Do all HFY schools teach the same...

[Savi]

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.

If find your commentary above to have absolutely no merit.

If you think that JP's post is sufficient enough to draw your conclusion, well... more power to you. I, however, find your post to be extremely ridiculous and uneducated. Considering your history of conversations with HFY members, you leave no question in my mind as to how sincere and open you are on HFY topics. What is your agenda here?

[JPinAZ]

Having a simple question answered (as he more or less did in his last post) and my asking a follow up question is hardly trolling.

You mean 2 questions. In case you already forgot:

12-08-2008, 02:47 PM
So, does this mean HFY did or did not start with weapons originally?

Yesterday, 02:28 PM
Does the historical HFY progression introduce weapons at the start of the progression or soon after as is not done today?

Obviously, you really had a point to make, why not just make it and stop playing stupid?

Woodworking is not the same skill as blacksmithing and trees aren't the same natural resource as iron.

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.

Who said anything about woodworking or blacksmithing anyway? You did. Who said anything about what type of weapons anyone used? you did. now you're just arguing with yourself. Pretty silly if you ask me.

And who said anything about what anyone from HFY used? (besides you)
I thought you were talking about "a group of peasant farmer/insurgents in a region " when you brought all this up. Somehow you are now trying to direct this to back to HFY as well.. Now you're moving beyond silly

And are you seriously saying that poor farmers (regardless the MA they use), who can't afford to make quality weapons regardless the time period, shouldn't use the only weapons that are available to them simply because they are outdated? Right... That's like saying people today should all stop carrying such an impractical weapon as pocket knives since they've all been outdated at the inseption of the hand gun. Friggin brilliant..
Not sure if you realize, people are still using wood as weapons. The word Easton comes to mind... how silly of them too..

[duende]

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.

Not true.

Every see people carry buckets of water across their back? What did they use then and still use in some areas to this day?????

A long pole.

Very practical and highly in use as there were no plumbing systems back then which made carrying in fresh water a daily ritual.

In America, we only had just began using indoor plumbing by the 1840's and then only in major cities.

[CFT]

Not true.

Every see people carry buckets of water across their back? What did they use then and still use in some areas to this day?????

A long pole.

Very practical and highly in use as there were no plumbing systems back then which made carrying in fresh water a daily ritual.

I don't think those poles are as long as the Wing Chun long pole. It wouldn't make sense from a leverage point of view. We carry things as close to the body as possible to make use of the skeletal structure.

I think the long pole is more likely to come from a punting pole from the Red Junks, but like a lot of things "Wing Chun" it is not easy to prove.

[bennyvt]

i thought the question was ok. I said you shouldn't learn the knives too early. One guy said that they were taught first. So he asked for more information. I think considering the problems with learning them too early (read the article i have linked in the necessity of a teacher thread) i find this strange. People have brought up fma which i have learnt but it all comes down to yet you think the knives or the hands were first and the other came from that. I was thinking he was looking for proof me some kind. But it seems every hfy guy is having a go at him. Im sure he could work it out with duende who seems hotel enough

[Wayfaring]

This whole thread is ridiculous. Someone doesn't like one of the HFY school's marketing programs. So train somewhere you feel has better marketing or no marketing if that's what's important to you.

That all gets sorted out. Then a huge controversy over whether weapons are/are not taught first. HFY oral history indicates weapons were originally taught first. Now they aren't.

Woohoo - great controversy there. Why, or why not? I mean does it really go beyond the fact that GM Garrett Gee is teaching his art from a hands first training curriculum and that most of his schools do too? I mean I'm sure he could teach wing chun from about a dozen different approaches including weapons first. Whatever approach he chooses, he has a unique ability to get across a whole lot in a short period of time.

[Tom Kagan]

If find your commentary above to have absolutely no merit.

If you think that JP's post is sufficient enough to draw your conclusion, well... more power to you. I, however, find your post to be extremely ridiculous and uneducated. Considering your history of conversations with HFY members, you leave no question in my mind as to how sincere and open you are on HFY topics. What is your agenda here?

You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you.


My agenda is to have questions answered on topics I find interesting which can be reasonably discussed on the internet. What's yours?

I think the real problem here is that you don't actually know the answers to these questions but aren't willing to simply admit you don't know. If you and JPinAZ prefer to let your personal gremlins give cause to divert this and try and make this subject about me, I'm cool with that, but it won't change anything within you. Duende is at least open to discussion.

Not true.

Every see people carry buckets of water across their back? What did they use then and still use in some areas to this day?????

Poles used for carrying water are much shorter, gripped in the middle, and might have a notch to help attach a bucket handles at both ends. Regardless, while there may be some instances of people using them as weapons, there isn't much which supports there use as weapon wielded in the same fashion as an 8 1/2 to 14 foot+ single end tapered pole.

Also, what most people don't realize is that water is heavy - 8 1/2 pounds per gallon. Not too many people would practically carry more than one container, usually up on their shoulder or head. And, those who did, typically did not use just a pole but would construct a yoke or even a frame to better distribute the load across the shoulders and back.

But that's neither here nor there.


Did teaching the weapons first or very soon in progression the predate the galvanization of training methodology into a distinct and actual style? Or, was this a later change to a methodology already in practice and considered the style's curriculum?

[Tom Kagan]

Obviously, you really had a point to make, why not just make it and stop playing stupid?

Why is it hard to answer a simple question?

And are you seriously saying that poor farmers (regardless the MA they use), who can't afford to make quality weapons regardless the time period, shouldn't use the only weapons that are available to them simply because they are outdated?

I suppose I'm saying peasants aren't stupid enough to think an 8 1/2 to 14 foot pole is a good choice as a weapon when better alternatives are available - not the least of which is a shorter pole - and that it is an interesting paradox that the ancestors would choose it as an impractical "weapon" to train within the style when the folklore of the style also tries to underscore the practicality of the training.

[Wayfaring]

Did teaching the weapons first or very soon in progression the predate the galvanization of training methodology into a distinct and actual style? Or, was this a later change to a methodology already in practice and considered the style's curriculum?

This seems to be the English language, yet smacks of a severe head injury while attending Oxford University.

Ummm, I'll give the answer a shot. Weapons used to be trained first back in China. Now, hands are trained first.

Now what this has to do with the rise of the English Rennaisance I don't know, Lord Clark.

[JPinAZ]

haha, wayfaring, too funny And you bring up some great points!

From my experience, I would also add that HFY isn't so much a 'style' as it is a system of fighting based on concepts and principals. And these concepts go beyond just hand fighting and translate well to weapons. And, I assume most WCK is thought to be generally the same (i am only somewhat familiar with MY/YM besides HFY). So, it is also safe to say that training can start anywhere, weapons or hands - the concepts remain.

In revolutionary times, I would think it should be a no-brainer that starting with weapons would make more sense since they are more effective for killing than bare hands, 'specially when going up against other armed fighters. And I think it's pretty logical to train whatever weapon is most readily available at the time and location - swords if you have'em, poles if it's all you have. I don't understand why this is all becoming so complicated..

In to day's day and age, we have hand guns, which would be the most logical weapon to start with from this perspective. But if you don't have access to one, you make due with what you have, including your hands. Still hasn't changed much. So, you can approach the training from any perspective you choose or that is necessary. If people want to learn the hand stuff, why not teach them that? If they want to learn weapons, that's there too. At this point in time, people have the choice since thier lives don't really depend on it like in the past. Now it's really about preference than necessity.

[Tom Kagan]

This seems to be the English language, yet smacks of a severe head injury while attending Oxford University.

Ummm, I'll give the answer a shot. Weapons used to be trained first back in China. Now, hands are trained first.

Now what this has to do with the rise of the English Rennaisance I don't know, Lord Clark.

lol! Lousy proof reading. (Getting hit in the head is a hazard of our shared hobby.)

I understand the transition. I'm asking if it predates the galvanization of HFY. I.e.: Were weapons taught later right from the 'birth', or was that a later change?

[Savi]

You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you.

This kind of low-class, pathetic comment supports a very weak and nonconvincing story that you are here for productive discourse. Weak words from an old bag. You are looking for something and it's something everyone is tired of. You seriously need to grow up.

I'm not here to answer your question because your question is off topic. It serves as bait for you to make something out of nothing. People have answered the original poster. The thread is done and should be closed.

You're bored and that's obvious. You're blurring the lines between a weapons discussion and HFY history. You have no understanding of the culture or the people you make assumptions about. You can't put the pieces together and you know it. I am here to stop you from trying to turn HFY into a personal focal point for your humor and ego. Ridiculous.

Take Duende's suggestion and start a new thread if you really are sincere. This one is dead, and you keep trying to kick it. Take a hike.

[Tom Kagan]

This kind of low-class, pathetic comment supports a very weak and nonconvincing story that you are here for productive discourse. Weak words from an old bag. You are looking for something and it's something everyone is tired of. You seriously need to grow up.

I'm not here to answer your question because your question is off topic. It serves as bait for you to make something out of nothing. People have answered the original poster. The thread is done and should be closed.

You're bored and that's obvious. You're blurring the lines between a weapons discussion and HFY history. You have no understanding of the culture or the people you make assumptions about. You can't put the pieces together and you know it. I am here to stop you from trying to turn HFY into a personal focal point for your humor and ego. Ridiculous.

Take Duende's suggestion and start a new thread if you really are sincere. This one is dead, and you keep trying to kick it. Take a hike.

What you just responded to was 'bait'. You should learn the difference between it and questions before your blood pressure gets too far out of control. I do however, like the irony of calling what I said "low class" when your responses aren't exactly the high road. Such hypocrisy isn't very becoming of you.

Why is it so hard for you to say you don't know the answer to a simple question?

[Wayfaring]

lol! Lousy proof reading. (Getting hit in the head is a hazard of our shared hobby.)

I understand the transition. I'm asking if it predates the galvanization of HFY. I.e.: Were weapons taught later right from the 'birth', or was that a later change?

Hmmm. Galvanization.

galvanization

noun
1. stimulation with a galvanic current
2. stimulation that arouses a person to lively action; "the unexpected news produced a kind of galvanization of the whole team"
3. either the work of covering with metal by the use of a galvanic current or the coating of iron with zinc to protect it from rusting

I'm guessing you're meaning definition #2 here. And by that, the "stimulation that is arousing HFY to action" that I've seen here lately seems to be some of your questions and questioning methods, Lord Clark.

As to the question on weapons training first, and when it exactly switched to hands, I don't really know. All I think any of us has is stories or oral tradition history. I would speculate that even by the Red Boat time they might have been doing more hands training first even due to logistics. But that would be a guess only. And from what I've seen the system is set up where teaching it from different methods is very available. So it may even have been a teacher's choice type of a deal.

[duende]

I don't think those poles are as long as the Wing Chun long pole. It wouldn't make sense from a leverage point of view. We carry things as close to the body as possible to make use of the skeletal structure.

I think the long pole is more likely to come from a punting pole from the Red Junks, but like a lot of things "Wing Chun" it is not easy to prove.

CFT,

Of course a pole to carry water is shorter. But using it as staff weapon for engagement and trapping is fine.