all even without all the other stuff..



If you see WCK as an attached fighting method (and the kuit tells us it is: Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma - Short Bridge, Close Body, Carriage Wheels), then you find that when on the inside and close if you don't have control, you will be in real trouble. Your opponent will have the freedom to do anything, including get control over you. That is the reality of it; that's what happens when you fight in a phone-booth. This is why the WCK faat, which comes from our ancestors tells us the first thing to do is dap (join, ride) with our opponent, then to jeet (cut off his offense, not intercept and displace), followed by chum (breaking his structure) -- and if we are good, to do all three in one action (Sam Jiu Yat Chai Dao - Three moves arrive together.)

There is a reason WCK's defining drill/exercise is an attached drill/exercise.


Sure... Lots of reasons..

But it's not an either, or, it's a case of whatever is needed... You may have all kinds of tools in your box but if you need a screwdriver and not a hammer today shall I say you are not a mechanic because you didn't use most of your tools today, this week?

The bottom line is that there are those fighters who will play the line and those that don't.. In the old days of WCK who were you going to fight?

BJJ? Nope.
Western Boxer? Nope.
Wrestler? Nope.

Who then?

The answer tells the tale.. You would most likely be fighting folks who totally played the line, wanted to connect bridges, and used similar tactics as WCK...

A totally different ball game...


and if we are good, to do all three in one action (Sam Jiu Yat Chai Dao - Three moves arrive together.)


Oh how so? You clearly make the point you can't reach for their attack.. No simultaneous parry/strikes... But you are going to attack or they are...

Is your lead going to be a strike? Well no "control" there you say...hmmmm...

How do you do these three things at once if no reaching? If you keep a guard?

Seems contradictory..

Unless all these three are and can be expressed in a single simple action, BANG! Yup that has all three in there.

Yes, the 'attacking hand defends', NOT, 'The controlling hand defends'..

But....

Do you really think that WCK EXPRESSION is going to be the same when fighting a Western Boxer as when fighting a Baak Mei proponent? I mean really.....

If they don't play the line, and don't want to bridge then the WCK method is NOT going to emphasize the same elements PERIOD. Simple common sense.

Bottom line is you have YOUR interpretation of WCK.. I will tell you it does not match up with the majority of the most basic and agreed on core of what WCK is known for, in terms of your theory... You don't even seem to use the line, listening to you speak... WCK is about an unbroken line of force.. first, and the rest of the store is there to assist that line of force(keeping it unbroken).. THAT is WCK.

Making a thing "work or not" for you does not validate or invalidate anyone else's method or interpretation.. Less is more when fighting good fighters, not more is more THAT is not WCK's idea...

The faat you speak of and how you employ it is your interpretation and in some cases I agree and in some cases it's clear you are just off the mark..

Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong would it? You have changed up your stuff several times looking over your writings and who knows it may well change again..

Simplicity is the goal of WCK..... The rest of the stuff is there in case... The core training is about core concepts (simple) and core attributes that are at home no matter what the level of complexity is the expression...

Strike when you can, control when you need to....


We don't chase hands we chase Santa.. – Gary Lam

[k gledhill]

good reply....:D I have asked t for answers before with no reply...except load of cr&p or I know not what I know , er yeah :D I learned from a direct student of YM, that still doesnt mean I know what I'm talking about .... if you study the system long enough the questions we all want answered will be reached....there is a line of vt fighting out there with answers...up to you to figure out YOUR answers....if your happy in your 'routine' so be it....I thought I was doing a legitimate version of VT until I found a source nearer the er source :D...without bells & whistles attached...."Fists of Fury" lives in Menden Germany :D I could care less if Terence cares ;) no respect. even if he found the source it would tell him to bugg%r off :D:D:D:D

[Phil Redmond]

But then what happened? Assuming you do see his POV which I am not entirely sure you do.

Taking what "you think" he means, having failed to make it work and then dismissing what you *think* he means based on your own experience applying what you think he means is a bit off the mark of science.

What do you think Kev means by moving the line?

If you met Kev and just for the sake of argument he defeated you with his version of WCK would this prove anything or would you find other reasons to dismiss it?



Sure it does.. The core of centerline theory is what this is about here, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time... This is the basis for JKD as well, to place the counter inside the path of the opponent's displacing it while countering. Bruce demo'd this concept at the Open event that was filmed in California in the 60's.....



WCK's goal is to do damage..... You do that damage in WCK with strikes... Everything else in the system is intended to ASSIST the former.

There are cases when you need to actively control and issue energy/power specifically to do that, there are cases when you do not need to do that actively.

Also (and this is where you are off) structure of the opponent can be broken by WCK striking with WCK structure.... To not see that is to miss the most basic and core concepts/ideas/methods of WCK and WCK striking and structure, footwork, etc.

To wit..

From the 'master of functionality' himself...



Hmmm, no mention of control first....sounds like he needs a lecture on control vs kickboxing there T...



All the parts of the art have a common thread, the centerline for one, runs through all expressions of what is WCK, with or without weapons..


I don't know about you Terence.. Get over this semantic minutia..

You have a major problem with the word 'system'? Then take it up with your bloody Sifu.



You say you don't have a unique take on the system but you do.. Robert has made that quite clear.. His version of WCK is different because it's the only "functional" version, oh that's all... LOL



So I guess Robert has fought lots and lots of good fighters eh?

Based on your interpretation of this theory that is not without it's bumps and fudges..

Upon loss of contact regain that contact is not the Kuit nor the idea of WCK, THAT is in fact what WCK is NOT.



You're logic circuits need an additional layer of heuristics.... You can't seem to understand problems that have non linear solution sets...

WCK is a simple idea of fighting... Robert has also stated this and he is right. The most simple expression of WCK is simply a single strike KO...

If you land your strike on your opponent and KO him in a single action did you use WCK or does it need to be more complicated in order to qualify as WCK?

Do you see the folly? At what level does it qualify?

Let's see

Again from the 'master of functionality'...



Wow sounds like it did qualify as 'real WCK' after all even without all the other stuff..



Sure... Lots of reasons..

But it's not an either, or, it's a case of whatever is needed... You may have all kinds of tools in your box but if you need a screwdriver and not a hammer today shall I say you are not a mechanic because you didn't use most of your tools today, this week?

The bottom line is that there are those fighters who will play the line and those that don't.. In the old days of WCK who were you going to fight?

BJJ? Nope.
Western Boxer? Nope.
Wrestler? Nope.

Who then?

The answer tells the tale.. You would most likely be fighting folks who totally played the line, wanted to connect bridges, and used similar tactics as WCK...

A totally different ball game...



Oh how so? You clearly make the point you can't reach for their attack.. No simultaneous parry/strikes... But you are going to attack or they are...

Is your lead going to be a strike? Well no "control" there you say...hmmmm...

How do you do these three things at once if no reaching? If you keep a guard?

Seems contradictory..

Unless all these three are and can be expressed in a single simple action, BANG! Yup that has all three in there.

Yes, the 'attacking hand defends', NOT, 'The controlling hand defends'..

But....

Do you really think that WCK EXPRESSION is going to be the same when fighting a Western Boxer as when fighting a Baak Mei proponent? I mean really.....

If they don't play the line, and don't want to bridge then the WCK method is NOT going to emphasize the same elements PERIOD. Simple common sense.

Bottom line is you have YOUR interpretation of WCK.. I will tell you it does not match up with the majority of the most basic and agreed on core of what WCK is known for, in terms of your theory... You don't even seem to use the line, listening to you speak... WCK is about an unbroken line of force.. first, and the rest of the store is there to assist that line of force(keeping it unbroken).. THAT is WCK.

Making a thing "work or not" for you does not validate or invalidate anyone else's method or interpretation.. Less is more when fighting good fighters, not more is more THAT is not WCK's idea...

The faat you speak of and how you employ it is your interpretation and in some cases I agree and in some cases it's clear you are just off the mark..

Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong would it? You have changed up your stuff several times looking over your writings and who knows it may well change again..

Simplicity is the goal of WCK..... The rest of the stuff is there in case... The core training is about core concepts (simple) and core attributes that are at home no matter what the level of complexity is the expression...

Strike when you can, control when you need to....

Without using the verbatim dogma from one particular branch you've expressed what I've learned from different lineages through the years.

[t_niehoff]

But then what happened? Assuming you do see his POV which I am not entirely sure you do.


I opened my eyes.



Taking what "you think" he means, having failed to make it work and then dismissing what you *think* he means based on your own experience applying what you think he means is a bit off the mark of science.

What do you think Kev means by moving the line?


WCK and fighting has nothing to do with lines or moving them.



Sure it does.. The core of centerline theory is what this is about here, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time... This is the basis for JKD as well, to place the counter inside the path of the opponent's displacing it while countering. Bruce demo'd this concept at the Open event that was filmed in California in the 60's.....


That's theoretical twaddle. What is this nonsense about no-two-objects-can-occupy-the-sam-space-at-the-same-time? So what? That's NOT the centerline, that's just physical reality, and explains why I can't walk through walls. Nor is the centerline about the-shortest-distance-between-two-points-is-a-straight-line? Where do people get this stuff from? Do they think boxers or wrestlers don't know two objects can't occupy the same space or that aline isn't the shortest distance?

The centerline refers to the corridor between us, and to enter -- to move my body in close to your's in order to control you -- my body must move through this corridor.



WCK's goal is to do damage..... You do that damage in WCK with strikes... Everything else in the system is intended to ASSIST the former.


The objective of every fighting method is to "do damage" -- WCK provides us a method, an organized way of approaching fighitng to do that.



Also (and this is where you are off) structure of the opponent can be broken by WCK striking with WCK structure.... To not see that is to miss the most basic and core concepts/ideas/methods of WCK and WCK striking and structure, footwork, etc.


Yes, I know. But breaking structure isn't control, just an element that assists in getting control. Unless your opponent is a complete scrub, you won't keep his structure broken by striking alone.



From the 'master of functionality' himself... (the WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK. If you could just master that, most of real WCK is embodied in that - Robert Chu)


I don't agree with Robert's statement, but I know what he means (having trained with him).

For him, the punch demonstrates the essence of WCK -- not the punch in itself but because of what it represents. As I understand Robert, the WCK punch is notlike a boxer's punch, for example, because we use that tool to dodifferent things than a boxer. For examle, the punch permits us to project our body structure into an opponent (off-setting him), to join, to break structure, to clear the way for our body to move in, etc.



Hmmm, no mention of control first....sounds like he needs a lecture on control vs kickboxing there T...


Robert knows the method: I learned it from him. He teaches that WCK is about controlling while striking. I often tell people that I learned mainly three BIG lessons from Robert (and lots of little things), and that was one.



All the parts of the art have a common thread, the centerline for one, runs through all expressions of what is WCK, with or without weapons..


The centerline doesn't really exist -- it is an IDEA, and one that varies greatly among various practitioners. So, how can something that varies so considerably be "a common thread"?

My view is that terms/concepts like the centerline only remove us a step or two from reality -- there is no need to talk about a centerline, talk instead about what is really going on. When you remove things a step or two from reality, it leads only to confusion. When you talk about what is really doing on, it only clarifies.



I don't know about you Terence.. Get over this semantic minutia..

You have a major problem with the word 'system'? Then take it up with your bloody Sifu.


Why not just say WCK instead of "the system" if you are talking about WCK? There is no "system". Do boxers or wrestlers talk about "the system"? This is just another example of taking a step back from what is really going on.

And why do you keep bringing up Robert? Yes, he helped me make my WCK functional, and I think he is a very good WCK instructor who has the core curriculum of WCK (which many, many, many in WCK don't), but his views are not necessarily my views.

Application is my sifu, not Robert.



You say you don't have a unique take on the system but you do.. Robert has made that quite clear.. His version of WCK is different because it's the only "functional" version, oh that's all... LOL


Robert doesn't have a "version" of WCK -- there is no such thing. WCK is WCK. Lineage, branches, etc. aren't different ways of "doing" WCK but different ways of teaching WCK, different ways of presenting a curriculum.

A person can only make their WCK functional in the same way they make their boxing, wrestling or BJJ functional -- by and through working it out in sparring with quality opponents. You don't get that from your instructor; you get that from your sparring partners.



So I guess Robert has fought lots and lots of good fighters eh?


As I told Kevin, it doesn't matter what your teacher does or doesn't do -- that won't help you. All a WCK instructor can give you, assuming he has it, is the core curriculum, the fundamentals of WCK. That's it. Then it is up to you to do the work.

My experience is that most people in WCK don't have the core curriculum. For example, most people don't have the faat, the method. I didn't when I went to train with Robert. I had the forms, the drills, some of the kuit, etc. Those are the pieces to the puzzle, but the faat is the map to putting the pieces together.

[t_niehoff]

Based on your interpretation of this theory that is not without it's bumps and fudges..

Upon loss of contact regain that contact is not the Kuit nor the idea of WCK, THAT is in fact what WCK is NOT.


I never said that.

The method is to join, cut-off the oppnent's offense, destroy his structure, deliver our weapons, all the while sticking to him (dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi). And, as the kuit reminds us, when we lose contact (lut sao) we charge forward (jik chung) - to re-establish control.



You're logic circuits need an additional layer of heuristics.... You can't seem to understand problems that have non linear solution sets...

WCK is a simple idea of fighting... Robert has also stated this and he is right. The most simple expression of WCK is simply a single strike KO...

If you land your strike on your opponent and KO him in a single action did you use WCK or does it need to be more complicated in order to qualify as WCK?

Do you see the folly? At what level does it qualify?


That's a lovely theory, but it isn't going to happen. You're not going to knock anyone out, let alone with one punch. The WCK punch isn't a KO-generating type punch. And besides being unrealsitic, taht's a hugely risky strategy -- what happens when your "one punch KO" doesn't work?

The punch isn't the main finishing weapon of WCK. The punch is primarily to join. Consider the following two kuit. Yau Ying Da Ying - If you see form, strike form; no for, strike shadow. And, Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one.

Establishing a bridge, taht is a connection to the opponent whereby we can control him (the point of a bridge), is what provides our safety. It's a safety-first strategy. That way, if you control while striking, and your stike doesn't KO him, you still have control, and you still are safe.



Again from the 'master of functionality'...WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK Robert Chu

Wow sounds like it did qualify as 'real WCK' after all even without all the other stuff..


And again, what he is talking about is those things that go into the punch, the body structure, the timing, etc. are the essense -- not the movement itself.

Perhaps the problem is that I know what Robert is talking about since I trained with him, and you don't as you haven't trained with him and you are reading into his statement your own views.



The bottom line is that there are those fighters who will play the line and those that don't.. In the old days of WCK who were you going to fight?

BJJ? Nope.
Western Boxer? Nope.
Wrestler? Nope.

The answer tells the tale.. You would most likely be fighting folks who totally played the line, wanted to connect bridges, and used similar tactics as WCK...

A totally different ball game...


No one "plays the line" -- that's not fighting, nor is it what goes on in fighting. This is your fantasy of what fighting is like. Not only is your fantasy wrong, your history is wrong too. Sum, for example. fought all kinds of people, including wreslters, non-contact fighters, etc.

WCK has an approach to fighting, which comes from our ancestors. It is to control while striking. Are there times when you can forego control and simply strike? Sure. For example, if I hit you and it stuns you, I might release control to throw the kitchen sink at you. But that doesn't negate our approach.



Oh how so? You clearly make the point you can't reach for their attack.. No simultaneous parry/strikes... But you are going to attack or they are...

Is your lead going to be a strike? Well no "control" there you say...hmmmm...

How do you do these three things at once if no reaching? If you keep a guard?

Seems contradictory..


You don't understand because you are not doing it. If you want to learn how to do it, go train with someone that knows the method.



Unless all these three are and can be expressed in a single simple action, BANG! Yup that has all three in there.

Yes, the 'attacking hand defends', NOT, 'The controlling hand defends'..


They are not mutually exclusive. The attacking hand can be a striking hand that controls. For example, I strike your face with a palm strike and without losing contact from the strike, use that palm contact to control you. One motion.



But....

Do you really think that WCK EXPRESSION is going to be the same when fighting a Western Boxer as when fighting a Baak Mei proponent? I mean really.....


What we do will be the same, how we set it up will vary with the opponent.



If they don't play the line, and don't want to bridge then the WCK method is NOT going to emphasize the same elements PERIOD. Simple common sense.


Dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi -- the faat -- could also be expressed as clinch, control, strike. Same idea. Can you clinch, control, and strike against a boxer? Can you do that against a bak mei guy? Sure. Same method. How you set up the entry into the clinch, what you do in the clinch, how you strike, will vary.



Bottom line is you have YOUR interpretation of WCK.. I will tell you it does not match up with the majority of the most basic and agreed on core of what WCK is known for, in terms of your theory... You don't even seem to use the line, listening to you speak... WCK is about an unbroken line of force.. first, and the rest of the store is there to assist that line of force(keeping it unbroken).. THAT is WCK.


Of course this is my interpretation of WCK. That's all any of us have. But, mine is based on the classical faat of WCK.

Yes, I know this doesn't agree with what most people do, including many of the masters and grandmasters who can't fight worth beans. That mere fact -- that they can't fight worth beans -- ought to make you realize they have got many things wrong.



Making a thing "work or not" for you does not validate or invalidate anyone else's method or interpretation.. Less is more when fighting good fighters, not more is more THAT is not WCK's idea...


Granted. If someone has some approach that works, even if it is somethimg completely different than what I do, then it is valid. But, by works, I mean they can continuously use the tools (movements, actions) of WCK in fighting competent people. The trouble is we aren't seeing that.



Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong would it? You have changed up your stuff several times looking over your writings and who knows it may well change again..


Yes, I have changed "my stuff" -- this is called growth. And it comes from continually critically analyzing what I do, by continually taking myself out of my comfort zone, and by training with the best fighters I can.



Simplicity is the goal of WCK..... The rest of the stuff is there in case... The core training is about core concepts (simple) and core attributes that are at home no matter what the level of complexity is the expression...

Strike when you can, control when you need to....

Simplicity is the goal of all fighting methods. Do you think boxers don't want a one punch KO?

The trouble is you ahe a theory which is based on what you believe fighting will be like rather than what it is like. Go get some nonWCK persons (so they won't be programmed in the actions), gear up, begin in contact or at very close range, and just fight, really fight. Go all out. Do that over and over (I have). See for yourself what that is really like. And if you do this, you will see the NEED to control first, then strike. You'll see what happens to you if you don't. If anyone does this, they'll see. The people who won't do it never will.

[CFT]

The trouble is you ahe a theory which is based on what you believe fighting will be like rather than what it is like. Go get some nonWCK persons (so they won't be programmed in the actions), gear up, begin in contact or at very close range, and just fight, really fight. Go all out. Do that over and over (I have). See for yourself what that is really like. And if you do this, you will see the NEED to control first, then strike. You'll see what happens to you if you don't. If anyone does this, they'll see. The people who won't do it never will.Terence has a point. How many streetfights (;)) do we see where it ends up in the clinch and on the ground? Trying to control is a very "natural" response.

[k gledhill]

....natural of the untrained.

[k gledhill]

I never said that.

The method is to join, cut-off the oppnent's offense, destroy his structure, deliver our weapons, all the while sticking to him (dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi). And, as the kuit reminds us, when we lose contact (lut sao) we charge forward (jik chung) - to re-establish control.



That's a lovely theory, but it isn't going to happen. You're not going to knock anyone out, let alone with one punch. The WCK punch isn't a KO-generating type punch. And besides being unrealsitic, taht's a hugely risky strategy -- what happens when your "one punch KO" doesn't work?

The punch isn't the main finishing weapon of WCK. The punch is primarily to join. Consider the following two kuit. Yau Ying Da Ying - If you see form, strike form; no for, strike shadow. And, Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one.

Establishing a bridge, taht is a connection to the opponent whereby we can control him (the point of a bridge), is what provides our safety. It's a safety-first strategy. That way, if you control while striking, and your stike doesn't KO him, you still have control, and you still are safe.



And again, what he is talking about is those things that go into the punch, the body structure, the timing, etc. are the essense -- not the movement itself.

Perhaps the problem is that I know what Robert is talking about since I trained with him, and you don't as you haven't trained with him and you are reading into his statement your own views.



No one "plays the line" -- that's not fighting, nor is it what goes on in fighting. This is your fantasy of what fighting is like. Not only is your fantasy wrong, your history is wrong too. Sum, for example. fought all kinds of people, including wreslters, non-contact fighters, etc.

WCK has an approach to fighting, which comes from our ancestors. It is to control while striking. Are there times when you can forego control and simply strike? Sure. For example, if I hit you and it stuns you, I might release control to throw the kitchen sink at you. But that doesn't negate our approach.



You don't understand because you are not doing it. If you want to learn how to do it, go train with someone that knows the method.



They are not mutually exclusive. The attacking hand can be a striking hand that controls. For example, I strike your face with a palm strike and without losing contact from the strike, use that palm contact to control you. One motion.



What we do will be the same, how we set it up will vary with the opponent.



Dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi -- the faat -- could also be expressed as clinch, control, strike. Same idea. Can you clinch, control, and strike against a boxer? Can you do that against a bak mei guy? Sure. Same method. How you set up the entry into the clinch, what you do in the clinch, how you strike, will vary.



Of course this is my interpretation of WCK. That's all any of us have. But, mine is based on the classical faat of WCK.

Yes, I know this doesn't agree with what most people do, including many of the masters and grandmasters who can't fight worth beans. That mere fact -- that they can't fight worth beans -- ought to make you realize they have got many things wrong.



Granted. If someone has some approach that works, even if it is somethimg completely different than what I do, then it is valid. But, by works, I mean they can continuously use the tools (movements, actions) of WCK in fighting competent people. The trouble is we aren't seeing that.



Yes, I have changed "my stuff" -- this is called growth. And it comes from continually critically analyzing what I do, by continually taking myself out of my comfort zone, and by training with the best fighters I can.



Simplicity is the goal of all fighting methods. Do you think boxers don't want a one punch KO?

The trouble is you ahe a theory which is based on what you believe fighting will be like rather than what it is like. Go get some nonWCK persons (so they won't be programmed in the actions), gear up, begin in contact or at very close range, and just fight, really fight. Go all out. Do that over and over (I have). See for yourself what that is really like. And if you do this, you will see the NEED to control first, then strike. You'll see what happens to you if you don't. If anyone does this, they'll see. The people who won't do it never will.

you really have it all screwed up T....mixed up like a lot of guys...words translated to suit YOUR thinking, doesnt make it right ;)


saying that a VT punch cant KO speaks volumes about your abilities....Ive dropped more than I care to remember with vt punches....one punch usually .... sometimes open palm strikes to heads, Ive used low kicks, elbows ....mine all worked.:D

telling everyone to try what you did doesnt mean they will suc* like you. your teacher should show you some better stuff to use... more basic striking drills, I wrote a list but deleted it...why help .

you should work on your ego, it might allow some humility to actually learn a functional striking art.

[YungChun]

WCK and fighting has nothing to do with lines or moving them.

It is if you use it--and it's not if you toss it.

You can dissolve the idea and still use it.

But the idea is real, the tactics are real.. It is a mental tool, to explain an idea, yes an idea of action, but why the fixation on exactly how it is explained?

It's not the explanation/language that is the problem in WCK today.


What is this nonsense about no-two-objects-can-occupy-the-sam-space-at-the-same-time? So what?

You don't know?

Then how can you use WCK tools?

You must have a very unusual use of the tools.. Either that or you are FOS and know exactly what the 'theory is'...

It's really simple. As distance closes timing changes.. (the line/space narrows)

Some modern combative teachers call it the Kill Zone--close range..

At this close range there is no time to deviate from the shortest path and little time to adapt--the closer the less time.

The centerline dominates (more clearly) at this distance--position/timing rules ever more.

If I control this space you do not (of done correctly).. I have a timing/positional advantage.

Similar to fencing.. Hell I bet you could even find parallels in Chess theory.

Most all of WCK is based on (getting to close range then) occupying this line, leaving this line, taking this line and returning to this line..

In order to generate Forward Spring Energy™ and 'Dynamically Aligned Body Power™' in an 'Unbroken Line of Force™down this line/space to their center in order to destroy them and their structure. Lots of ways to do this...
(I know you love this stuff... tm's for T)) LOL

We can move the line too... Cool no? :cool:

Often when we say 'return to' or 'occupy' or 'take' we mean to strike down the line to the target...

That'll be $100.00 please mail me a check... :D



Yes, I know. But breaking structure isn't control, just an element that assists in getting control. Unless your opponent is a complete scrub, you won't keep his structure broken by striking alone.

So how many times do you figure you need to hit the guy before he's done? Like 50? 100?

Have you ever hit anyone while not wearing gloves and your opponent not wearing headgear?

If you really think that a single well placed WCK or any other style/system/method can't KO any normal person then you have some kind of gap in your information.



I don't agree with Robert's statement, but I know what he means (having trained with him).

{snip}

For example, the punch permits us to project our body structure into an opponent (off-setting him), to join, to break structure, to clear the way for our body to move in, etc.


Hey totally agree with this... And sure you may well need to control more... but there ARE cases when you don't... And if you are doing the above you ARE doing WCK w/o active control assistance... (ACA ) Let's patent that.. ;)

Do you agree that WCK does not chase hands?

Or do you think there are times when WCK needs to reach for the hand?

If you are going to hit folks with your bare hand with intent then I am sure you would find the results more damaging that you are used to with all the gear.. The fist and the palms, etc, can be very destructive, more so than you seem to give them credit for..


Yes we can all make our arts functional, however claiming functional exclusivity is another matter entirely.

So you say you have some preferred control first use of WCK (see I didn't say system) :)

You seem to suggest that we don't know what it is.....

So why not show us what it is?

I mean really, if you claim to use WCK in a way that you believe no one else (or very few) do and you feel it is the correct/better way I see no reason why you shouldn't show it--or at least show some example of it.

I don't consider myself that good but I see mainly junk on the net..

So at some point I would like to share what I do... Why not do the same? It's not like it's going to hurt the state of the art.....

[k gledhill]

Terence have you ever had a fight without gloves and head gear ? seen what your punch will do unprotected with 'mittens' ? :D VT is after all a bare knuckle fighting system...er to some ;)

"gear up" doesnt really happen when you fight outside the confines of a gym. So you need conditioned hands , fists, palms, we even had a large rectangular canvas shaped bag stuck to a basement wall for front kicks , full of 'shingle' aka rocks ; ).....hitting with gloves on ?, even my old sifu told me they wont do any damage....a warning he gave me for 'sporting' exchanges with others.
pillow fighting....step to me T I'll show a punch :D


fighting with gloves and head gear will alter how you fight with the system, leading to a need to control first because your punches aren't doing what they are intended to er ...do.
channel energy from ground to fist, then it meets padding :D

Padding of a glove alone adds several inches to you timing , throws it off ....you start to open up your elbows for more power...clinching and striking from a clinch...just to stop getting hit yourself...controlling ...


try hitting without gloves on...make sure your unprotected knuckles dont hit the skull....you will break your knuckles...but Im sure you learned this from accidents fighting yourself....Hmmm :D then used a open hand strike instead when a guy dropped his head down as he came at you ...right ..you did this too ? no

have a guy shoot at you while you slam him full force on top of his head with an open palm strike... ..try a full force facing twisting fist to a guys jaw ...ones elbows should be slightly bent on contact and you will be fairly close up to them...like a phone booth ; ) if they have a wall behind them their head will bounce off it with as much force as the punch you hit them with...like a 1-2 combo hah ! did that too ?

I found from 'experience' hitting people that the idea of using chasing hands , controlling, goes out the window...many dont require it. the ones that swing first and miss may over turn and set themselves up for a trapping pak to the elbow, simple, charge into the nearest parked car/wall, as you hit them into Unconsciousness....done that too huh, actually experienced the reality of koing a guy outside the gym....not knowing if they had training in a mma or not ? maybe they thai boxed ? does it matter when they are ko'd at your feet ?

[t_niehoff]

It is if you use it--and it's not if you toss it.

You can dissolve the idea and still use it.

But the idea is real, the tactics are real.. It is a mental tool, to explain an idea, yes an idea of action, but why the fixation on exactly how it is explained?

It's not the explanation/language that is the problem in WCK today.


No, it's theoretical twaddle, and isn't what really goes on. "Dissolve the idea" -- what a load of BS.



You don't know?

Then how can you use WCK tools?

You must have a very unusual use of the tools.. Either that or you are FOS and know exactly what the 'theory is'...

It's really simple. As distance closes timing changes.. (the line/space narrows)

Some modern combative teachers call it the Kill Zone--close range..

At this close range there is no time to deviate from the shortest path and little time to adapt--the closer the less time.

The centerline dominates (more clearly) at this distance--position/timing rules ever more.

If I control this space you do not (of done correctly).. I have a timing/positional advantage.

Similar to fencing.. Hell I bet you could even find parallels in Chess theory.

Most all of WCK is based on (getting to close range then) occupying this line, leaving this line, taking this line and returning to this line..

In order to generate Forward Spring Energy™ and 'Dynamically Aligned Body Power™' in an 'Unbroken Line of Force™down this line/space to their center in order to destroy them and their structure. Lots of ways to do this...
(I know you love this stuff... tm's for T)) LOL

We can move the line too... Cool no? :cool:

Often when we say 'return to' or 'occupy' or 'take' we mean to strike down the line to the target...

That'll be $100.00 please mail me a check... :D


That'a all complete ,theoretical nonsense. And is a perfect example of why people can't make WCK work.



So how many times do you figure you need to hit the guy before he's done? Like 50? 100?


I don't "figure" -- I don't base what I do on speculation, I base what I do on actual results.



Have you ever hit anyone while not wearing gloves and your opponent not wearing headgear?

If you really think that a single well placed WCK or any other style/system/method can't KO any normal person then you have some kind of gap in your information.


This is just your theory (it should work that way), and it is wrong. If you actually fought, you'd know that.



Hey totally agree with this... And sure you may well need to control more... but there ARE cases when you don't... And if you are doing the above you ARE doing WCK w/o active control assistance... (ACA ) Let's patent that.. ;)

Do you agree that WCK does not chase hands?

Or do you think there are times when WCK needs to reach for the hand?


WCK does not DO anything ("WCK does not chase hands"). As the strategic goal of our method (which comesfrom our ancestors) is to control while strking, WE chase control. Can this involve reaching for our opponent's hand/arm? Sure. But you don't want to reach for punches when unattached.



If you are going to hit folks with your bare hand with intent then I am sure you would find the results more damaging that you are used to with all the gear.. The fist and the palms, etc, can be very destructive, more so than you seem to give them credit for..


The only gear we typically wear when sparring is a mouthpiece, cup, shin guards(sometimes), and gloves. I'm sure that a bare fist will provide a little bit more zip, but that it won't be significantly more powerful (I've been hit with and without gloves). Again, your ideas are all theory.



Yes we can all make our arts functional, however claiming functional exclusivity is another matter entirely.


I don't agree that everyone can make what they are doing functional.

Many people seem to believe that you can do just about anything and if you practice it enough, you can make it work. Well, it doesn't work that way. In fact, it works the other way round -- you need to start with what works in fighting and then practice that.



So you say you have some preferred control first use of WCK (see I didn't say system) :)


It's not my preference -- it is simply what you NEED to do when you are close (when you are in the phonebooth). It's the same with the ground, when you are on the ground, you need to control your opponent. If you don't, all sorts of terrible things happen! That's not my personal preference but what ANYONE who fights on the ground will see that they need to do. And anyone who has spent any significant amount of time fighting on the ground will recognize that. Similarly, ANYONE who has put in significant time fighting on the inside (in the phonebooth) will recognize that you need to control your opponent -- that this is priority number one. That isn't theory, it is what we call one of the demands of the range. When people don't know this, I know they have spent little to no time fighting on the inside.




You seem to suggest that we don't know what it is.....

So why not show us what it is?

I mean really, if you claim to use WCK in a way that you believe no one else (or very few) do and you feel it is the correct/better way I see no reason why you shouldn't show it--or at least show some example of it.


Seeing me do it wouldn't help you -- you can see what MMA fighters do and it hasn't helped you. The ONLY thing that will help you is to DO it yourself, to experience it yourself. As I told you, get some training partners, gear up, start in contact or very close, and fight (in the phone booth), really fight (at least 80% full-out, power). If you DO put in the work, you will see. This is the bottom line: If you don't do that work (fighting in the phonebooth), you will never get it. The only one who can do it is you. No one can give it to you.



I don't consider myself that good but I see mainly junk on the net..

So at some point I would like to share what I do... Why not do the same? It's not like it's going to hurt the state of the art.....

The only thing worth sharing is experience. If you want to share in our experience, you are welcome to visit.

[LSWCTN1]

The only gear we typically wear when sparring is a mouthpiece, cup, shin guards(sometimes), and gloves. I'm sure that a bare fist will provide a little bit more zip, but that it won't be significantly more powerful (I've been hit with and without gloves). Again, your ideas are all theory.



Sorry T, you're not always wrong as such, just a little boring. like a stuck record.

on this you ARE wrong. if it is not 'significantly more powerful' then why bother with gloves? after all, you are the advocate that; You can only learn fighting, by fighting.

it either is 'significantly more powerful' so you wear gloves for protection (a fairly sensible idea) or it is not @significantly more powerful' so you practise as close to reality as you can. without gloves.

[t_niehoff]

Sorry T, you're not always wrong as such, just a little boring. like a stuck record.

on this you ARE wrong. if it is not 'significantly more powerful' then why bother with gloves? after all, you are the advocate that; You can only learn fighting, by fighting.

it either is 'significantly more powerful' so you wear gloves for protection (a fairly sensible idea) or it is not @significantly more powerful' so you practise as close to reality as you can. without gloves.

MMA gloves themselves provide only minimal padding (4oz) and so the padding doesn't take much off of the punch. What really protects your hand isn't so much the gloves as it is the the wrapping underneath which provides structural support to the wrist and hand (preventing injuries by, for example, your wrist collapsing ot twisting or being mis-aligned under the power of a strike). If you've boxed and ever hit a heavy bag, you will wear bag gloves - some people only use cheap cotton gloves - to protect your hand from abrasions. But, they still wrap their hands to provide the support (so that you are less likely to injure your hand by a strike that is slightly off).

[k gledhill]

I dont use n'or have I wrapped up before a fight :D bare hands is the wck way right T ?

you have had bare knuckle fights with fists ..palms right ? you have ko'd guys ? experienced it...how many ? :D

ever had a fight out of the gym ? hmmmm :D


we have a drill to show the precise point of impact for maximum force ..by changing the distances suddenly it is easy to show the loss of force from bad timing alone....gloves would make the transition to bare knuckles throw it off ....only take a couple of inches to steal force.

[YungChun]

No, it's theoretical twaddle, and isn't what really goes on. "Dissolve the idea" -- what a load of BS.

That'a all complete ,theoretical nonsense. And is a perfect example of why people can't make WCK work.

This is just your theory (it should work that way), and it is wrong. If you actually
fought, you'd know that.

Again my experience must be yours right? No you're being an azz.

This is simply the driving engine of WCK.. If you don't use the centerline then you are not doing WCK.

I walk the string.. Apparently you walk the bow..

You don't follow the kuit you mock it because you apparently never figured out how to use the concepts. You really don't understand what WCK is... To you it's MMA clinch fighting, with some MT and BJJ thown in, what a joke.

You dispute the usefulness of the centerline so clearly you don't use it and certainly don't understand it.. My opponent is always leaving the line, this allows me to take the line... That is WCK, which has other elements but the core of WCK is the centerline... To dispute this is to admit you don't do WCK.

Lots of styles control close range WCK uses the centerline... Everyone knows that which is probably why you won't show what you do because you know all you would hear is you are not doing WCK...

Chicken or the egg...

When I first started sparring things were very tough.. I made very little progress.. The training method there was go and fight and figure it out.. The truth is that this 'twaddle' which amounts to a handful of close range tactics helped me find a direction and strategy in my sparring.. As a result I got better not worse thank you...



WCK does not DO anything ("WCK does not chase hands"). As the strategic goal of our method (which comesfrom our ancestors) is to control while strking, WE chase control. Can this involve reaching for our opponent's hand/arm? Sure.

Again if you don't get this you don't get WCK and calling what you do WCK is a real stretch..



The only gear we typically wear when sparring is a mouthpiece, cup, shin guards(sometimes), and gloves. I'm sure that a bare fist will provide a little bit more zip, but that it won't be significantly more powerful (I've been hit with and without gloves). Again, your ideas are all theory.


No it's reality.. Many untrained grown men can KO folks with one shot..

You are suggesting it seems that WCK nor any other art can KO someone with a single strike, which is absurd.. Even with two strikes the same issues are in play, you need no additional control for it to be WCK.. Only in your anal retentive verbose version of "WCK" is this the case.

The point is that this happens all the time in fighting in general.. If you can't hit hard enough (in the kill zone) to do major damage with one strike then you have no power.. This isn't my theory it's my experience and common sense, as hard as it is for you to fathom over the last 20 years, yes, I have hit people without gloves and found the results devastating...

[LSWCTN1]

MMA gloves themselves provide only minimal padding (4oz) and so the padding doesn't take much off of the punch. What really protects your hand isn't so much the gloves as it is the the wrapping underneath which provides structural support to the wrist and hand (preventing injuries by, for example, your wrist collapsing ot twisting or being mis-aligned under the power of a strike). If you've boxed and ever hit a heavy bag, you will wear bag gloves - some people only use cheap cotton gloves - to protect your hand from abrasions. But, they still wrap their hands to provide the support (so that you are less likely to injure your hand by a strike that is slightly off).

Boxers wrap because they dont train the 'hand structure' per se. a significant part of wing chun, IMO, is learning HOW to hit correctly.

like you say, you cant learn it if you dont practise it.

but maybe you shouldnt be at the level of all out sparring if you havent mastered the basics...

[LoneTiger108]

Coming from a recent clip added to Youtube, you can see Lee Shing demonstrating the 'half pole' discussed previously in the thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dD6_7mzAQs

Just a final attempt to re-ignite the thread, but my hopes of it actually staying on subject are quite slim... :rolleyes:

Where is your clip of Wing Chun Pole? Surely there are more out there...

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;995324]Coming from a recent clip added to Youtube, you can see Lee Shing demonstrating the 'half pole' discussed previously in the thread
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link to Goh and the Lee Shing clip. Videos can be problematic without specifying the context of what is being shown. Is the purpose development of some attribute or is it an application? What is being developed in the pole clip? If it is an application- I don't hold the pole that way. It may look speedy but effective power could be a problem.
On the chum kiu- I understand what his feet are doing- but he has a postural slant- but then his system apparently does/did have slant body structure(s).

No argumnet- justa comparative observation. It's the first clip of Lee Shing that I have seen.Thx.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

No argumnet- justa comparative observation. It's the first clip of Lee Shing that I have seen.Thx.

Joy this is the first time ANYONE outside the family has seen the clips! So it's good to get some feedback, critical or not IMO.

The pole segment is edited from the full pole form that Lee Shing taught. The pole generally is held with a yum yeurng palm (one facing up/one facing down) for all but one point and the half pole section. It is equivalent to seurng (double) bong sau where both palms face down. Used as a quarter staff for when your long pole strategy is lost and the opponent gets inside.

I accept the clips for what they are. Just a guide to the basic Ip Man curriculum, as this is what Lee Shing promoted in the UK at the time. The knife and pole was never talked about back then, so the three hand forms and wooden man is all they had to work with. The slant comment makes sense and is quite common in our family and a good observation.

Lee Shing was also quite old in these clips (in his 60's) and his posture suffered from many gruelling years working in the kitchens and restaurants. Still, from what I was told, he still was untouchable according to all his young students!

[chusauli]

Lee Shing's use of the pole is unlike any other - from where does this double end method stem from?

[LoneTiger108]

Lee Shing's use of the pole is unlike any other - from where does this double end method stem from?

That's one for the elders to share! As I've said before it's our half pole method.

FWIW As far as I'm aware, Lee Shing already had the 6 point 1/2 pole before meeting with Ip Man in Hong Kong, so take your pick of Sifu! Our speculations before tended to lean heavily towards Fung Sang, but Ng Jung Soh was a great Martial artist too apparently and Lee Shing learnt from both prior to Ip Man.

Same old question really, just because it's 'unlike any other' does that automatically mean it's not true? Or not Wing Chun?

I don't practise sticky hands like every one else either and we tend to have names for every posture or movement... :rolleyes:

[chusauli]

That's one for the elders to share! As I've said before it's our half pole method.

FWIW As far as I'm aware, Lee Shing already had the 6 point 1/2 pole before meeting with Ip Man in Hong Kong, so take your pick of Sifu! Our speculations before tended to lean heavily towards Fung Sang, but Ng Jung Soh was a great Martial artist too apparently and Lee Shing learnt from both prior to Ip Man.

Same old question really, just because it's 'unlike any other' does that automatically mean it's not true? Or not Wing Chun?

I don't practise sticky hands like every one else either and we tend to have names for every posture or movement... :rolleyes:



WCK is defined as simple, direct, economical movement in the moment. If you do that, its WCK; if not, it's not. Is that the function of Lee Shing's half point? It seems like you stay on the line of attack, and not change the centerline when you use the butt end.

In Augustine Fong's set, one uses the butt end as well.

Does Fung Sang play the 3.5 point pole the same?

Did Lee Shing complete the system under Ng Jing So?

What excerpts are shown are Yip Man's HK WCK, not Ng Jung So's or Fung Sang's. Although I have seen a version of your Dai Nim Tao and think that is Pien San WCK.

As for your sticking hands (not "sticky hands" which can be thought of as "wanking"), what is different? The Fung Sang Pien San WCK roll? What different names have you?

[LoneTiger108]

WCK is defined as simple, direct, economical movement in the moment. If you do that, its WCK; if not, it's not. Is that the function of Lee Shing's half point? It seems like you stay on the line of attack, and not change the centerline when you use the butt end.

Again, this 'half point' doesn't exist! I use the 'half pole' method to defend and attack with the pole at close range. As for lines of attack, I'm not sure what you mean here.


In Augustine Fong's set, one uses the butt end as well.

Does Fung Sang play the 3.5 point pole the same?

Did Lee Shing complete the system under Ng Jing So?

What excerpts are shown are Yip Man's HK WCK, not Ng Jung So's or Fung Sang's. Although I have seen a version of your Dai Nim Tao and think that is Pien San WCK.

Another load of questions for the elders to answer I think. As for DNT, I dare not comment!


As for your sticking hands (not "sticky hands" which can be thought of as "wanking"), what is different? The Fung Sang Pien San WCK roll? What different names have you?

That's also something for another thread Robert, but FWIW Chisau for me is just one way to interact, we did have many interactions that all had varied purpose (other than sticking)

[LoneTiger108]

Someone just guided me to this clip of Uncle Sifu Samuel Kwok demonstrating some of his pole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wgAnbACOY&feature=player_embedded

This is what is taught by the Ip Family today.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Someone just guided me to this clip of Uncle Sifu Samuel Kwok demonstrating some of his pole.



:D:D:D:D:D
Too easy.

[CFT]

Well well, doesn't youtube throw up some wonderful finds?

This should interest you Spencer: "Sum Nung Wing Chun" substyle, short pole (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJadrTsQZCo)

[chusauli]

Someone just guided me to this clip of Uncle Sifu Samuel Kwok demonstrating some of his pole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wgAnbACOY&feature=player_embedded

This is what is taught by the Ip Family today.

Looks more like Yip Chun's pole. Yip Ching's pole is different...

IMO, this set was played with a lot of local arm power. The thrusting could be more precise. Maybe a bad day.

[LoneTiger108]

Well well, doesn't youtube throw up some wonderful finds?

This should interest you Spencer: "Sum Nung Wing Chun" substyle, short pole (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJadrTsQZCo)

Thanks for sharing. I think I mentioned this clip somewhere on here, but I'm losing track these days!

This is more in line with a practise I've done utilizing our sixth point, as you will notice a lot of shifting in the hands to still achieve a long reach with the pole itself (they don't stay in the middle of the pole like my half pole)

A great little 'sub-set' and believe me Wing Chun is FULL of stuff like this IMHO or at least the Wing Chun I've been exposed to is :D


Looks more like Yip Chun's pole. Yip Ching's pole is different...

IMO, this set was played with a lot of local arm power. The thrusting could be more precise. Maybe a bad day.

For someone that likes to criticise so much Robert, I still have yet to see a clip of YOU actually performing one of your many poles forms :rolleyes:

Although the critique may be just, Sifu Kwok is currently being taught by both brothers and I'm sure if Ip Ching has another practise that he would know that too!

[CFT]

IMO, sifu Kwok does look quite stiff in that clip. It did look like he was muscling it rather than using his horse. I was very surprised by the way he "threw" the pole down at the end of the set. Pretty sure it was a bad day/week/month/year. Not a performance to be recorded for posterity and put up on youtube!

[hunt1]

Robert that is basically Ip Ching pole set. Yip Chuns is different. I have Ip Ching on tape doing the pole minor differences but based on tapes I have ip Ching does tend to perform forms differently over the years. IE. The wooden dummy he performs now has some small differences from the one he taught in 1996. More choreography than anything
substantive


.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqYgCm9MPlA Link to Sam doing the pole last year in Foshan I believe.

CFT Ip Ching ends the form the same way or at least has when i have seen him.

As for arms usage and not using the horse. In baseball ,tennis golf and lifting you are taught to use your legs and waist for power and keep your arms relaxed. I think anyone that has played any of those sports knows that when you grip the club,bat,racket hard and try to swing with all your might your results are not nearly as good as when you are relaxed and swinging without much of any thought in your mind as to how hard etc just nice mind clearing focus on the activity. How this applies to wing chun I haven't a clue.

[chusauli]

When you throw the pole down, it is considered bad form and taste in martial society. :eek:

Spencer, next time I'm in UK, you can cross staffs with me. I'm sure we will have fun with the pole.

Hunt, thanks for the clarification between Yip Ching and Yip Chun sets. IMO, the way Leung Ting, WSL, TST, and others played the set is more consistent, than the two Yip brothers. And of the two brothers, Yip Ching is clearly the more proficient with the pole.

When you have to pull back the pole to thrust past the Tai Gwun position (i.e. past your shoulders), it is not a good thing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

IMO, sifu Kwok does look quite stiff in that clip.

ROTFLMAO !!!
And this in a thread about Poles !!
LOL !!

[chusauli]

ROTFLMAO !!!
And this in a thread about Poles !!
LOL !!

I prefer to call my WCK pole the Ji Ng Gwun (12:00 Pole), rather than Luk Dim Boon Gwun (6:30 pole). :)

Some WCK pole players do need some viagra. :)

[LoneTiger108]

When you throw the pole down, it is considered bad form and taste in martial society. :eek:

Spencer, next time I'm in UK, you can cross staffs with me. I'm sure we will have fun with the pole.

Considering your last comment, I don't think you should preach about 'taste' in Martial Society! ;)

I don't know how to feel about this offer Robert. :o

[chusauli]

Should the pot call the kettle black, Spencer? Crossing poles can be fun in an exchange.

Throwing down your weapon shows no finesse, especially when you complete a set.

Many WCK people don't even salute when they begin a form or end a form, and simply get up and walk away.

[CFT]

Throwing down your weapon shows no finesse, especially when you complete a set.

Many WCK people don't even salute when they begin a form or end a form, and simply get up and walk away.We should treasure our weapons. Also what does it represent to be divesting yourself of your weapon(s)? If nothing else it is bloomin' noisy. Imagine throwing your knives down to the floor as well.

As to the salute, I was never taught to salute at the beginning or end of forms. Perhaps if doing a public performance? I always bowed/saluted practice partners.

[LoneTiger108]

Should the pot call the kettle black, Spencer? Crossing poles can be fun in an exchange.

I don't recall me talking of a 12 o'clock pole Robert! That's what I was refering to here. Its all good fun mate, of course I would be honoured to cross poles with you.


We should treasure our weapons. Also what does it represent to be divesting yourself of your weapon(s)? If nothing else it is bloomin' noisy. Imagine throwing your knives down to the floor as well.

I see Uncle Kwok 'place' the pole back to the floor, tip to base, which I can only presume is the way he was shown. Personally, I agree with you both. As for the knives, I've never seen people use the scabbard as I do either to open and close.


As to the salute, I was never taught to salute at the beginning or end of forms. Perhaps if doing a public performance? I always bowed/saluted practice partners.

Great point! And something I noticed at my beginnings. I was taught as a performer first, so a salutation (cheng lai) was mandatory.

[bennyvt]

yip never taught the pole using chop sticks. The story goes wsl was hassling yip to learn the knives. He had been doing it for heaps and yip went ok here it is. He used chop sticks as the knives. The next day yip man come in and wsl was doing the form. Yip obviously thought **** i got to show him properly. But from what i heard yip personally taught leung sheung the knives and lok yui the pole then got them to show everyone else as yip was pretty old by then.

[LoneTiger108]

But from what i heard yip personally taught leung sheung the knives and lok yui the pole then got them to show everyone else as yip was pretty old by then.

Interesting comment :cool:

There has been claims in the Lee Shing family of Ip Man actually passing his knives to Lee Shing, but I couldn't comment as I wasn't there. I know the 'design' is very similar to his set I saw in the Foshan museum.

Lok Yiu was mentioned and very highly respected by my Sifu as a Pole man. Both he and Jiu Wan were very good friends with Lee Shing too, introducing him to Ip Man I understand.

It would be good to see somemore variations of pole plays from these lineages, can anyone help? I recently found clips of Jason Lau, and this one has an interesting pole demo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2plEC4adSw

[LoneTiger108]

Jim Fung Wing Chun Pole Form

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CP0t9fAQ8&feature=related

Fung Siu Ching Wing Chun Pole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoVk4LMlljw&feature=related

[YouKnowWho]

Jim Fung Wing Chun Pole Form

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CP0t9fAQ8&feature=related

Fung Siu Ching Wing Chun Pole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoVk4LMlljw&feature=related
Both pole forms look like spear forms to me. What happen to the spear head?

[Phil Redmond]

Again, this 'half point' doesn't exist! I use the 'half pole' method to defend and attack with the pole at close range. As for lines of attack, I'm not sure what you mean here. . . . .
The Bun Dim DOES exist is some people's pole form.

[Phil Redmond]

yip never taught the pole using chop sticks. The story goes wsl was hassling yip to learn the knives. He had been doing it for heaps and yip went ok here it is. He used chop sticks as the knives. The next day yip man come in and wsl was doing the form. Yip obviously thought **** i got to show him properly. But from what i heard yip personally taught leung sheung the knives and lok yui the pole then got them to show everyone else as yip was pretty old by then.
Logically to make a blanket statement as to what Yip Man did or didn't do would require a person to have been with him 24/7. Since that can't be the case blanket statements would be illogical.

[Vajramusti]

Logically to make a blanket statement as to what Yip Man did or didn't do would require a person to have been with him 24/7. Since that can't be the case blanket statements would be illogical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phol- benny just repeated what he had heard. No harm in that. No one followed Ip Man 24/7
besides Ip Man. History is full of stories.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

The Bun Dim DOES exist is some people's pole form.

I understand your 'point' Phil, as most guys I know relate this 1/2 point to a semi-circle/half moon motion or even using the butt end of the pole.

What I'm saying is that is not the way I know.

No half point, just half pole! ;)

[Vajramusti]

The six and a half points are not necessarily related to six and a half motions, because there are more than six and a half possible motions and points in using the wing chun 8 foot pole.

joy chaudhuri

[Phil Redmond]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phol- benny just repeated what he had heard. No harm in that. No one followed Ip Man 24/7
besides Ip Man. History is full of stories.

joy chaudhuri
Yes it is.

[LoneTiger108]

Both pole forms look like spear forms to me. What happen to the spear head?

I think it got left embedded in them soldiers! ;)

[Phil Redmond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23HVnmTmUE

[SAAMAG]

Dude Cheung looked to be in decent shape way back when!

[LoneTiger108]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23HVnmTmUE

Nice clip Phil. Thanks for posting.

Did Sifu Cheung change his pole form in any way like he has with the empty hand forms? It would be interesting to have your input...

[Phil Redmond]

Nice clip Phil. Thanks for posting.

Did Sifu Cheung change his pole form in any way like he has with the empty hand forms? It would be interesting to have your input...
There might be some slight variations but the 6 1/2 strikes remain the same.

[LoneTiger108]

There might be some slight variations but the 6 1/2 strikes remain the same.

And how would you explain/teach these 6 1/2 'strikes' from the form displayed in the clip?

It's only I find this subject more interesting than any other, as like Biu Jee and the knife work of Wing Chun, everyone seems to be on an individual tip and there's not much similarity among family across the board.

[Vajramusti]

And how would you explain/teach these 6 1/2 'strikes' from the form displayed in the clip?

It's only I find this subject more interesting than any other, as like Biu Jee and the knife work of Wing Chun, everyone seems to be on an individual tip and there's not much similarity among family across the board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a family??? Gasp!!!!

Perhaps across the bored.

joy chaudhuri

[WC1277]

Decent video Ed from 'Windy City' made about some important basic principles involving the pole in regards to using the body, not hands. Non-lineage specific so let's try not to get into a **** measuring contest here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2of677u-A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[LoneTiger108]

I always like to see people exchange ideas about the Wing Chun pole, but I have to say something about this clip because it is a very good example of Ip Mans idea. There is no 'form' it's just sets of exercises ;)

Yes, that's true. But this is not the whole truth about the pole at all. :cool:

[k gledhill]

Decent video Ed from 'Windy City' made about some important basic principles involving the pole in regards to using the body, not hands. Non-lineage specific so let's try not to get into a **** measuring contest here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2of677u-A&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Thanks for posting interesting to be able to see another pole idea...

[Vajramusti]

I always like to see people exchange ideas about the Wing Chun pole, but I have to say something about this clip because it is a very good example of Ip Mans idea. There is no 'form' it's just sets of exercises ;)

Yes, that's true. But this is not the whole truth about the pole at all. :cool:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the whole truth?

[LoneTiger108]

What is the whole truth?

It is nothing but the truth Joy :)

Something I fear has been missing for some time with regards to our Weaponry practises.

[LoneTiger108]

As an example, I ask if anyone uses methods like this where empty hand and weaponry sets are connected to broaden our understanding:

"I finished the day by sharing a simple pole technique that helps to understand our arrow fist set, something that is unique to the Lee Shing family of Wing Chun. By using the first set of the pole form we connect salutation methods into fierce attacking movements that penetrate the straight lines into an opponent, taking them down to the floor using phoenix eyes and hanging elbows and fists!"

Taken from my article here
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1147512&postcount=67

[Vajramusti]

It is nothing but the truth Joy :)

Something I fear has been missing for some time with regards to our Weaponry practises.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't follow- but then I am not a Lee Sing guy.

[LoneTiger108]

I don't follow- but then I am not a Lee Sing guy.

This isn't just Lee Shing people I am talking about Joy, although I do know that we have never publically released our pole form out of respect, because it wasn't taught by Ip Man.

When was the last time you actually saw a decent Wing Chun weaponry demonstration, or the pole and knives sparring?

Personally, I think it's because the knowledge is with very few individuals, and hasn't been promoted so much to the public. And unfortunately, without it, we will continue to see 'adaptions' and such things as Filipino cross-training to fill-in the gaps.

For me, the weaponry is the soul of Wing Chun and so without it (and with limited ideas like in the clip) we will lose our way. If this hasn't happend to many already?!

[Vajramusti]

This isn't just Lee Shing people I am talking about Joy, although I do know that we have never publically released our pole form out of respect, because it wasn't taught by Ip Man.

((I don't follow the reasoning))

When was the last time you actually saw a decent Wing Chun weaponry demonstration, or the pole and knives sparring?

((Quite a few times))

Personally, I think it's because the knowledge is with very few individuals, and hasn't been promoted so much to the public. And unfortunately, without it, we will continue to see 'adaptions' and such things as Filipino cross-training to fill-in the gaps.

((FWIW Ip man taught only about 4 people the bot jam do systematically and a few more the kwan. One movement shot of Lee Sing that I saw with the pole was quite different from Ip man principles. There are non IM versions of usage--I know, I know))joy


For me, the weaponry is the soul of Wing Chun and so without it (and with limited ideas like in the clip) we will lose our way. If this hasn't happend to many already?!

((Well-- there are opinions....))Joy

[LoneTiger108]

FWIW Ip man taught only about 4 people the bot jam do systematically and a few more the kwan. One movement shot of Lee Sing that I saw with the pole was quite different from Ip man principles. There are non IM versions of usage--I know, I know))joy

This is my point, although you are playiong with words Joy. Wing Chun is not governed by Ip Mans 'principles', they have been there all along. Ip Man simply disgarded many older methods in favour of his own ideas. And obviously some of his students decided to use words like 'scientific' and 'practical', 'close quarters' or whatever!

And my point is that Lee Shings pole form is put together totally differently than Ip Mans set because it has not been cut down or minimized in any way. As far as I know, it's as close to the original form than anything else I have seen (in Wing Chun!) Not to mention the 3.5 point pole from the Fung family he had too.


Well-- there are opinions....

I realize this. And all opinions have their individual worth.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1147720]This is my point, although you are playiong with words Joy. Wing Chun is not governed by Ip Mans 'principles', they have been there all along. Ip Man simply disgarded many older methods in favour of his own ideas. And obviously some of his students decided to use words like 'scientific' and 'practical', 'close quarters' or whatever!

((I am not playing with words-just trying to avoid misunderstandings. IMO, Ip Man worked on making wing chun economical, principle based, natural and clear-as I see it. Hence the changes from Chan Wah Shun's wing chun-remnants of which are still around))

And my point is that Lee Shings pole form is put together totally differently than Ip Mans set because it has not been cut down or minimized in any way. As far as I know, it's as close to the original form than anything else I have seen (in Wing Chun!) Not to mention the 3.5 point pole from the Fung family he had too.

((True that videos can mislead. But the videos I have seen of Lee Shing with a pole and another video of a student and Austin Goh's videos seem to make Lee Shing's wing chun quite different from Ip man's. I have seen the two pieces of Lee Shing's proteges dummy and stancing---again there are differences. Morse side body than Ip man. My point is only that there are vast differences between Lee Shing's wc and Ip man's wc. I do NOT criticize people who do Lee Shing wing chun or any other legitimate wc--excluding impostors like black flag etc)))

[LoneTiger108]

I am not playing with words-just trying to avoid misunderstandings.

That's cool.


True that videos can mislead. But the videos I have seen of Lee Shing with a pole and another video of a student and Austin Goh's videos seem to make Lee Shing's wing chun quite different from Ip man's.

My point. His pole was/is very different, but only because it's a 'form' not a set of exercises. Ip Mans is stripped of this richness imho. Still practical and useful but definitely not the same idea.


I have seen the two pieces of Lee Shing's proteges dummy and stancing---again there are differences. Morse side body than Ip man. My point is only that there are vast differences between Lee Shing's wc and Ip man's wc. I do NOT criticize people who do Lee Shing wing chun or any other legitimate wc--excluding impostors like black flag etc)))

:D I like the HKB BF comment!

You are right about the 'side body' concentration, but I don't really see this as a difference as such. It's just how it was when Lee Shing was learning.

I don't like to criticize others either, but I will add my opinions to threads I like and can see have some worth (like this one!)

[WC1277]

My point. His pole was/is very different, but only because it's a 'form' not a set of exercises. Ip Mans is stripped of this richness imho. Still practical and useful but definitely not the same idea.

All "forms" are "really" just collections of exercises organized to teach a point or principle/s. Just like Fong Sifu said (paraphrased) 'Forms are just Textbooks for the student and the teacher can organize or emphasize his syllabus anyway he feels as long as the subject is taught correctly.'

Think about newer college textbooks available today with all the fancy graphics and cool little diagrams. Do they have more "richness"? Maybe. Do the updated fancy graphics teach anything more than the textbooks we had when we were kids? Not really.

Just like with everything else in WC, lineage matters. Not in the ****ing contest kind of way but in the 'what principles are important and why' kind of way. Ip Man had a very specific set of principles that he emphasized regardless of what came before him. IMO he truly created a 'system' from both his experience with Chan Wan Shun and Leung Bik. To me, after seeing some of the others, it is obvious that both his intelligence and experience truly understood the importance of those principles and I am incredibly thankful for the teachers above me that have, not only truly understood those principles as well, but kept them pure as they've been passed down.

Mainland WC, all the other systems, don't matter much to me. I don't even call "my" WC "Fong's WC" for to each his own, but if the principles that Ip Man taught aren't there or have been convoluted or contraindicated, then I think it is very safe to say you're no longer doing "Hong Kong WC"....

[LoneTiger108]

All "forms" are "really" just collections of exercises organized to teach a point or principle/s. Just like Fong Sifu said (paraphrased) 'Forms are just Textbooks for the student and the teacher can organize or emphasize his syllabus anyway he feels as long as the subject is taught correctly.'

I agree, to a point. Some forms fme were put together systematically for very good reason, others can be played with more.

The pole form I have learnt is systematic and the reasons are intrinsically linked to SLT. You can drill any set in any order you like once they have all been understood, but the understanding comes from learning the sets 'in order'. ;)


Ip Man had a very specific set of principles that he emphasized regardless of what came before him. IMO he truly created a 'system' from both his experience with Chan Wan Shun and Leung Bik.

I agree, again! He did create a 'new' system which his sons righlty called his own, but he done this with very little research in comparison to my own Sigung (actually this was one of the reasons their respect for eachother was huge) If I was to be biased here, Lee Shing learnt from numerous sources from Kulo, Fatshan and HK so by your reasoning he was more versed in Wing Chun as a whole, learning from both the Chan Wah Suen and Wong Wah Bo lineages too!

There was a reason Ip Man selected Lee Shing as his first European Representative :) and one of them was for his expertise with weaponry, especially the pole.


Mainland WC, all the other systems, don't matter much to me. I don't even call "my" WC "Fong's WC" for to each his own, but if the principles that Ip Man taught aren't there or have been convoluted or contraindicated, then I think it is very safe to say you're no longer doing "Hong Kong WC"....

Wrong! ;)

We do cover the HK curriculum FIRST. It was always part of Lee Shings agreement with Ip Man. The HK curriculum was created for the westerner and college graduate, and so it was a simple case of 'supply on demand'. It was also supposed to be updated, but Ip Man died before this could happen and his sons chose to keep it more 'rigid' (if that's the right word?)

As much as this might offend people, I think all we are seeing from the mainland and other lineages is additional curriculum features that either were already there prior to HK or should have been included in various 'updates' since the seventies. But as we know this didn't happen, mainly because the loyalists refused to accept anything other than what they had been told, so we are left to be hoodwinked into believeing all this stuff is marketing ploys, both 'new' or 'original' and worse of all 'secret' :eek:

Wing Chun is Wing Chun, and I am interested in it's development as a whole because I am under no illusion that Ip Man had or knew everything. A great Martial Artist, yes. A great teacher? I would say a very 'clever' one! :cool: As too was my Sigung, which is reflected in the variations we have within our own family too.

Nobody can learn everything. So the clever teachers shared with more than one or two students. They spread the art among many and it is up to us to research and find out the differences and similarities between them, so we can best see the sheer depth of the art we call Wing Chun!

Rant over :D

[Paul T England]

Both WSL and Ip Ching families put alot of emphasis on the pole so to say Ip Man disregarded it or whatever is a sweeping statement.

Many people will not understand the pole as many will not understand forms, dummy, knives, basic stance, chain punching or whatever else. Understanding comes from either good instruction or lots of time and effort....

If you want to look at the original pole form, you may as well learn the 5th Son Staff from Hung Kuen....now that is a pole form!!!!!

I think its time people shared more at least in wing chun circles as we are currently the laughing stock of the martial arts world.

I have a long way to go but do promote the long pole to my students both for power development and for perfect wing chun theory. It can also be translated to empty hands.

Paul
www.moifa.co.uk

[LoneTiger108]

Both WSL and Ip Ching families put alot of emphasis on the pole so to say Ip Man disregarded it or whatever is a sweeping statement.

Not saying he disregarded it at all. Just minimized it down to suit the curriculum and teaching environment.


If you want to look at the original pole form, you may as well learn the 5th Son Staff from Hung Kuen....now that is a pole form!!!!!

Superb opinion and superb form, but unfortunately I don't agree!! You may as well look into the Lee Shing 6.5 pole form first surely, because that is Wing Chun!! ;) Just as I appreciate a good Ip Man 6.5 pole set.


I think its time people shared more at least in wing chun circles as we are currently the laughing stock of the martial arts world.

You see I don't think we are. Well, maybe HKB Eng Chun!? ;)

We are a laughing stock in the MMA world imho because we don't compete in their arena, so as sweeping statements go...

[LoneTiger108]

It is a good form... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrSji8CX9k0&feature=related

[Paul T England]

Ok a bit of a sweeping statement....although to most people MMA is the martial arts world!!!!

HKB Eng Chun....hmm no comment...

I would love to look at the Lee Shing version but all I have to go off is Master Austin Goh's dvds. Are they like Lee Shing version?

Going back to the clip from WCWC...I thought it was good and will def help some people make more sense of their pole training. Against Zombie attacks I would never choose the long pole!

Paul

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1147885]Not saying he disregarded it at all. Just minimized it down to suit the curriculum and teaching environment.

((Your opinion. What do you mean by minimization? When you lonk all the key Ip man pole drills
with directions including bagua directions-it is a form- a text for pole development. From what i have seen of Lee Shing and Austin Goh in pole usage -it's vast;y different from ip man. There is a lot of assitional footwork in Ip Man's kwan beyond the hand forms... informing body usage even without a pole))))

[LoneTiger108]

I would love to look at the Lee Shing version but all I have to go off is Master Austin Goh's dvds. Are they like Lee Shing version?

No, Sifu Gohs clips are similar in some ways to how I was taught, the order of sets etc but my Sifu was so much more fluid and traditional in his approach, using traditional salutations and a massive array of interactive pole v pole exercises. I also know Sifu Joe Lee teaches differently too ;)

FME We, as a family, have never released the full form anywhere. There is talk of it now but I still think it may never happen. :(

You're in the UK Paul, so if you ever visit London I will be honoured to share a little with you.

[LoneTiger108]

Your opinion. What do you mean by minimization?

I know it's only my opinion Joy but this opinion is born from many years of research and learning too, even though I am still very young I am very proud of my stick & pole skills originating from my Sifu, as taught by Lee Shing (although I can always improve!)

From the many examples I have seen from Ip Mans students, the pole concentrates on our first point (side body thrust) Like you say, this can be drilled in many formats but the basic set is very short and simple. There is no overhead striking, or encircling the body (which are the most common pole methods) and I can only summise that these were removed because of lack of space. Less footwork too, and as for the names of each set or movement?! There is a massive difference from place to place and I don't think there should be.

From my own learning, we also preferred to use smaller sticks before we progressed onto the pole and this entire idea is missing from the Ip Man method. It's a Shaolin method. The poles roots are in Shaolin, and this is what I mean by minimization.

I don't view that as 'bad' or 'incomplete' because I like the word 'refined' and that is what I believe Ip Man done to the whole system.

As my Sifu used to say "Ip Man done a great job, but just don't take any more away. Build and nurture what is already there"

[Paul T England]

I am not a fan of Austin's Pole DVD...hopefully I will meet him one day and have my views corrected.

Like all of Ip Man Wing Chun, the forms need to be studied, thought about and expanded to include essential fighting elements such as footwork, distance, angles and timing.

I like the idea that ip man systemised the system more and when you look at some of the older foshan versions, I personally really like hong kong style.

Would love to meet up with you when I next get a chance Spencer. Also if you are ever in Newcastle please let me know.

Paul

[Sean66]

From the many examples I have seen from Ip Mans students, the pole concentrates on our first point (side body thrust) Like you say, this can be drilled in many formats but the basic set is very short and simple. There is no overhead striking, or encircling the body (which are the most common pole methods)

With all due respect, Spencer, overhead striking and encircling the body are just not that pragmatic when you are wielding a long pole that lives up to its name....between 9 and 12 feet long. With this type of weapon (more akin to a spear) the basic side body thrust method is the most practical and effective.

Don't forget that the most basic long pole/spear techniques practiced in chinese martial arts are Zha (thrust) Lan (block) and Na (control).
There is also a well-known saying in regards to thrusting vs. overhead striking: One thrust (Zha) is worth a thousand chops (Pi).

Now if you're talking about pole/cudgel techniques using a weapon that comes up to your eyebrows or is a little higher than your head, overhead sriking, encircling the body, and using both ends to strike and parry becomes standard.

[LoneTiger108]

I am not a fan of Austin's Pole DVD...hopefully I will meet him one day and have my views corrected.

I know this doesn't sound great coming from a lee Shing family member, but I have NEVER been a fan of ANY Wing Chun DVDs! :eek: Including my own Uncles.


I like the idea that ip man systemised the system more and when you look at some of the older foshan versions, I personally really like hong kong style.

Me too. I would like to think that without this post 1950s development much of the earlier stuff becomes quite irrelevant. Just an opinion, but if you think a special 12 hand method is the key to everything I would ask anyone to think again lol!! SLT is a treasure we must all understand and Wing Chun without it just doesn't seem like Wing Chun to me. ;)


Would love to meet up with you when I next get a chance Spencer. Also if you are ever in Newcastle please let me know.

Paul

I'm sure I will let you know if I ever go that far North!! Furthest has been Birmingham so far, but you never know. I'm working on a few Seminar ideas for next year so keep in touch. :)

[LoneTiger108]

With all due respect, Spencer, overhead striking and encircling the body are just not that pragmatic when you are wielding a long pole that lives up to its name....between 9 and 12 feet long. With this type of weapon (more akin to a spear) the basic side body thrust method is the most practical and effective.

Thanks for sharing Sean, I do understand what you're saying here and think this is one of the core reasons the rest of the 'form' was excluded by Ip Man. But seriously, is that any reason to disregards the other pole sets within the form?? Overhead striking done well with a long pole can still be 'dim' accurate, it's not a hack or slash (unles you have a weapon attached!)

And the 9 or 12 ft thing needs explaining because that sounds like it's influenced by Taichi and old spear chatter! ;) The measurement for me is 7ft2".


Now if you're talking about pole/cudgel techniques using a weapon that comes up to your eyebrows or is a little higher than your head, overhead sriking, encircling the body, and using both ends to strike and parry becomes standard.

Yes this is where we introduce much of what I mention. And yes that is standard cudgel play. But ask yourself this, if you have no standard cudgel play and have never practised even that to a pretty high standard, do you really think you can understand the specifics and limits of the longer pole?

FME It is the cudgel that gives life to the pole. It simply doesn't work the other way round imho.

[wingchunIan]

From my own learning, we also preferred to use smaller sticks before we progressed onto the pole and this entire idea is missing from the Ip Man method. It's a Shaolin method. The poles roots are in Shaolin, and this is what I mean by minimization.


Hi Spencer, using shorter sticks to practice for the long pole would seem counter intuitive to me. They are totally different weapons and hence have to be trained and used in different ways (eskrima / Kali sticks are not simply shorter versions of the Bo which in turn isn't simply a shorter version of the long pole.). Shorter weapons have a different range of motion, different manouverability etc

[LoneTiger108]

They are totally different weapons and hence have to be trained and used in different ways (eskrima / Kali sticks are not simply shorter versions of the Bo which in turn isn't simply a shorter version of the long pole.)

That's not a decent comparison Ian imho. Double weaponry is totally different to single handed weaponry. And to be honest, unless you have learnt this way and trained as much as some peeps have, how would you know?

Check what I wrote above, because imho without the cudgel understanding and practise the pole will become irrelevant (or just a power building exercise). You need a balance of both. And maybe this is a massive statement to make, but I am talking about Martial Arts ability here. I'm trying to keep it real.

A person who first learns the pole with a full length and weight pole is destined to cause themselves injury. I've seen it and done it. It isn't right that we ask the next generations to remain guinea pigs when all the experimentation has been done already, is it?

It's like saying you have only ever used a generals spear, and I let a footsoldier loose on you with his spear and he pierces you through 10 times to your one move! Proper development is crucial ;)

[Sean66]

Spencer,

I've practiced extensively the liu he men (shoalin system) pole and spear sets, as well as yang shi taiji spear. And I agree, it's all good stuff.

The typical length of the long pole for HK wing chun is 9 feeet, but I think historically the length and width differed between regions/schools (on the mainland) and there was no standardized length.

It just depends on what weapon you want to practice with. A six foot pole and a nine foot pole lend themselves to different techniques. The nature of the weapon dictates what you're going to do with it.

Oh, and I don't agree that without cudgel practice the long pole or spear becomes irrelevant. In the taiji I practice we start out with the Da Qiang (more than 3 meters), and it is not only a tool for power development, but a great weapon.

[LoneTiger108]

Oh, and I don't agree that without cudgel practice the long pole or spear becomes irrelevant. In the taiji I practice we start out with the Da Qiang (more than 3 meters), and it is not only a tool for power development, but a great weapon.

With all respect, that's Taichi Sean. I understand that it's a great weapon too, so don't get me wrong, but the reasoning and purpose may be nothing to do with Wing Chun.

I was taught cudgel plays very early on, so as all the combinations of stepping and stance work were covered whilst learning SLT. These methods are identical with our pole too, so when we transitioned onto the longer/heavier weapon it made more sense and was easily learnt.

Just my personal experience, and I know it's 'outside the norm' in Wing Chun but it worked for me :)

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1148132]Thanks for sharing Sean, I do understand what you're saying here and think this is one of the core reasons the rest of the 'form' was excluded by Ip Man.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer- you are understandably devoted to your exposure to Lee Shin and his pole work via your sifu. But your comments on Ip Man and pole usage is underinformed. Ip man;s pole work was considerable. and included work on both sides and balanced and was not limited to up/down or sideways or angled thrusts. Ip Man pole usage when well taught was multi directional multi stanced both stable and mobile and had circles and lines in many directions and concept based.


And in passing far different from northern or taiji spear work.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer- you are understandably devoted to your exposure to Lee Shin and his pole work via your sifu. But your comments on Ip Man and pole usage is underinformed.

That may be true Joy, as I am only going by what I have been told and shown by very few Ip Man decendants (most notably WSL lineage) and as you must know the pole in any shape or form seems to be in very short supply in the UK.

I am simply putting my opinion across on what I have seen demonstrated a hundred times over. The form/set of Ip Man pole available to the public. Maybe you have a longer version from Sifu Fung or HKM?? I would love to see that, but I do not mean a sub-set of drills using directional practise like you described.

I am talking of the 'form' itself really, because in Windy Citys clip he clearly states that there is/was 'no form'.

This may not be the best example, but this is what is generally considered to be Ip Mans pole 'form', but what I am saying is that THIS is just one set, called Dai Yat Dim. The First Point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqYgCm9MPlA

If you can show more, please share!! :)

[wingchunIan]

That's not a decent comparison Ian imho. Double weaponry is totally different to single handed weaponry. And to be honest, unless you have learnt this way and trained as much as some peeps have, how would you know?

Check what I wrote above, because imho without the cudgel understanding and practise the pole will become irrelevant (or just a power building exercise). You need a balance of both. And maybe this is a massive statement to make, but I am talking about Martial Arts ability here. I'm trying to keep it real.


We have totally different opinions here. With reference to how long people have trained, it makes no odds to me, its quality over quantity for me every time and having trained martial arts for over thirty years, I've seen my fair share of veterans who were very very poor, but looked good in their fancy pygamas and coloured belts. My experience of pole weapons comes from a limited amount of japanese staff training and the wing chun pole coupled with plenty of altercations in my younger days where I've employed everything from bats to pool cues and scaffolding poles. IMO the Wing Chun pole training is devoted to using the wing chun pole (power development is an added bonus) as a weapon, there is no flowery periphery. The weighting of the pole and the focus of the energy make it completely different to shorter weapons and its shear size prohibits the twirling and circular actions characteristic of the shorter staffs. I've trained shorter staffs and have never found any cross over between the two. Not really sure what you are trying to say with your "massive statement". Keeping it real means using the pole as a weapon and training it in a realistic way, for me that means using the pole not a shorter version.
Each to their own, and I'm open to being convinced of the benefits to long pole training of short pole training.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1148151]
The form/set of Ip Man pole available to the public.

(("THE" form??!!! You have Kwok's version etc- he did not learn the pole from Ip man.))

Maybe you have a longer version from Sifu Fung or HKM??


(((Both have their sequences of motions which include the key concepts of the pole. The key students of HKM in Macao, Toronto and Arizoma know pole work.))



I am talking of the 'form' itself really, because in Windy Citys clip he clearly states that there is/was 'no form'.

((Ip Man did not teacha standardizes kwan form but he taught the kwan extensively to key students but not in the regular open classes))))

PS one can practice motions with a 6 footer but for power development the 8-9 footer is much better.I don't do videos. Sifu had a dvd out some years ago. Best to take his weapons seminar when he offers one. I Know I know you are across the pond. SifuFong and his top students, 2-3 of HKM's Macao students including LMF and a couple of sigung's Canadian students know pole work.You cant just depend on Youtube and HK visit for good pole knowledge of IM's polework.Joy

[LoneTiger108]

First off I have to say that I do not have Samuel Kwoks version of the pole lol!! It's just a clip I found that I thought would be a good representation of the standard Ip Man pole set, seeing as he is currently one of the only official representatives of Ip Mans and his sons (?)


Both have their sequences of motions which include the key concepts of the pole. The key students of HKM in Macao, Toronto and Arizoma know pole work.

I have only heard positive things about Ho Kam Ming, and it doesn't surprise me that his closer students will know pole work, but you confirm that they still have 'no form' so thanks for the info Joy.


You cant just depend on Youtube and HK visit for good pole knowledge of IM's polework.Joy

But its okay for people to judge my own Sigungs pole methods by looking at out-dated clips of Sifu Austin Goh?? Because this is what happens isn't it?

I think we can all agree that your point is crucial ;)

[LoneTiger108]

We have totally different opinions here.

And that is healthy! As long as we can still discuss things that obviously matter to us both ;)


The weighting of the pole and the focus of the energy make it completely different to shorter weapons and its shear size prohibits the twirling and circular actions characteristic of the shorter staffs. I've trained shorter staffs and have never found any cross over between the two.

I do not find this an issue. Even the shorter 2m sticks I trained were white-wax-wood, which is tapered and weighted too just as the pole. As for the 'twirling', these are dexterity exercises and very useful to gain familiarity with your weapon. Also a trait of certain Opera Troupes too. Juggling is for entertainment value and I do understand that.


Not really sure what you are trying to say with your "massive statement". Keeping it real means using the pole as a weapon and training it in a realistic way, for me that means using the pole not a shorter version.

For me this means training the pole against other 'more common' weapons like the shorter cudgel!! And to do this you must understand the strengths and weaknesses of both. They do compliment eachother and the way our form is set out, it allows a complete method of fierce interactive training that is not seen anywhere else (in Wushu, Shaolin or Wing Chun schools) That for me, is realism.

I have to remind everyone too that the name of our form is Luk Dim Boon Gwan, and the word Gwan does not even mean Pole!! That is another term altogether, so I'm also unsure why and how this term came into use??

[Sean66]

a complete method of fierce interactive training

Ok, Spencer. Let's see some examples of this training. Break out the old digital camera and take some footage.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1148277]First off I have to say that I do not have Samuel Kwoks version of the pole lol!! It's just a clip I found that I thought would be a good representation of the standard Ip Man pole set, seeing as he is currently one of the only official representatives of Ip Mans and his sons (?)

((Your logic is your own. Official designation as representative of Ip man's sons. What does that have to do with anyone but Ip Chun, Ip Ching and Kwok.))



I have only heard positive things about Ho Kam Ming, and it doesn't surprise me that his closer students will know pole work, but you confirm that they still have 'no form' so thanks for the info Joy.

((Words. depends on what you mean by form. There are fluid inter connected sequences in HKM and AF pole work. Logic on why one motion follows another for development)))



But its okay for people to judge my own Sigungs pole methods by looking at out-dated clips of Sifu Austin Goh?? Because this is what happens isn't it?


((I don't "judge" your Sigung's "pole methods"-I just have a different POV from Lee Shing wing chun-though it LS WC is a form of wing chun))

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Ok, Spencer. Let's see some examples of this training. Break out the old digital camera and take some footage.

Well, that's not likely.

We have become accustomed to keeping things to ourselves over the years and the fact that I am actually still posting here after being warned off chatting to the world by anyone and everyone in the LSWC family I think sharing some ideas in words is enough for me!!

[LoneTiger108]

Your logic is your own. Official designation as representative of Ip man's sons. What does that have to do with anyone but Ip Chun, Ip Ching and Kwok.

Interesting mindset, and one of the reasons the whole Wing Chun family is fractured Joy.

What you are saying is that the Ip 'sons' are not doing what their father wanted them to do?? They are not teaching 'Ip Man Wing Chun'?


I don't "judge" your Sigung's "pole methods"-I just have a different POV from Lee Shing wing chun-though it LS WC is a form of wing chun

My comment wasn't actually aimed at you personally Joy, although I don't fully understand the last few words...

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1148301]Interesting mindset, and one of the reasons the whole Wing Chun family is fractured Joy.


((It's a fractious family-with good relatives, bad relatives, insiders, outsiders, welcome and unwelcome visitors, with distinguished predecessors and impostors.))


What you are saying is that the Ip 'sons' are not doing what their father wanted them to do?? They are not teaching 'Ip Man Wing Chun'?


((I have great affection and respect for them as Ip man's sons-but I don't do their wing chun.
They really began learning after moving to HK after over 12 years of being left behind in Fatshan. Ip man was retiiring from active teaching and some of his students were doing the teaching. Of Course they are doing ""Ip Man wing chun""but that is a diverse world.))


My comment wasn't actually aimed at you personally Joy,

((I have yet to take anything that you have said personally))

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Thanks for responding Joy. As ever you make total sense and I only wish more would have your outlook...

I too know of stories of who taught Ip Mans sons other than Ip Man himself, and this too is why I hold them quite close to my heart (although I wish they would reciprocate that feeling lol!)

[WC1277]

As always, and really the point of the original video, principles is all that really matters. Do whatever "form" you want, no judgement by many here. No ones picking on you Spencer. In a way you're kind of doing it to yourself with some of the just plain inaccurate comments you're making about everyone else in your defense of LS...

[LoneTiger108]

No ones picking on you Spencer. In a way you're kind of doing it to yourself with some of the just plain inaccurate comments you're making about everyone else in your defense of LS...

1. I am not defending Lee Shing, not on this thread anyhow! I'm simply sharing my experiences.

2. Please enlighten me dude. What 'plain inaccurate comments' have I made about 'everyone else' exactly? I'm confused :confused:

With regards to the clip at the beginning of the thread, I am sorry for getting distracted by other things but I forgot to mention that we do not learn the pole with the left hand in the front either, and this for me is a MAJOR difference.

Anyone else care to comment?

[LoneTiger108]

Ok, Spencer. Let's see some examples of this training. Break out the old digital camera and take some footage.

Okay. :eek:

But rather my Sifu than me :D so if you're on Facebook and friends with him check his latest clip out

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=2543710706257&set=vb.1058417759&type=2&theater

[Vajramusti]

1. I am not defending Lee Shing, not on this thread anyhow! I'm simply sharing my experiences.

2. Please enlighten me dude. What 'plain inaccurate comments' have I made about 'everyone else' exactly? I'm confused :confused:

With regards to the clip at the beginning of the thread, I am sorry for getting distracted by other things but I forgot to mention that we do not learn the pole with the left hand in the front either, and this for me is a MAJOR difference.

Anyone else care to comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever you may do- if the left hand comment is about ed's video you have jumped to wrong conclusions...we do the pole on both sides.. left hand front and also right hand front... balanced
ambidexterity.!!

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever you may do- if the left hand comment is about ed's video you have jumped to wrong conclusions...we do the pole on both sides.. left hand front and also right hand front... balanced
ambidexterity.!!

joy chaudhuri

Ah okay, it's becoming clearer now. But what do you train first then? Left or right side?

Personally, we were not allowed to drill the left side until everything was spot on with the right first.

[BPWT]

I am yet to learn the pole form... but this got me thinking. ;) Mai Gei Wong Wing Chun lineage, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uozp26dXioY&feature=player_embedded

[Graham H]

I am yet to learn the pole form..

What!???:eek::eek::eek:

How long have you been training?

[BPWT]

What!???:eek::eek::eek: How long have you been training?

Two weeks and 3 days. Why? Should I have started sooner? :)

In the Leung Ting WT method, coming up to 4 years. Before that, in Wing Chun (Yip Chun lineage, loosely, i.e. Kevin Chan), a couple of years in the UK.

But lots of time in martial arts generally. In between my two Chun lineages: a few years of internal stuff, some occasional training in Japanese materials (I have many friends who have been training in Japanese arts for decades), some South East Asian stuff, purely via friends from Malaysia and Indonesia. And, of course, some Thai Boxing when I lived in Bangkok, but that was when I was fresh out of Uni (centuries ago). No BJJ, though I have now have access to some good people... I just don't have access to any time. LOL.

So yes, no WT pole form for me, though I have started basic pole exercises and development stuff.

But no rush. :D Though I find it fascinating. Post up a clip of your pole form!

[Graham H]

Two weeks and 3 days. Why? Should I have started sooner? :)

In the Leung Ting WT method, coming up to 4 years. Before that, in Wing Chun (Yip Chun lineage, loosely, i.e. Kevin Chan), a couple of years in the UK.

But lots of time in martial arts generally. In between my two Chun lineages: a few years of internal stuff, some occasional training in Japanese materials (I have many friends who have been training in Japanese arts for decades), some South East Asian stuff, purely via friends from Malaysia and Indonesia. And, of course, some Thai Boxing when I lived in Bangkok, but that was when I was fresh out of Uni (centuries ago). No BJJ, though I have now have access to some good people... I just don't have access to any time. LOL.

So yes, no WT pole form for me, though I have started basic pole exercises and development stuff.

But no rush. :D Though I find it fascinating. Post up a clip of your pole form!

Dude I didn't want your life story. :D

If you have been training Wing Chun for 4 years and havent learnt any pole then something is wrong. Mind you saying that I never learnt it in the Ip Chun lineage. It was only for tradition. No sparring :D

[BPWT]

Dude I didn't want your life story. :D

Of course you did. In this lovers' tiff you need ammunition to throw back at me. :)


If you have been training Wing Chun for 4 years and havent learnt any pole then something is wrong. Mind you saying that I never learnt it in the Ip Chun lineage. It was only for tradition. No sparring :D

Wing Tsun, not Wing Chun, for 4 years. How dare you! :mad::):)

The time has really flown by, and there is a lot to be training and developing (you know, the wheats not in your PB bagel - see other thread) ;) - so like I said, no rush to be learning the pole or the knives just yet.

Though at 39, time is maybe not on my side :D

[Graham H]

Of course you did. In this lovers' tiff you need ammunition to throw back at me. :)

I don't need no ammo. You practice WT FFS! lol


Wing Tsun, not Wing Chun, for 4 years. How dare you! :mad::):)

WT is worse lol


The time has really flown by, and there is a lot to be training and developing (you know, the wheats not in your PB bagel - see other thread) ;) - so like I said, no rush to be learning the pole or the knives just yet.

Maybe when your bank account is a but bigger LT may appear from behind a red curtain and show you his pole :D


Though at 39, time is maybe not on my side :D

Ahhhhhhhhh we are the same age. Thats sweetxxx :o

[BPWT]

Maybe when your bank account is a but bigger LT may appear from behind a red curtain and show you his pole :D

You are confused again! :) I don't train in the EWTO. A full day seminar last year with Leung Ting was about 25 quid, I think.

And don't be dropping 'pole' jokes; with Kevin's admission he would drink goat's blood if PB asked him too, I'M just going to make him admit to something he'll later be terribly ashamed of. :)


Ahhhhhhhhh we are the same age. Thats sweetxxx :o

I didn't want to mention it, you know, in a public forum. The time seemed wrong. And yet, it was like the hand of fate reached out to us. We are twins, Graham. Separated at birth... you were taken by a Sith Lord in Germany. The Sith are kinda cool... but, well, you know how the story ends. :D:D:D

IT IS YOUR DESSSSSS-TINNNNNY.

[Graham H]

You are confused again! :) I don't train in the EWTO. A full day seminar last year with Leung Ting was about 25 quid, I think.

And don't be dropping 'pole' jokes; with Kevin's admission he would drink goat's blood if PB asked him too, I'M just going to make him admit to something he'll later be terribly ashamed of. :)



I didn't want to mention it, you know, in a public forum. The time seemed wrong. And yet, it was like the hand of fate reached out to us. We are twins, Graham. Separated at birth... you were taken by a Sith Lord in Germany. The Sith are kinda cool... but, well, you know how the story ends. :D:D:D

IT IS YOUR DESSSSSS-TINNNNNY.

Ok I'm bored now. You have filled my evening up with happiness and joy. Not the real Joy. He is busy with his mother lines.

Toodle pip B x

[poulperadieux]

i didn't want to mention it, you know, in a public forum. The time seemed wrong. And yet, it was like the hand of fate reached out to us. We are twins, graham. Separated at birth... You were taken by a sith lord in germany. The sith are kinda cool... But, well, you know how the story ends. :d:d:d

it is your dessssss-tinnnnny.



:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

[anerlich]

Of course you did. In this lovers' tiff you need ammunition to throw back at me.

LOL. So true :cool:

[Grumblegeezer]

What!???:eek::eek::eek:

How long have you been training?

I didn't learn the pole form for a very long time. Drills and exercises, sure, but not the form or chi-kwun training until after I left LT. Actually that was a good thing. The guy that taught me is very good and didn't charge me an arm and a leg like LT would have.

I personally believe the pole form should be taught earlier and to more people, so it could be included in standard training with a variety of partners.

So when are the pole techniques taught in the PB/WSL system?

[Graham H]

Actually that was a good thing. The guy that taught me is very good and didn't charge me an arm and a leg like LT would have.

Oh what's this? That other LT guy said LT charged respectable prices :D:D



I personally believe the pole form should be taught earlier and to more people, so it could be included in standard training with a variety of partners.

So when are the pole techniques taught in the PB/WSL system?

It depends on the student.

[BPWT]

Oh what's this? That other LT guy said LT charged respectable prices :D:D

'Location, Location, Location,' as the saying goes ;)

[Graham H]

'Location, Location, Location,' as the saying goes ;)

I admire the fact you are sticking up for LT but you seem to give a different account than anybody else. Maybe you are special :)

[BPWT]

I admire the fact you are sticking up for LT but you seem to give a different account than anybody else. Maybe you are special :)

I am special! :D

For sure, the WT organization is generally speaking not the cheapest way to learn the art. :D:D

If you are in Western Europe, it is very expensive. If you are in Eastern Europe, much less so. I know people who spent extended periods (2+ months, each year) in Hong Kong and the cost of lessons with Leung Ting (both class and private) were not really any more than other top Sifus.

To be honest, Leung Ting is far less business minded than KK, despite what many think.

I'm telling you Graham, the people you are speaking to are the wrong people (with the exception of Grumblegeezer, who sounds like a good egg... :)).

:)

[Graham H]

I'm telling you Graham, the people you are speaking to are the wrong people (with the exception of Grumblegeezer, who sounds like a good egg... :)).

:)

I have seen "private" footage of Leung Ting teaching plus what I've seen in the media. I've read his book. I've talked to a lot of people that have had contact with him and based my opinions on that. I've been in the same room as him although I've never had any contact. I don't like his ideas but that's my opinion. It's no big deal. If KK is damaging LT's name then he's doing a pretty good job. I've seen his students teach the dummy and the student has had to and large wads of cash over before he will teach anymore. I steer clear of WT. There are many bad eggs there. You may be an exception but the fact that you have no long pole after 4 years and you are happy about it rings my alarm bells.

[Grumblegeezer]

I'm telling you Graham, the people you are speaking to are the wrong people (with the exception of Grumblegeezer, who sounds like a good egg... :)).

Yep. A good egg. ...and I'm special, too! :D

[Xian]

The form in the video should be Ban Jung Wing Chun. This is Mainland Weng Chun/External spring Fist. She is a student of Ivan Rouznek. I will ask him to be sure, as he had learned several lineages over the years..


Best regards,
Xian

[BPWT]

The form in the video should be Ban Jung Wing Chun. This is Mainland Weng Chun/External spring Fist. She is a student of Ivan Rouznek. I will ask him to be sure, as he had learned several lineages over the years..
Best regards,
Xian

Thanks for the info, Xian! :)

[Xian]

According to Ivan it is a slightly modified version of the Ban Jung pole.


Best regards,
Xian

[Yoshiyahu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2crnECuC8

[LoneTiger108]

Wasn't this covered in another thread?

The family probably have a form of sorts but nothing too new anymore but definitely something worth looking into. Think this was one of Sergios promotions?? But maybe someone else can chime in...

[Paddington]

Regarding the pole form more generally, has any one found much import to double laps and arm and body control of the opponent? I was practicing something recently and many of the movements from the pole cropped up, tis why I ask..

[LoneTiger108]

Regarding the pole form more generally, has any one found much import to double laps and arm and body control of the opponent? I was practicing something recently and many of the movements from the pole cropped up, tis why I ask..

The pole holds many little secrets regarding any manipulation method like Lapsau but it may depends on what and how you learn the pole.

[Eric_H]

Weng Chun is not Wing Chun.

[LoneTiger108]

Weng Chun is not Wing Chun.

But a stick is a stick, pole is a pole :)

Both Weng and Wing Chuns pole is an inherited set from other arts so does it really matter?! As long as it connects at its most fundamental level to your Wing Chun training all is good in da hood

[BPWT]

Weng Chun is not Wing Chun.

Didn't Sifu Sergio suggest that Yip Man's pole form might have been influenced by the Weng Chun people he exchanged with at Dai Duk Lan when he was in Hong Kong?

[Paddington]

The pole holds many little secrets regarding any manipulation method like Lapsau but it may depends on what and how you learn the pole.

Well I found it quite effective. It was a bit scary though, lots of potential for serious injuries when you have the arm lined up along the jic seen and then apply a technique into the opponents center along that line. Just a tiny bit of rotational and fa jing energy was enough to make my training partner wince.

[Eric_H]

Didn't Sifu Sergio suggest that Yip Man's pole form might have been influenced by the Weng Chun people he exchanged with at Dai Duk Lan when he was in Hong Kong?

Studied both, though admittedly Chi Sim not as seriously and not the pole in CS.

For my money, the body mechanics of Weng Chun and Wing Chun are incompatible.

[Eric_H]

But a stick is a stick, pole is a pole :)

Both Weng and Wing Chuns pole is an inherited set from other arts so does it really matter?! As long as it connects at its most fundamental level to your Wing Chun training all is good in da hood

That's like saying all swordfighting is the same because you stick the pointy bit in the other guy.

[LoneTiger108]

That's like saying all swordfighting is the same because you stick the pointy bit in the other guy.

Well isn't it? If we are talking about a system of pole fighting and only family variations? Mind you we all only have two arms and two legs and we manage to be totally different how we train and apply our systems.

So I do see you're point :D

[BPWT]

That's like saying all swordfighting is the same because you stick the pointy bit in the other guy.

Was that a Game of Thrones reference? ;)






You pervert.

[Eric_H]

Was that a Game of Thrones reference? ;)






You pervert.

Haha, I was more going for this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mcUPY0RMdU

[Wayfaring]

Was that a Game of Thrones reference? ;)


Hey - don't judge. I get all my relationship advice from Game of Thrones :D

http://mashable.com/2013/08/14/dating-tips-game-of-thrones/

[LoneTiger108]

If we're talking clips an swords I like to keep it in reality

http://youtu.be/6r7VWIQCHvM

But we are talking about Wing Chun Pole so can you see any similarities?

[KPM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2crnECuC8

This is very good stuff! :) Weng Chun rather than Wing Chun, as has been already stated, but I think most of us could learn a lot from this clip alone. I've found that Wing Chun's pole form varies quite a bit even within different Ip Man lineages. And the various versions of Ip Man's pole form use the square horse, cat stance, etc. So there are a lot of similarities. Unlike the previous comment, I don' find that the body mechanics used in Wing Chun pole and Weng Chun pole are really all that different. The body mechanics used in the empty hand phase are certainly different. But the pole not so much. If anything, Wing Chun pole is more like Weng Chun's empty hand mechanics that it is like Wing Chun's empty hand mechanics!

[LoneTiger108]

This is very good stuff! :) Weng Chun rather than Wing Chun, as has been already stated, but I think most of us could learn a lot from this clip alone. I've found that Wing Chun's pole form varies quite a bit even within different Ip Man lineages.

What are we to learn from this clip alone? How to copy things we do not know? lol!

It seems odd to me that this kind of old B&W clip is put in high regard even though it has very little, if anything, to do with the Wing Chun system (according to most) and yet a clip of my own Sigung practising his pole is slammed for being 'his own invention', and he was one of the first representatives of Ip Man in Europe alongside guys like Lok Yiu who was also known as 'King of the stick'!

Maybe I'm just a bit jealous of this Tang Yik lineage :o but the acceptance and praise for it just don't make sense to me at all considering...

[BPWT]

I missed the clip of your Sigung's pole form. Could you post a link?

[LoneTiger108]

I missed the clip of your Sigung's pole form. Could you post a link?

There isn't a 'full' set available anywhere online, only small scenes were included in a promotional DVD advert

http://youtu.be/3dD6_7mzAQs

Austin Goh demos have been out there for years and one of Joe Lees guys has put stuff out more recently, and both are a little different from eachother and from my own.

[Graham H]

Austin Goh :D

[LoneTiger108]

Austin Goh :D

Sometimes you might get a better impression from a Sifu if you touch hands with their students G. I have and found some of his elder generations (pre 1990s) are superb at what they do, but it still all depends on their own efforts as always.

Anyhow... I found his clip on pole, so show us yours G :)
http://youtu.be/0HN770KhLm4

[Graham H]

Sometimes you might get a better impression from a Sifu if you touch hands with their students G. I have and found some of his elder generations (pre 1990s) are superb at what they do, but it still all depends on their own efforts as always.

Anyhow... I found his clip on pole, so show us yours G :)
http://youtu.be/0HN770KhLm4

Touch hands meaning????????????????????

[Graham H]

Anyhow... I found his clip on pole, so show us yours G :)
http://youtu.be/0HN770KhLm4

Good for cameras and kung fu movies but not Ving Tsun fighting.

[LoneTiger108]

Good for cameras and kung fu movies but not Ving Tsun fighting.

You're probably right. No place for strength and flexibilty in your VT. Strange that WSL thought differently but hey he was just an average student of Ip Man wasn't he? Let me guess... His pole IS great for your VT fighting right?

Yawn

[Eric_H]

There isn't a 'full' set available anywhere online, only small scenes were included in a promotional DVD advert

http://youtu.be/3dD6_7mzAQs

Austin Goh demos have been out there for years and one of Joe Lees guys has put stuff out more recently, and both are a little different from eachother and from my own.

Looking at the pole, it certainly has decent double end mechanics, frankly it looks a lot like a set in futshan bak mei. I think I've seen something very similar out of the Chan Wa Shun fmaily line on youtube some time ago.

I have trouble accepting it as WC because it doesn't appear to follow gate theory or live/dead side theory... but it's just a form. I'm sure there' more meat in the applications. Can you speak to some of what he's showing here?

[BPWT]

To me, this pole work from Austin Goh looks very, very different what we see elsewhere from Yip Man.

Spencer, could you tell us more about it - the training and the principles behind its use, and how you see if differing from other YM pole training (if indeed you do see it as different).

For me, I would still say the Tang Yik lineage pole is still the best I have seen - though I hope the pole he uses is lighter than the pole we use (otherwise there is really no hope for me with weapon). :D

[Grumblegeezer]

This is very good stuff! :) Weng Chun rather than Wing Chun, as has been already stated, but ...I don' find that the body mechanics used in Wing Chun pole and Weng Chun pole are really all that different.

I'd have to agree. In fact I find more similarity between this and the WT pole movements I learned than I do with the Austin Goh stuff posted.

If there is any truth to the stories attributing the WC/VT/WT long pole to a collaboration between Leung Yee Tai and Wong Wah Bo on the "red boat", then the pole movements said to have come from Chi Shin would be the one common point between the Wing Tsun and Weng Tsun sytems.

[LoneTiger108]

Looking at the pole, it certainly has decent double end mechanics, frankly it looks a lot like a set in futshan bak mei. I think I've seen something very similar out of the Chan Wa Shun fmaily line on youtube some time ago.

Yes Bakmei have double ended cudgel work, as does Eagle Claw and many other arts, but what my Sigung is showing is just 2 sets from his Wing Chun pole.


I have trouble accepting it as WC because it doesn't appear to follow gate theory or live/dead side theory... but it's just a form. I'm sure there' more meat in the applications. Can you speak to some of what he's showing here?

I can and have done so a few times here before now. We do have the gates and live/dead sides too. Maybe there is some truth in your Chan Wah Shun idea, seeing as Sigung had travelled far and wide to learn Wing Chun. Some say he learnt from Ng Jung So too but many stories exist outside and inside the family as a whole and more research is definitely needed.

I just mess about and wave flags so I'm sure there are others far older and more knowledgeable about this stuff than me.

[LoneTiger108]

For me, I would still say the Tang Yik lineage pole is still the best I have seen

Firstly I have to agree with you. If I'm talking about stuff I've seen online, but in front of me in training I have seen many things like it and far better.


To me, this pole work from Austin Goh looks very, very different what we see elsewhere from Yip Man.

For me it is what you say it is but I also see and know the sets that are much more familiar to what is seen from Ip Mans other pole students too. Fair play, Austin doesn't really show that in his clip.


Spencer, could you tell us more about it - the training and the principles behind its use, and how you see if differing from other YM pole training (if indeed you do see it as different).

And spoil the book, DVD and Youtube vlogs I'm working on!? Never :p

[BPWT]

And spoil the book, DVD and Youtube vlogs I'm working on!? Never :p

:D So long as you make some of it public - I'll be happy to take a look... and then ask more questions :)

[LoneTiger108]

This is the only time I have publically demonstrated our pole plays (with a stick!) and I wonder if people can see the similarities in motion to some things they may have trained with their long pole.

http://youtu.be/MH_5SS2BR-Y?t=2m

All I ask is that you view this clip in context to the time and stage everyone was at back then when we were with our Sifu at Jun Mo. We were a very traditional group, promoting a way to perform that caused quite a stir. Man, even the uniforms threw the modernists into a rage lol!

But that was how we all were, and in a way I know my Sifu loved the time we all had as we were only trying to make people think about what Wing Chun may have been like before it became what it is today. We were having some fun of sorts too...

[Graham H]

This is the only time I have publically demonstrated our pole plays (with a stick!) and I wonder if people can see the similarities in motion to some things they may have trained with their long pole.

http://youtu.be/MH_5SS2BR-Y?t=2m

All I ask is that you view this clip in context to the time and stage everyone was at back then when we were with our Sifu at Jun Mo. We were a very traditional group, promoting a way to perform that caused quite a stir. Man, even the uniforms threw the modernists into a rage lol!

But that was how we all were, and in a way I know my Sifu loved the time we all had as we were only trying to make people think about what Wing Chun may have been like before it became what it is today. We were having some fun of sorts too...

You belong in the West End mate not a battle ground! :rolleyes:

[KPM]

What are we to learn from this clip alone? How to copy things we do not know? lol!

---We see some very nimble stepping and some obvious power generation with a long weapon. Seeing it done helps one know what is possible. From a Ip Man WCK perspective, we see things that look like an extension of what we already do, opening up some additional possibilities for application.

It seems odd to me that this kind of old B&W clip is put in high regard even though it has very little, if anything, to do with the Wing Chun system (according to most)

---Seems that most posting here see it as having something to do with WCK!

and yet a clip of my own Sigung practising his pole is slammed for being 'his own invention', and he was one of the first representatives of Ip Man in Europe alongside guys like Lok Yiu who was also known as 'King of the stick'!

---Sorry. I hadn't seen the clip of your Sigung before. But I checked out the clip you posted here. To me it looked like a pretty basic drill. Not nearly as long or as in-depth as the clip of Tang Yik. I also did not see the obvious power and "snap" as in the Tang Yik video. And I'll note that Ip Man Wing Chun does not strike with the butt of the pole or twirl it around!

Maybe I'm just a bit jealous of this Tang Yik lineage :o but the acceptance and praise for it just don't make sense to me at all considering...

---Doesn't make sense??? :confused: Its a clip of a well-know master showing an obvious level of high skill. Why wouldn't it get high praise?

[LoneTiger108]

We see some very nimble stepping and some obvious power generation with a long weapon. Seeing it done helps one know what is possible. From a Ip Man WCK perspective, we see things that look like an extension of what we already do, opening up some additional possibilities for application.

Okay. You see a connection to the Ip Man pole in what they do and you do, as do I. And I also see the connection of what I have seen in my own lineage too.

But out of interest, how does your training utilize this huen gwan method seen in the Tang Yik set??

http://youtu.be/_U2crnECuC8?t=1m7s

This is the 'nimble footwork' you are talking about? This is also very common in basic baat gwa gwan practise, something that isn't even commonly considered to be within Wing Chun pole especially from Ip Man

So, please show me ANY Ip family that 'use' this mobility method in empty hand training like you are suggesting. I know where it is in my own training so please share your experience.


I hadn't seen the clip of your Sigung before. But I checked out the clip you posted here. To me it looked like a pretty basic drill. Not nearly as long or as in-depth as the clip of Tang Yik.

As I have said, if you're talking of my Sigung in his clip, he is showing 2 sets of his Wing Chun pole. We have 7 sets just as most do in Ip Man Wing Chun. Some students of Joe Lee even have other completely different forms entirely but I digress...


I also did not see the obvious power and "snap" as in the Tang Yik video. And I'll note that Ip Man Wing Chun does not strike with the butt of the pole or twirl it around!

My Sigung was over 60 in his clip and the set as he played it in the clip is at a very basic level with a solid staff, no flex as this was all that was available to him on the day!

You lose my interest with the last part of your comment. I have heard the twirling thing so much and even when I mention we are practising stick/cudgel plays I am still hearing it lol! And you do not use your butt?? Shame on you!

All cudgel was a pre-cursor for me to using the long pole. Both have different methods and many similarities too. I am only a little guy so it helped to build me up and prepare for more strenuous conditioning. These type of sets too are generally missing from common Wing Chun pole forms, and I see quite a few of them in the Tang Yik clip :)

[KPM]

Okay. You see a connection to the Ip Man pole in what they do and you do, as do I. And I also see the connection of what I have seen in my own lineage too.

---Great! I figure there are only so many ways to move when holding a long heavy pole at one end! ;)

But out of interest, how does your training utilize this huen gwan method seen in the Tang Yik set??

----For training increased "tip control" over the weapon. For moving the tip of the opponent's weapon off-line in application.

This is the 'nimble footwork' you are talking about? This is also very common in basic baat gwa gwan practise, something that isn't even commonly considered to be within Wing Chun pole especially from Ip Man

----The sideways movements where he is almost running on his tip-toes? Yeah, not seen in Ip Man WCK pole that I know of.


So, please show me ANY Ip family that 'use' this mobility method in empty hand training like you are suggesting.

---I never suggested that it was used in empty hand training. It wouldn't be necessary in empty hand training. It is used to quickly reposition a long weapon, which requires moving your body across a bigger space. One could argue even that is not necessary. But it is pretty cool! :) In empty hand application we would just use "facing" footwork.


My Sigung was over 60 in his clip and the set as he played it in the clip is at a very basic level with a solid staff, no flex as this was all that was available to him on the day!

----Tang Yik was over 60 in that clip as well. And yes, your clip showed some very basic level stuff. Which was my point. Why are you then surprised that more people are impressed by Tang Yik's clip than the clip of your Sigung?


You lose my interest with the last part of your comment. I have heard the twirling thing so much and even when I mention we are practising stick/cudgel plays I am still hearing it lol!

---Then why did you post it as an example of your system's pole methods?

[guy b.]

This is the only time I have publically demonstrated our pole plays (with a stick!) and I wonder if people can see the similarities in motion to some things they may have trained with their long pole.

http://youtu.be/MH_5SS2BR-Y?t=2m

All I ask is that you view this clip in context to the time and stage everyone was at back then when we were with our Sifu at Jun Mo. We were a very traditional group, promoting a way to perform that caused quite a stir. Man, even the uniforms threw the modernists into a rage lol!

But that was how we all were, and in a way I know my Sifu loved the time we all had as we were only trying to make people think about what Wing Chun may have been like before it became what it is today. We were having some fun of sorts too...

Looks ridiculous

[guy b.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2crnECuC8

Very good pole, wing chun or not

[LoneTiger108]

---Great! I figure there are only so many ways to move when holding a long heavy pole at one end! ;)

Yes there are and the clip gives more to think about for many it seems.


----For training increased "tip control" over the weapon. For moving the tip of the opponent's weapon off-line in application.

Yes thatwhat its for but I asked how you trained huen gwan. Its ok it doesn't matter.


----The sideways movements where he is almost running on his tip-toes? Yeah, not seen in Ip Man WCK pole that I know of.

---I never suggested that it was used in empty hand training. It wouldn't be necessary in empty hand training. It is used to quickly reposition a long weapon, which requires moving your body across a bigger space. One could argue even that is not necessary. But it is pretty cool! :) In empty hand application we would just use "facing" footwork.

OK


----Tang Yik was over 60 in that clip as well. And yes, your clip showed some very basic level stuff. Which was my point. Why are you then surprised that more people are impressed by Tang Yik's clip than the clip of your Sigung?

---Then why did you post it as an example of your system's pole methods?

Being low level was not my point but you're keen to point it out again, so what's your point? My main reason for even posting here was to highlight that when there are different ideas put out there, and in this case from sources that seem far removed from Ip Man, they are accepted more so than differences that arise from people that were taught directly by Ip Man and others too.

Whether you even know what you are looking at or not, it seems that the weaponry of Wing Chun can be claimed by anyone and everyone even when it has been suggested that it isn't even Wing Chun in the first place! I find that just weird.

[KPM]

Being low level was not my point but you're keen to point it out again, so what's your point?

---Hold on Spencer. Nothing negative was meant towards your Sigung. I didn't say "low-level", I said "basic." There is a difference. You seemed a little peeved by the idea that Tang Yik's vid got more attention and praise than the vid of your Sigung. I was just pointing out why that is so.


My main reason for even posting here was to highlight that when there are different ideas put out there, and in this case from sources that seem far removed from Ip Man, they are accepted more so than differences that arise from people that were taught directly by Ip Man and others too.

----I think people that have a grasp of how the WCK pole functions see that vid of Tang Yik and recognize someone doing it at a high level and including things that fit very well as an extension to what we do. Distance from Ip Man is irrelevant in that case. In contrast I can see someone in direct Ip Man lineage doing crap with a pole because they didn't learn it well (not implying your Sigung, just speaking in generalities). So again, distance from Ip Man can be irrelevant.


Whether you even know what you are looking at or not, it seems that the weaponry of Wing Chun can be claimed by anyone and everyone even when it has been suggested that it isn't even Wing Chun in the first place! I find that just weird.

---You lost me here. I'm not sure what you mean by "weaponry of Wing Chun claimed by anyone and everyone even when it has been suggested that it isn't even Wing Chun." :confused:

[LoneTiger108]

---You lost me here. I'm not sure what you mean by "weaponry of Wing Chun claimed by anyone and everyone even when it has been suggested that it isn't even Wing Chun." :confused:

Just a reference to those that are saying Weng Chun isn't Wing Chun. The fact that we can take guidance or inspiration from Weng Chun pole far easier than we do from Wing Chun pole, which suggests our weaponry is in a pretty bad place.

Its quie sad really :(

[Grumblegeezer]

Just a reference to those that are saying Weng Chun isn't Wing Chun. The fact that we can take guidance or inspiration from Weng Chun pole far easier than we do from Wing Chun pole, which suggests our weaponry is in a pretty bad place.

Its quie sad really :(

Not sure I get what you mean about Weng Chun pole vs. Wing Chun pole. The Wing Chun pole I've learned is quite different from what little is shown in the clips you posted from your lineage and in some ways closer to what I see in the Weng Chun clip.

However, without pointlessly arguing about the merits of different lineages, I can broadly agree with the observation that WC weaponry is generally in a poor state. I know mine is. That's because the weapons are generally held back too long, taught to too few, and not trained widely enough with weapons sparring included in the mix.

Look at it this way. If almost nobody really learns the technique, and if you have few to none to compete with and hone your skills, it figures that your technique will be poor to useless.

Personally, I tend to view the traditional WC weapons as supplemental training that really serves to augment my empty-hands training. For practical weapons skills, I practice escrima. It provides exactly the kind of interactive training I find missing in most WC/VT/WT weapons programs, ...and with improvised weapons "of opportunity" that are available in typical contemporary environments.

Now If I lived in the 1800s in Canton, maybe the long pole would have been a more obvious and realistic weapon to train. Check out the picture below:

http://chinesemartialstudies.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cantonc1880-18901.jpg

Guangzhou circa 1890. Can you spot any poles?

[LoneTiger108]

Not sure I get what you mean about Weng Chun pole vs. Wing Chun pole. The Wing Chun pole I've learned is quite different from what little is shown in the clips you posted from your lineage and in some ways closer to what I see in the Weng Chun clip.

That is kind of my point :( Do people really understand what our pole work is and how it is trained? Or are we quite happy taking something else?

Actually I read a little somewhere about Ip Man using pole methods he see in Dai Duk Lan to teach in HK, but from what I understand this is not how he would have learnt from Chan Wah Shun.


However, without pointlessly arguing about the merits of different lineages, I can broadly agree with the observation that WC weaponry is generally in a poor state. I know mine is. That's because the weapons are generally held back too long, taught to too few, and not trained widely enough with weapons sparring included in the mix.

At least you are humble enough to see that in your own training.

FWIW I was taught general cudgel and many many interactive, or what are referred to as two man sparring sets, prior to really getting deeper into the long pole training itself. This was all within my first year, but I accepted the fact that I was a lot smaller than all my peers and my Sifu wanted me to drill and build myself up!


For practical weapons skills, I practice escrima. It provides exactly the kind of interactive training I find missing in most WC/VT/WT weapons programs, ...and with improvised weapons "of opportunity" that are available in typical contemporary environments.

Yes. I know the LT system has adopted Escrima but personally I have never need to do that. We have double club methods in our family (or at least my Sifu has!) and we interact with these, rings, sticks, poles and knives in a Wing Chun specific manner that I feel only adds to all our empty hand methods and understanding of the systems core.

I will say it again though, because I think people maybe misunderstanding me, I do really like the Tang Yik pole clip, especially the longer one that was posted here. I can see almost ALL of the methods I use within my own training, with some a bit alien and a few that I do that I do not see.

So this is why I am asking why people can't seem to accept that my Sigung had some serious stuff!! We all know the masters made things look very simple on their own clips, especially when it comes to forms. I view my sigungs clips in this way. I look for the indicators and signatures that relate to my own training, but I build how I want to build because I am not my Sifu or Sigung!!

It would be very nice to see how the Tang Yik pole is interacted and taught in application... because personally I find this is key to connecting with Wing Chun itself. No Chi Gwan, No Gwan. Simple...

[Grumblegeezer]

That is kind of my point :( Do people really understand what our pole work is and how it is trained? Or are we quite happy taking something else?
Actually I read a little somewhere about Ip Man using pole methods he see in Dai Duk Lan to teach in HK, but from what I understand this is not how he would have learnt from Chan Wah Shun.

Please don't judge by rumors you've read somewhere. The Yip Man/LT pole as performed by the few who have really trained it is very effective and, I believe, authentic to our lineage. That it shares movements with Weng Chun is not surprising, since according to our lineage, the pole was originally introduced from outside Wing Chun by Leung Yee Tai, a student of Chi Shin.

The historical authenticity of Leung Yee Tai may be impossible to prove, however even though in Roots and Branches of WingTsun, Leung Ting insists that Wing Tsun (Wing Chun) and Weng Chun are totally separate systems, apparently they did influence each other to some degree during this period. The long pole is one skill set that may have been shared.



Yes. I know the LT system has adopted Escrima but personally I have never need to do that.

Actually that's only true in the European Wing Tsun Organization. I'm a Yank, and I studied directly under LT here in the States back in the 80s. LT considered his WT to be "complete" and really didn't approve of my studying Escrima from Rene Latosa. As I was one of his more senior American disciples at that time, he reluctantly permitted me to continue to study escrima, but never really approved. Eventually, my free thinking combined with the lack of a "deep pocket" financially cost me. I was no longer included in the privileged clique, and I chose to leave his organization. These days, I continue to train escrima with various instructors and have found it very compatible with my Ving Tsun.



So this is why I am asking why people can't seem to accept that my Sigung had some serious stuff!! We all know the masters made things look very simple on their own clips, especially when it comes to forms. I view my sigungs clips in this way. I look for the indicators and signatures that relate to my own training, but I build how I want to build because I am not my Sifu or Sigung!!


Lone Tiger: Don't sweat the intolerant bozos. Wing Chun is all the more fascinating for the diversity of it's lineages. We only hurt our art by sectarianism and the kind narrow minded thinking often prevalent on this forum.

[EternalSpring]

I'm still very much in the earlier stages of the Luk Dim Poon Gwon, but one thing that my sifu taught as vital that I see in Tang Yiks video and not too many others is that the energy of each movement goes all the way through to the end of the staff. That's why the tip literally shakes/vibrates with each movement. Is this a basic important detail for others? I've noticed that "good" videos include this but the majority of Luk Dim Poon Gwon videos looks like the staff is simply just being lugged up and down and in various directions.

[KPM]

Just a reference to those that are saying Weng Chun isn't Wing Chun. The fact that we can take guidance or inspiration from Weng Chun pole far easier than we do from Wing Chun pole, which suggests our weaponry is in a pretty bad place.

Its quie sad really :(

Show me a video of your Sigung that is comparable to the one of Tang Yik and I am prepared to be impressed! ;) You say that your Sigung has not added to the Ip Man pole that he learned. But you also said the you see everything you have learned in the Tang Yik video and there are things you do that are not in the video. If that is true, then you need to seriously reconsider whether or not your Sigung has elaborated on his Ip Man pole instruction. Because I have seen the pole form from multiple Ip Man lineages, including Ip Ching, and the way you are describing what your Sigung taught does not fit. Ip Man's pole form was not as "elaborate" as what we see on that Tang Yik video. So really, your statement above about taking guidance doesn't make much sense. Now the part about our weaponry being in a bad place I can agree with! I think Grumblegeezer hit it on the head in his response!

Again. Don't take the above as negative towards your Sigung. Doesn't the lineage say he learned Ku Lo Wing Chun as well as Ip Man Wing Chun? Don't you refer to your lineage as "Lee Shing WCK", not "Ip Man WCK"? I have no problem with the idea that he has elaborated or expanded upon the Ip Man pole he learned. I'd love to see it!

[EternalSpring]

Because I have seen the pole form from multiple Ip Man lineages, including Ip Ching, and the way you are describing what your Sigung taught does not fit. Ip Man's pole form was not as "elaborate" as what we see on that Tang Yik video.

to be fair though, the forms are hardly the complete compilation of the techniques in the system, sometimes a move in the form is like a "root move" used later to train many "different" moves in various drills.

I dont know the form for the Long Pole in my lineage yet. I've been learning and training drills for it though for about a year, and what I've seen on youtube as the Ip Man Long Pole set looks more like one of my pole drills rather than the entire long pole "system." That's why I've always loved this Tang Yik video, because that form, though from a diff lineage, looks like all the drills I've been training put into a form, with the specific details that really matter.

[LoneTiger108]

Show me a video of your Sigung that is comparable to the one of Tang Yik and I am prepared to be impressed! ;)

Dude, I don't think you understand. This clip that Austin promoted was recorded 30 years ago and it has only just been 'let out' by the family to the public so I'm not about to upload the complete form online as I would be disowned and banished by my Sifu lol!

There are some of Joe Lee's students who are currently promoting more and more, but again they have a different view to both my Sifu and Austin too so it can all get quite confusing if you don't know what you are looking at (and basically that is anyone outside of the family/clan to be honest)


You say that your Sigung has not added to the Ip Man pole that he learned.

Did I? Or did I just say that he had been taught by Ip Man?

I think if you look back, I have said that what my Sigung had was more akin to the Fatshan teachings of Chan Wah Shun (Ip Mans Sifu) I say this because some say that he learnt from Ng Jung So, the inheritor of CWS School and Ip Mans Sihing.

My Sigung hasn't 'added' anything to his weaponry forms at all as far as I know.


Because I have seen the pole form from multiple Ip Man lineages, including Ip Ching, and the way you are describing what your Sigung taught does not fit.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here? Fit into what exactly? All I have said about what my Sigung is doing in the clip was that it was 2 sets of the form.


Again. Don't take the above as negative towards your Sigung.

I don't take offence here or anywhere else to be honest, I have learnt to sift through the sincere posters and jokers by now and can see from your questions and reasoning that you are interested. But please don't take my replies as anything but 'conversation' on Wing Chun. I try my hardest to explain and reassess what I write here as I have been misunderstood so many times I should have been offered the KFO T-Shirt by now lol!


Doesn't the lineage say he learned Ku Lo Wing Chun as well as Ip Man Wing Chun? Don't you refer to your lineage as "Lee Shing WCK", not "Ip Man WCK"? I have no problem with the idea that he has elaborated or expanded upon the Ip Man pole he learned. I'd love to see it!

Hmmm... far too many things that are misinformation here I don't know where to start. :o

[LoneTiger108]

to be fair though, the forms are hardly the complete compilation of the techniques in the system, sometimes a move in the form is like a "root move" used later to train many "different" moves in various drills.

You are spot on with this insight, and have the right idea about what Tang Yiks pole sets contain too, and this is what I have been trying to say here myself! :)

[Grumblegeezer]

I'm still very much in the earlier stages of the Luk Dim Poon Gwon, but one thing that my sifu taught as vital that I see in Tang Yiks video and not too many others is that the energy of each movement goes all the way through to the end of the staff. That's why the tip literally shakes/vibrates with each movement. Is this a basic important detail for others? I've noticed that "good" videos include this but the majority of Luk Dim Poon Gwon videos looks like the staff is simply just being lugged up and down and in various directions.

Good observation, but how visible the vibration is depends both on the quality of the movement and the length, weight and stiffness of the pole. In the hands of the same practitioner, the tip of a slender and flexible pole will almost flap back and forth while a heavy and stiff pole will simply quiver.

[KPM]

Hey Spencer!

Dude, I don't think you understand. This clip that Austin promoted was recorded 30 years ago and it has only just been 'let out' by the family to the public so I'm not about to upload the complete form online as I would be disowned and banished by my Sifu lol!

---Maybe I didn't understand. You posted the clip of Tang Yik. You posted a clip of Lee Shing. You lamented the fact that the Tang Yik clip has received more interest and comments in the past than the clip of your Sigung. I pointed out that the Tang Yik clip was more detailed and showed more high level skill as the reason it got more interest and said that if I saw a comparable clip of your Sigung I was prepared to be impressed. You've said that your lineage has far more pole and suggested people would like it. I didn't realize your lineage was keeping is secret!


Did I? Or did I just say that he had been taught by Ip Man?

---My apologies! I went back and reviewed your comment. I was reading more into it than you obviously intended!


I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here? Fit into what exactly? All I have said about what my Sigung is doing in the clip was that it was 2 sets of the form.

----Again, my apologies. I was going by the assumption that if Lee Shing's pole was what he learned from Ip Man, it doesn't match what other Ip Man people are doing. But that was obviously a wrong assumption on my part.


I don't take offence here or anywhere else to be honest,

---Yeah, you have to have a thick skin to hang out here. ;)



Hmmm... far too many things that are misinformation here I don't know where to start.

---Just what I remember reading many years ago. I'm prepared to be corrected! I obviously don't know much about your lineage!

[LoneTiger108]

---You've said that your lineage has far more pole and suggested people would like it. I didn't realize your lineage was keeping is secret!

---I was going by the assumption that if Lee Shing's pole was what he learned from Ip Man, it doesn't match what other Ip Man people are doing. But that was obviously a wrong assumption on my part.

---Just what I remember reading many years ago. I'm prepared to be corrected! I obviously don't know much about your lineage!

No correction can be offered by me lol! I can only share what I know, and in some cases I can't even do that. You are right in part, we do still hold on to many things outside the norm but to call them secrets is silly. They're not secret to me or many others.

It has even been made clear to me by people within our lineage that they will do and say whatever they like because that is 'their' truth. I respect that, but I have also had people from outside the family telling me who and what Lee Shing represented, which I found endearing but totally ridiculous lol!

I have my own truths and understanding of my Sigungs teachings and personally do not want to even associate with anyone claiming he has Kulo this or Piensan that. It is simple misinformation. Period. But only according to my own truths ;)

Before my Sigung passed away there had always been speculation about what and who he had learnt from prior to Ip Man and whether he had even done that too! From my own reserch, and I do take things like this pretty seriously, I found absolutely no evidence that Lee Shing himself promoted anything (publically) outside of the Ip Man framework. His close students have kept these things to themselves too as many were not using Wing Chun to build a career in Martial Arts teaching. or make some pocket money!

All I can say is those given permission to and actually taught to teach publically were very very few and included my own Sifu.

Of course Lee Shing taught most of his students privately and what they decided to do with all his stuff after he died was their call, but I don't have to agree :(

[LoneTiger108]

:)

http://www.frequency.com/video/lee-shing-wing-chun-ip-man-lineage-2-man/107478537

[Grumblegeezer]

:)

http://www.frequency.com/video/lee-shing-wing-chun-ip-man-lineage-2-man/107478537

One question. These movements as shown, including the center grip/double ended short staff fighting and the flipping/reverse grip usage of the Baat Cham Dao are attributed to Yip Man?

[Vajramusti]

:)

http://www.frequency.com/video/lee-shing-wing-chun-ip-man-lineage-2-man/107478537

----------------------
To each his own.

[Grumblegeezer]

----------------------
To each his own.

True, but by the same token, I'll pass on that.

[LoneTiger108]

One question. These movements as shown, including the center grip/double ended short staff fighting and the flipping/reverse grip usage of the Baat Cham Dao are attributed to Yip Man?

This is specifically Lee Shing family stuff from Master Joe Lee, so no I wouldn't think it has anything to do with Ip Man at all. In fact, more likely from other sources, but who is anyones guess?

I personally never learnt these interactive sets but know the pair in the clips and they're a lovely couple. As I have mentioned, Lee Shing taught all his students differently and Joe Lee is more known for promoting the 'Kulo' brand. Not that I agree with such labels but hey ho!!


To each his own.

Exactly.

[leeshing]

Spencer why don't you use your Sifu clips to explain your point with that said this is Joseph Man interactive sets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k7q4HzXEaeU

This kinda pole is only practiced by Joseph Man as far as I know Ive never seen any other Lee Shing Student do this kind off thing

[KPM]

OK. I'm confused. The poster Leeshing asked Spencer if he had learned the KuLo parts of the Lee Shing lineage, and then went back and edited his post to remove that comment. When I posted a comment about Lee Shing having learned some KuLo Wing Chun and included it in his method Spencer said it was "misinformation." So what's going on? :confused:

[leeshing]

OK. I'm confused. The poster Leeshing asked Spencer if he had learned the KuLo parts of the Lee Shing lineage, and then went back and edited his post to remove that comment. When I posted a comment about Lee Shing having learned some KuLo Wing Chun and included it in his method Spencer said it was "misinformation." So what's going on? :confused:

I took it out because what's the point Lee Shing first Sifu was Fong Yee Ming he also went on to study with Fung Sang So Kulo (Pin San) was the first method he learned before training with Ip Man so under my Sifu we learn both methods this I believe is the same with Austin Goh and Def with Eddie Yeoh and Nigel Fan and Chan Man Keun who I also used to trained with. Im not sure why Joseph Man says differently and to be honest don't really care

[KPM]

I took it out because what's the point Lee Shing first Sifu was Fong Yee Ming he also went on to study with Fung Sang So Kulo (Pin San) was the first method he learned before training with Ip Man so under my Sifu we learn both methods this I believe is the same with Austin Goh and Def with Eddie Yeoh and Nigel Fan and Chan Man Keun who I also used to trained with. Im not sure why Joseph Man says differently and to be honest don't really care

Thanks for the feedback! I guess it wasn't "misinformation" after all! ;) I thought my memory was going.

[LoneTiger108]

OK. I'm confused. The poster Leeshing asked Spencer if he had learned the KuLo parts of the Lee Shing lineage, and then went back and edited his post to remove that comment. When I posted a comment about Lee Shing having learned some KuLo Wing Chun and included it in his method Spencer said it was "misinformation." So what's going on? :confused:

You're confused? You should meet Michael Watson aka leeshing :eek:


I took it out because what's the point Lee Shing first Sifu was Fong Yee Ming he also went on to study with Fung Sang So Kulo (Pin San) was the first method he learned before training with Ip Man so under my Sifu we learn both methods this I believe is the same with Austin Goh and Def with Eddie Yeoh and Nigel Fan and Chan Man Keun who I also used to trained with. Im not sure why Joseph Man says differently and to be honest don't really care

Let's be honest. You don't care because you have no Respect. You do know why my Sifu has a different 'story' because I have told you exactly why, and yet you still continue to want to bring this sort of thing up in a public Forum?! You don't agree or understand my Sifus approach to training, that's your issue that you should take up with your own Sifu.

I have never agreed to the use of the term 'Kulo' or 'Piensan' to be used to promote Sigung, and again you also know why.

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer why don't you use your Sifu clips to explain your point with that said this is Joseph Man interactive sets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k7q4HzXEaeU

This kinda pole is only practiced by Joseph Man as far as I know Ive never seen any other Lee Shing Student do this kind off thing

I'm not trying to explain any point, and have been very clear on what I have already shared here thanks Michael. The reason I used the clip of Ori and Glen is because I have previously used examples from my own demos, examples of my Sifus clips in other threads and people don't seem to be able to recognize anything they generally see in Ip Mans pole.

So I shared a clip from uncles side and guess what? Nobody can see anything worth looking at in that clip either (so far!) which again is a great shame but just the way it is...

[leeshing]

I'm not trying to explain any point, and have been very clear on what I have already shared here thanks Michael. The reason I used the clip of Ori and Glen is because I have previously used examples from my own demos, examples of my Sifus clips in other threads and people don't seem to be able to recognize anything they generally see in Ip Mans pole.

So I shared a clip from uncles side and guess what? Nobody can see anything worth looking at in that clip either (so far!) which again is a great shame but just the way it is...

Maybe because what is being shown by Glen and Ori isnt Ip Man the 2 man sets are kulo sets 3 1/2 point pole and Dai Lim Tao 2 man set the only set that has Ip Man is knife against Pole and that still as a lot of influence of Kulo The pole forms that we do with my Sifu are not Ip Man Lineage and I have never seen a pole set from your Sifu that looks like Ip Man not saying you dont do it but Ive never seen it in fact Ive never seen your pole form why not post a clip

[leeshing]

You're confused? You should meet Michael Watson aka leeshing :eek:



Let's be honest. You don't care because you have no Respect. You do know why my Sifu has a different 'story' because I have told you exactly why, and yet you still continue to want to bring this sort of thing up in a public Forum?! You don't agree or understand my Sifus approach to training, that's your issue that you should take up with your own Sifu.

I have never agreed to the use of the term 'Kulo' or 'Piensan' to be used to promote Sigung, and again you also know why.

First KPM I am always willing to meet up and train with people from other Lineages

Second Spencer YAWN Really Really boring mate and don't care what you or your sifu say or do talking of respect is accusing my Sifu of misinformation showing respect or just calling him a conman oh look the word conman again haha

Also just wanna add Im done with this conversation only came on here to Share info on the next Wing Chun Gathering March 1st & 2nd Birmingham UK so if you want the last word Il let you have it

[LoneTiger108]

I have never seen a pole set from your Sifu that looks like Ip Man not saying you dont do it but Ive never seen it in fact Ive never seen your pole form why not post a clip

So you're well informed then? Typical really. You know we will begin to sound like the WSL boys if we aint careful lol!

FWIW I have never shared my weaponry with 'outsiders'.


Second Spencer YAWN Really Really boring mate and don't care what you or your sifu say or do talking of respect is accusing my Sifu of misinformation showing respect or just calling him a conman oh look the word conman again haha

Conman? A word you are all too familiar with or something?

As for respect for your Sifu, I have that in abundance but unfortunately he has no control over you. Not that you care. You have always been very clear on that.

He also knows my Sifus views on all the Kulo banter too, as does Austin and every other person you have mentioned! Remember they have all known eachother far longer than any of us. Respect will always be there because they are true brothers.

But again. You don't care so what does it all matter what I or they think?

[leeshing]

Again thats March 1st & 2nd See you all there Its an honour to represent Lee Shing Wing Chun at this event
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7775&stc=1&d=1378309115

[Jansingsang]

So you're well informed then? Typical really. You know we will begin to sound like the WSL boys if we aint careful lol

Theres a vast difference with the Wsl boys and yourselfs in debate we can find a common ground at least to discuss .Wereas you Lee shing chaps can't stand the very exsitance of each other :D I get the imprestion Am The true authority of Lee Shing lineage Oh no your not Am :rolleyes::D

[leeshing]

Theres a vast difference with the Wsl boys and yourselfs in debate we can find a common ground at least to discuss .Wereas you Lee shing chaps can't stand the very exsitance of each other :D I get the imprestion Am The true authority of Lee Shing lineage Oh no your not Am :rolleyes::D

Mate you couldnt be further from the truth I dont care people can call themselves Grandmaster Im hard Bruce Lee Wing Chun if they want. Its like any Lineage there is no single true WC and for that reason I also train outside my family in fact I was training with Clive last week because I think I can learn a lot from the WSL Method

[LoneTiger108]

Theres a vast difference with the Wsl boys and yourselfs in debate we can find a common ground at least to discuss .Wereas you Lee shing chaps can't stand the very exsitance of each other :D I get the imprestion Am The true authority of Lee Shing lineage Oh no your not Am :rolleyes::D

Sorry but I don't care for who has any authority because within our lineage nobody has any, it's a level playing field.

This will not last for much longer though. Truth will always find a way.