Where would you stick the Pole?

[Vajramusti]

Originally Posted by Vajramusti
Southern poles and wing chun pole work are different from Northern spears.
China had its diversities.
Pole work may have been originally related to boats but
its usefulness continues in wing chun development of structure, function and motion, if learned properly and well. Its not just for poking.

joy chaudhuri


Explain.

How are they different?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the boat versus foot soldier and horsemen origins---
You have to learn good nwing chun pole work- it is not that common.
Even other southern styles like hung gar uses the pole differently.
Dont have time for a dissertation- but basically some short notes might help.

The pole is integrated into the wing chun body structure in its own wing chun way.
The role of the front and back hands are quite different from most spear work..
Those two points are just starters.

Once one learns the pole- no longer needs the pole- anything appropriately longer than a stick will do.Other objects will do. And the hand and structure is energized in new ways by proper pole usage (where the pole doesnt use you).

joy chaudhuri

[Edmund]

The pike analogy is flawed because those are not used as personal figthing weapons at all and don't even require "martial arts" skill from the guy holding the weapon. They require it from the guy who is directing the troops. Dismounting mounted fighters with those things was a bit of creative genius from someone who was well aware that armies win battles, not individual fighters.

You truly can't read.

Martial arts borrowed training techniques from the military.

[omarthefish]

Alright Mr. Borges, maybe you can use your literary genius to explain how borrowing tachniques from the military is relevant to the part of my post that you quoted. In the meantime. Maybe my writing just wasn't elequent enough. Borrow away! Martial artists can "borrow" all the military techniques they want.

Perhaps you could tell us all which style of martial arts it is exactly that has training techniques for arranging large groups of people in rows with pole arms intermingles with an equally large group of people with shields? How about even any individual part? Techniques for training large groups of people to resond to commands to march in specific directions? Group formations? Pulling people down from horses? Off of motorcylcles? Or better yet, since this was a talk about the WC pole and I was criticising it's comparison to the use of the medieval pike, maybe you could point out which pole techniques seem to be "borrowed" from such a scenario. I'm really excited to hear how a bunch of guys in Fotshan China managed to borrow training methods from medieval England but I'd be satisfied to just learn of any similarities at all between the use of the WC pole and the English pike.



p.s. Use small words please as I truly can't read and all.

[omarthefish]

Thanks for engaging. I missed that you actually suggested a few differences in this post. When I saw the big long line of dashes I think I thought you were moving on to address someone else and didn't really take a good look.

How are they different?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the boat versus foot soldier and horsemen origins---
You have to learn good nwing chun pole work- it is not that common.
Even other southern styles like hung gar uses the pole differently.
Dont have time for a dissertation- but basically some short notes might help.

Short notes indeed. But so far this only seems to suggest that you are kind of seeing the thing through WC colored glasses. EVERY style will have it's own particularities and training methods but the certain basic ideas will remain. You suggested on your own that any stick will do so what basically defines the weapon. You suggested it needs a certain length and from the WC pole I have seen so far I can tell it's mostly used one ended. You don't swith it up or do twirls. Basically one end is the striking end and the other is the end you hold. Is any of that not true?

The pole is integrated into the wing chun body structure in its own wing chun way.
The role of the front and back hands are quite different from most spear work..
Those two points are just starters.

More specific to my point though, how would you change this "wing chun way" of integrating the weapon into the body structure if there was a pointy blad attatched to the end? NOT a chopping blade or a slashing one (although you could make somewhat superficial slashes with the tip) but basically a 6 inch sword at the end. Would that be more or less simlar than if you attatched a hook to the end?

The pertinant question is not "How different is the WC method from the Hung Gar method?" but rather "How is the WC pole method different from the WC spear method?"

Haven't you been taught to abstract the principles of the weapon? Otherwise, how would you use "anything appropriately longer than a stick" as you put it?

And the hand and structure is energized in new ways by proper pole usage (where the pole doesnt use you).

This is the primary reason for spear training being continued in most northern arts like Xing Yi or Baji today.

So far we still have a perfect match between spear and pole. I expect there are some differences but none have been mentioned so far. I expect the differences that will eventually be mentioned will be subtle and those of emphasis only.

[Edmund]

Alright Mr. Borges, maybe you can use your literary genius to explain how borrowing tachniques from the military is relevant to the part of my post that you quoted. In the meantime. Maybe my writing just wasn't elequent enough. Borrow away! Martial artists can "borrow" all the military techniques they want.

YOU claimed the pike analogy was flawed because it was not a personal fighting weapon and required little martial arts skill.

The argument made was that the military training techniques were borrowed. The distinction being that the martial artists incorporate an outside idea into the existing martial art. NOT that the art came from the military.

[Lee Chiang Po]

You can't even get the dates of modern arts right, why should we trust you talking about 2500?

Aikido goes back to the 1920s, as does judo (in fact longer)... which is longer than 50 years!

In the oldest written history on the planet which is Japan's Nihonshiki there is mention of a grappling/throwing art. Since this book also mentions lots of things with Chinese influence and at that time there was no animosity between the two cultures there would be no reason to obscure it if it came from China. This art developed into sumai which became sumo and which arguably is the origin of jujutsu. I say arguably because there is no direct historical evidence, just as there is no evidence to suggest this mythical art of yours from 2500 years ago existed.

If you can't provide a link to your 'fact' perhaps you can tell me which book you read it in, or who traced it back so far.

Again, I and the Martial Arts world are eagerly waiting for you answer... but since you've just talked **** since the last time you asked, I'm not holding my breath.

OK, so I am off about 25 years or so. It is still less than a century. There are a lot of other forms that are no older. The stuff you are quoting is nothing more than the stuff I am quoting, because there are so many different histories written in the past 100 years, mostly in the past 25 or 30 years really, that have little in common with the facts. Like I said, believe what you want. You can not prove it one way or the other. All you can do is quote another version than mine, because what I am saying is nothing more than what I have read, and that being by proffessors of the art, just like you. As far as I am concerned, Japanese Jujitsu evolved directly from a form of Chinese grappling kung fu, and Wing Chun kung fu originated on a boat. Unless of course you can actually prove this is wrong.

[Vajramusti]

I think I thought you were moving on to address someone else and didn't really take a good look.

((Ok))





Short notes indeed. But so far this only seems to suggest that you are kind of seeing the thing through WC colored glasses.
((This a wing chun forum supposedly-and my glasses are pretty clear))

EVERY style will have it's own particularities and training methods but the certain basic ideas will remain.

((Little genetic variances make for great differences in the outcomes. And lowest common denominators may not help much in understanding a sytem))
))

You suggested on your own that any stick will do so what basically defines the weapon.

((If you understand and are experienced in wing chun usage of the pole. You cant go running around witha 8 foot teak pole in an urban area these days))

)) You suggested it needs a certain length and from the WC pole I have seen so far I can tell it's mostly used one ended. You don't swith it up or do twirls. Basically one end is the striking end and the other is the end you hold. Is any of that not true?

((Your assumptions and guess work))





More specific to my point though, how would you change this "wing chun way" of integrating the weapon into the body structure if there was a pointy blad attatched to the end? NOT a chopping blade or a slashing one (although you could make somewhat superficial slashes with the tip) but basically a 6 inch sword at the end. Would that be more or less simlar than if you attatched a hook to the end?

((I would adapt to what is available and use it- when I want to))

"How is the WC pole method different from the WC spear method?"

((Adaptation is a hallmark of good wing chun. ))

Haven't you been taught to abstract the principles of the weapon?

((Not following your patronizing question))

Otherwise, how would you use "anything appropriately longer than a stick" as you put it?

((See above- adptation is a hallmark of good wing chun))



This is the primary reason for spear training being continued in most northern arts like Xing Yi or Baji today.

((Not really interested in XingYi or Baji. Wing chun is a demanding mistress))

So far we still have a perfect match between spear and pole.

((You apparently have convinced yourself))

Joy Chaudhuri

[omarthefish]

YOU claimed the pike analogy was flawed because it was not a personal fighting weapon and required little martial arts skill.

The argument made was that the military training techniques were borrowed. The distinction being that the martial artists incorporate an outside idea into the existing martial art. NOT that the art came from the military.

Yes. It still is. I am kind of baffled that you don't see it. You're "counterpoint" is a non-sequetir. It doesn't respond to my point at all. To whit, how does borrowing military training techniques somehow imply a connection between the group tactics of pike use to dismount riders and the individual practices developed within the WC tradition for the use of the long pole? As to the assertion that "martial artists incorporate an outside idea into the existing martial art", state specifically what aspect of English pike use to dismount cavalry or even similar tactics within Chinese history that have been incoporated to WC pole work?

If you can draw a connection betwen the two then I can give you credit for having added something intelligible to the discussion. So far, you have failed to draw any connection whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vajramusti,

((Little genetic variances make for great differences in the outcomes. And lowest common denominators may not help much in understanding a sytem))

You still haven't named a single "little genetic variance" between SPEAR and WC POLE. This is not an argument really...not yet. IF you can start naming signifigant differences between WC pole work and spear work THEN we can start to argue....or not. (You never know. I might agree with you. )


((If you understand and are experienced in wing chun usage of the pole. You cant go running around witha 8 foot teak pole in an urban area these days))

I am merely referring to your own post #31:

Once one learns the pole- no longer needs the pole- anything appropriately longer than a stick will do.Other objects will do.

What is your point. YOU alluded to the idea that generalities can be made of weapons. I assumed you meant that an object similar to a pole (like say...a spear) could be used in the same way. If that wasn't your point with the part of your own post I just quoted for reference, what was?

)) You suggested it needs a certain length and from the WC pole I have seen so far I can tell it's mostly used one ended. You don't swith it up or do twirls. Basically one end is the striking end and the other is the end you hold. Is any of that not true?

((Your assumptions and guess work))

So which part is wrong? You simply imply that what I stated is not true and that I am ignorant of how the long pole is used but fail to state a single part of my "assumptions and guesswork" that was innacurate. I'll make it simple and list them separately so you could say which one's are wrong:

1. Mostly used one ended. In other words, you don't often strike with alternating ends of the weapon. You hold one end and hit people with the other.

2. You don't switch your grip from one end of the pole to the other.

3. You don't twirl it.

I ask you for the second time, is any of that not true. Just saying that this is my "assumptions and guess work" does not indicate that it is not 100% correct.

((I would adapt to what is available and use it- when I want to))

So you can name no specific ways whatsoever that a spear should be used differently from a long pole? That's my point.

((Adaptation is a hallmark of good wing chun. ))

That's true but isn't particularly relevant to my question so I'll ask it again:
"How is the WC pole method different from the WC spear method?"

Haven't you been taught to abstract the principles of the weapon?

((Not following your patronizing question))

Not patronizing. It's rhetorical. That means, it wasn't really a question. It was a statement framed as a question. A rhetorical question presumes that the listener knows the answer already.

((See above- adptation is a hallmark of good wing chun))

That's a nice mantra. Completely useless without specifics. I have you a specific. A spear. HOW would you adapt pole movements to use with a spear?

((Not really interested in XingYi or Baji. Wing chun is a demanding mistress))

Hey know! I thought you said you weren't wearing WC colored glasses! You lied to me.....I feel so hurt and dissapointed. See, earlier you tried to emphasise the uniuque role that pole training has in WC but now you are saying that you really don't know or even care for that matter how weapons such as the spear are used in the context of various other martial arts styles known for it's use.

((You apparently have convinced yourself))

Well it's been easy so far as no one has raised any counterpoints.

[Liddel]

There is no evidence to say that jujutsu came from any Chinese form.
End of song, end of story.

Well i guess we cant believe it then, Nor can we believe in Jesus, because what evidence there is of this popular figure in history, remains very subjective just like that on the origin of grappling

I offer no personal opinion on this other than to say Read the book "Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts".

This book purportedly written by authorities on fighting arts in general, put foward the idea that grappling came from the chinesse. It researches the origin of many fighting arts looking at places such as India - China - Japan and Burma.
An interesting read.

The two authors whos names i forget at the mo, are actually students of a few Japanese arts each (So no bias towards the chinesse on thier part).

So we have many opinions around the world that support both sides of the coin.
But hey this thread is about the POLE

I like the Pole / spear analogy - it hits closer to home than the other examples out there for ME.

The only thing i see seperating the two is the dominating forces at work.
The spear being sharp cuts - and requires less force from the user than a pole on its own.

The Lok Dim Boon relies on body energy (made by you) sent down the pole not by momentum of movement alone ( Dan Kwan anyone ?) and the natural force of the woods - weight strenght etc.

Relying on less momentum of movement than one would use in the spear, but dam close IMO.

[Liddel]

All this is so subjective ! why are people so serious ?

[AndrewS]

Hey Omar,

you pick up any baji pole/spear work yet? I remain pretty impressed at the similarites between the pole exercises in baji and Wing Chun- comparing the stuff up on Tony Yang's site to what I've seen from a bunch of lines of Wing Chun. Jim Fung's weapons book is a nice place to start if you get a chance to look.

Personally, I tend to agree with you that people who want to use a 8-10' piece of lumber as a weapon would probably fix something sharp at the end of it, and that the thing has hung around because it's a nice training tool. For weapons combat I'll take a 6-7' evenly balanced staff over one of these tapered monstrosities any day- the ability to change angle and range combined with decent reach is, in my estimation, superior for combat, if there isn't something sharp on the end of the 8-10' thing.

As to differences between spear and pole work- pretty simple- how you apply force will be a bit different. As an escrima guy, I get ****ed when people tell me the stick is a representation of a blade. Training as if the stick is a blade tends to lead to weak, wrist powered hits which depend on an imagined edge. Train as if the stick is a stick; learn to deliver power with it; then train with the stick as if it's a blade- focusing the power on an imagined edge. This being kept in mind, a spear is generally gonna be used against people in armor, so you'll cultivate a sharp force to penetrate with, then drive in, essentially trying to hammer the point in - a common technique in western martial arts. Check <http://www.schlachtschule.org/> for some examples.

Perhaps we should divide the topic further
-pole vs. armor
-pole vs. unarmored
-spear vs. armor
-spear vs. unarmored.

Later,

Andrew

[omarthefish]

The only thing i see seperating the two is the dominating forces at work.
The spear being sharp cuts - and requires less force from the user than a pole on its own.

I like that you have a specific point for me to look at but really it suggests that you have worked with the pole but not the spear. Spears don't cut. They stab. The Guan Dao cuts. The spear doesn't, at least not well. I do agree that the spear requires less force in stabbing but the spear is generally trained today for the way it teaches you how to generate power.

The Lok Dim Boon relies on body energy (made by you) sent down the pole not by momentum of movement alone ( Dan Kwan anyone ?) and the natural force of the woods - weight strenght etc.

Relying on less momentum of movement than one would use in the spear, but dam close IMO.

Again, that's exactly how you work with a spear. There's no "momentum" involved. It's not a bludgening weapon and not one that swings in big arcs. Spear is "point and shoot" with small sharp deflecting motions to bounce the other guy off line. There are more flowery spear forms out there but the basic thing is to just point it at someone and stab using vaious jin to "feel" the other guys weapon through the shaft.

The difference I can see is actually the mirror opposite of what you described. There are more "sharp cuts" with a staff/pole. Technically, no blade = no cut but the motion, the action of the weapon is still cutting. You can use the pole to smack someone like you would with a staff. You can do that with a spear too but the addition of the metal tip makes stabbing a potential kill vs. "cutting" or "smacking" just an injury. It prejudices the user more towards stabbing.

Really, spear tips are not effective at slashing or cutting. They basically just stab.

[Vajramusti]

Well it's been easy so far as no one has raised any counterpoints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you!

[omarthefish]

Hey Omar,

you pick up any baji pole/spear work yet? I remain pretty impressed at the similarites between the pole exercises in baji and Wing Chun- comparing the stuff up on Tony Yang's site to what I've seen from a bunch of lines of Wing Chun. Jim Fung's weapons book is a nice place to start if you get a chance to look.

Nope. Not yet. I've got my hands full with Taijiquan right now. AFAIK, next weapon for me is probably going to be a Taiji sword form of some sort. My teacher doesn't use the long pole training things. He's got the Baji spear but I'm not aware of him having passed it on to anyone at all so far. He only mentioned the sword to me because we've talked briefly about going in for govt. certification in the "duan" system. Kind of like a CCP black belt. The national sports dept. gives you a ranking. For that I need to show at least 2 weapons. Right now I only have Baji Dao.

Skipping the parts we agree on an on to the new points you brought up:

As to differences between spear and pole work- pretty simple- how you apply force will be a bit different. As an escrima guy, I get ****ed when people tell me the stick is a representation of a blade. Training as if the stick is a blade tends to lead to weak, wrist powered hits which depend on an imagined edge. Train as if the stick is a stick; learn to deliver power with it; then train with the stick as if it's a blade- focusing the power on an imagined edge. This being kept in mind, a spear is generally gonna be used against people in armor, so you'll cultivate a sharp force to penetrate with, then drive in, essentially trying to hammer the point in - a common technique in western martial arts. Check <http://www.schlachtschule.org/> for some examples.

Now THAT's the kind of answer I was hoping to draw out of Vajramusti, especially the last part. It's something I hadn't really thought about but I think is pretty valid now that you mention it.

Not completely sure about the armour thing. It certainly shaped the evolution of the usage but by the late Qing and the early republican era, it had already achieved a cultural status that made it a primary dueling weapon. The two main dueling weapons of China were the spear and the sword. Li Shuwen killed lots of Samurai with his spear though and I confess ignorance on what would be typical dueling attire for the "Samurai" of the early 20th century. Not even sure if they still called them selves that. Li Shuwen was dueling in the early republican era of China.

[omarthefish]

Well it's been easy so far as no one has raised any counterpoints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you!

Still waiting . . .

In the time since I posted that:

AndrewS named a couple specifics.

Liddel suggested a couple that I don't agree with.

You OTOH, have only said that I am wrong and not raised any points of your own. You have dodged every question and answered only with the vaguary that "in WC we prize adaptation" or somesuch.