Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 116

Thread: Where would you stick the Pole?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Colonia de Sant Jordi, Mallorca
    Posts
    179

    Where would you stick the Pole?

    Fundamentally Wing Chun or a later addition?

    The Pole form is a bit of an enigma, the stance and its actions most find difficult to rationalise using pure Wing Chun empty hand form principles, so the argument goes that it was added after the main part of the system was formulated, I don't see the anomaly, in my mind it is a perfect Wing Chun weapon once you define its use.

    The weapons of Wing Chun are in my mind are a well suited combination for actual warfare, it is my view that they were designed and developed specifically for the battlefield, I am not persuaded by the Red Junk history as wars are fought mainly on the ground not water, not that I reject their influence, just that the Wing Chun pole was thought of because it was first used to punt.

    Why should Wing Chun have such an unwieldy weapon as the pole? It was a question I pondered for a long time, thinking of the moves, analysing methodology, considering the simplicity, 'MY' answer came to me and it remains the way I justify the pole as a legitimate weapon in real fighting.

    Simply to knock men off horseback, once they have been knocked off then they are vulnerable to the short double swords. It was some years after I began teaching this theory for justification, that one of my students told me of an exhibition at the Royal Armoury in Leeds, UK, showing how the English pikestaff was utilised, a similar ten foot weapon, except it has a hook on the end, used to remove knights from their horses.

    I also remember being told many years ago that there was two pole forms, the 6,1/2, and a 3,1/2, the 3,1/2 was considered the most advanced, as it was simpler. This information just got stored in the back of my mind and did not emerge again until much later, the first pole form I was shown is from Yip Chun, the second, Yip Ching, the differences are three extra techniques in the Yip Ching version.

    Analysis of these three extra moves led me to think of 'pole fighting pole' usage, this does not sit comfortably with me as why should I use my pole to fight a pole with when I have two nice pieces of sharp metal to chop my enemy up with, also even without a weapon, once past the end of the pole it is just a liability to fight with.

    Apart from good muscle training and something to do instead of Chi Sau when you fancy doing something different, pole against pole exercises in my view have little credence in actual combat scenarios. Just my view.
    Take care out there and keep

    me
    www.tjwingchun.co.uk
    sifu
    www.kwokwingchun.com
    sigung
    www.ipchun.org
    my family
    www.ipfamilywingchun.com

    questions are how we grow, answers how we develop

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,299
    Quote Originally Posted by tjwingchun
    Fundamentally Wing Chun or a later addition?

    The Pole form is a bit of an enigma, the stance and its actions most find difficult to rationalise using pure Wing Chun empty hand form principles, so the argument goes that it was added after the main part of the system was formulated, I don't see the anomaly, in my mind it is a perfect Wing Chun weapon once you define its use.

    The weapons of Wing Chun are in my mind are a well suited combination for actual warfare, it is my view that they were designed and developed specifically for the battlefield, I am not persuaded by the Red Junk history as wars are fought mainly on the ground not water, not that I reject their influence, just that the Wing Chun pole was thought of because it was first used to punt.

    Why should Wing Chun have such an unwieldy weapon as the pole? It was a question I pondered for a long time, thinking of the moves, analysing methodology, considering the simplicity, 'MY' answer came to me and it remains the way I justify the pole as a legitimate weapon in real fighting.

    Simply to knock men off horseback, once they have been knocked off then they are vulnerable to the short double swords. It was some years after I began teaching this theory for justification, that one of my students told me of an exhibition at the Royal Armoury in Leeds, UK, showing how the English pikestaff was utilised, a similar ten foot weapon, except it has a hook on the end, used to remove knights from their horses.

    I also remember being told many years ago that there was two pole forms, the 6,1/2, and a 3,1/2, the 3,1/2 was considered the most advanced, as it was simpler. This information just got stored in the back of my mind and did not emerge again until much later, the first pole form I was shown is from Yip Chun, the second, Yip Ching, the differences are three extra techniques in the Yip Ching version.

    Analysis of these three extra moves led me to think of 'pole fighting pole' usage, this does not sit comfortably with me as why should I use my pole to fight a pole with when I have two nice pieces of sharp metal to chop my enemy up with, also even without a weapon, once past the end of the pole it is just a liability to fight with.

    Apart from good muscle training and something to do instead of Chi Sau when you fancy doing something different, pole against pole exercises in my view have little credence in actual combat scenarios. Just my view.

    Where would I stick the pole?

    That's kinda personal. yah know?

    P.S. I just couldn't resist.
    “An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.” – Friedrich Engels

  3. #3
    It is outdated but I find the pole tactics one of the best ways to expalin the system to beginers. The focus of all our efforts to a point that will knock someone down or ....., combining leg, torso and arms all in timing of 1 while using the staff/forearms to divert /maintain a defensive line as we attack. The ballistic short force of the parries to 'knock' any weapon/arm offline for the fraction we need to maintain the target and strike....taken to the pak, bong, jum, tan,vu et al...and it all becomes clear whats pointing the way...weapons. and the linsildida of the system.
    the knives are outdated to some degree but again are the guiding beacon to the whole 'way' without knowing the tactics one usually suffers the 'facing a bucket of water' syndrome of thinking " I fight like I do chisao " ....imagine someone attacking you with 2 knives and 2 legs where do want to be to maximize your offense ...? and minimize the possibility of death...? there are 2 ways to move 1 using empty hands which is as the myjong and the wider as the knives to allow for the distance of an edged weapon in your hands... sounds like 2 but its 1 way ....teachers often focusing on 1 part of the system rather than the whole ...but thats my opinion anyway

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    You may be right with the knocking people of horses thing, but your comparison with the European pike is very wrong.

    The pike is a pole-arm, ie, specifically it has a sharp, bladed or pointed end. It was aimed usually at the horses' chests, not at the horseman who'd be too difficult to aim for. And in fact most pikes certainly of three metres or more had a spike at the opposite end too to jam into the ground to arrest the horses' charge, because they were too fast and heavy to stop with just the bodyweight of the pikeman. The horses' momentum would often carry a speared horse all the way up the haft of the pike, where the pikeman would have to finish the horseman with a side-arm, so there would have been no light thrusting motions, or 'stabs'.

    On to the wing chun pole itself. I've only been shown one of its 'techs' and from what I've been told, read and believe, it's purely an energetics training implement.

    The little side swipes and counterthrusts in the form make sense for staff fighting but are so basic it makes me wonder that if it were a technical form where are the rest of the techs?! True, practising basic and often is better, but counters to the wing chun staff 'techs' would also be very basic and are not covered. Coming from an aikido staff background, which is very very efficient jojutsu supposedly in a direct line from Muso Gonnosuke (arguably Japan's most famous staff exponent and the only person recorded to have beaten Musashi, spurring Musashi to develop his characteristic two-sword style), any decent staff player would beat the living sugar out of someone only trained in WC staff! And I've never made such a strong claim about anything on the net!
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  5. #5

    Mr. Punch

    any decent staff player would beat the living sugar out of someone only trained in WC staff! And I've never made such a strong claim about anything on the net!
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How many folks really know wing chun pole usage and/or have received substantial training in wing chun pole work ? Ip Man appears to have taught very few people in any extensive pole work.


    joy chaudhuri

  6. #6

    Jo vs. Pole

    These two are charachteristicly different. It's like the 'style vs. style' arguement, ultimately it will depend on physical size and ability, understanding of the art and experience employing it.

    How about WC knives vs. Jo?

    (see, it's kinda bogus, huh?)

    But, for the sake of it, in modern times who walks around with an 8' pole? (Escrima sticks...maybe.)

    I don't train it for the 'weapon' skill of it. I train it for it's conditioning aspects, and would teach it to students at the begining of their training.
    Sapere aude, Justin.

    The map is not the Terrain.

    "Wheather you believe you can, or you believe you can't...You're right." - Henry Ford

  7. #7
    I think tjwingchun is correct.

    The pike was a common weapon in armies for many cultures before guns came about. Also the bow and arrow.

    IMO many martial arts "borrowed" from the military training ideas that were around when they developed. e.g. To train pikesmen to wield long pikes they make them practice with a long pole. You don't teach a big set of moves to them.

  8. #8

    the pole

    There are quite a few moves with the pole. IMHO- the analogy of pikes to poles has its limits.
    Use of poles was quite common in rivers and bays-boat and barge culture in south China- but the conversion of it to a tool varies with martial styles. Wing chun usage is different from hung ga usage for instance.
    Wing chun usage is coordinated with wing chun principles- the devil in the details
    thing.

    joy chaudhuri

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,519
    Wing Chun was developed for fighting on a boat. And the pole was used to move the boat in shallow water, and it was used to fight off any boarding parties that were not exactly envited. These people traveled up and down the major river systems of China as well as up and down the coast in their travels while performing. Everything they owned would be aboard their boats and they would need to defend against pirates and a miriade of other groups. If you have studied the pole techniques you can easily see that it is designed for running forward and backward on the side of a boat. I don't think it was ever used or adopted by the armies and other military groups. Jujitsu comes from a Chinese form of grappling. Probably something like Kenpo or some other Chinese martial art, and this is what the armies probably adopted for use rather than Wing Chun.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Vajramusti View Post
    any decent staff player would beat the living sugar out of someone only trained in WC staff! And I've never made such a strong claim about anything on the net!
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How many folks really know wing chun pole usage and/or have received substantial training in wing chun pole work ? Ip Man appears to have taught very few people in any extensive pole work.


    joy chaudhuri
    I don't really disagree with you Joy, but I don't really see where your posts follows on from the bit you quoted in mine...

    Quote Originally Posted by AmanuJRY View Post
    These two are charachteristicly different. ...
    How about WC knives vs. Jo?

    (see, it's kinda bogus, huh?)
    No, they are not characteristically different ...

    1) They are both long blunt sticks, primarily used with both hands.

    2) It is therefore nothing like a pair of WC knives v a stick.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmanuJRY View Post
    It's like the 'style vs. style' arguement, ultimately it will depend on physical size and ability, understanding of the art and experience employing it.
    Nah. That's a lazy catch-all circular argument. All the understanding and experience in the world of the pole form taught in WC would not stand up to all the understanding and experience of jojutsu. Why? Because jojutsu has live stick v stick sparring, and a few basics such as a sweep, a dripping water deflection (in fact any number of deflections and counters), a 'cut' as opposed to just a thrust (and yes, I know the thrust is quicker than the cut, but that doesn't make it all-conquering), the use of both ends etc.

    And what does WC pole have? Centreline theory? Let me introduce to you the age-old kenjutsu concept of 'kensen' which is also found in non-sword koryu: this is the theory and practice of using the tip of the weapon for threatening and controlling the centreline of the opponent, and provoking the opponent to rash attacks on your centreline.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing WC pole. I think it's probably very deep and useful. And I know my statement about jojutsu was provocative and a bit silly.

    But you're missing my main point, which is that it's not a series of fighting techniques, but a series of principles.

    Now it may be that it's like the SLT of pole work, and there were other forms or parts of the form that followed up and fell out of disuse. A basic catalogue of pole techs if you like. In which case, as a technical form, it's limited at best, hence my statement.

    But more likely I think is that it's an addition to the unarmed forms: and thus primarily used as a training form for various energies and even muscles, to be merged with the principles of biu jee that have already got you thinking out of the box.

    Of course, as I said, I've only been shown the first move, although I've seen the whole thing... so you're welcome to take my view with a pinch of salt, but it's what I was taught and I see no reason to disagree!

    Quote Originally Posted by AmanuJRY View Post
    I don't train it for the 'weapon' skill of it. I train it for it's conditioning aspects, and would teach it to students at the begining of their training.
    Precisely. That was my point.

    BTW, you say 'you would'... does that mean you're not a teacher, or that there is some other reason why you don't teach it at the beginning? Just out of interest of course...
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chiang Po View Post
    Jujitsu comes from a Chinese form of grappling. Probably something like Kenpo or some other Chinese martial art, and this is what the armies probably adopted for use rather than Wing Chun.
    Myself and the whole of the world of martial historians eagerly look forward to your evidence of this!
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    1,093

    Lok Dim Boon

    Interesting thoughts going on here...

    The pole in my mind is a good sound weapon, it has its limits, like any weapon even more so in todays world, but with good base skill one can make it powerful.

    I dont agree with the pike theory although my beliefs towards the arts dictate that a good fighter could and probably did use it for many uses as situations and opportunity arose.

    As ive been tuaght - the Poles forte is as a longe range weapon, its attacking actions are used with a pierce type force distributed through the tip.

    If the PIKE theory is correct my view is that its use back then changed, prior during or since its addition to VT.

    I think if practised propperly (hard work with sweat and tears) its detrimental to teach it early in the learning process. It can slow a persons grasp of the horse for the handforms. Just my opinion and theres always an exception to the rule.

    Fundamentally Wing Chun or a later addition?
    I believe what was handed down to me, which is -
    It was a latter addition. Althought the theory is fundamentally VT for weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Punch View Post
    any decent staff player would beat the living sugar out of someone only trained in WC staff! And I've never made such a strong claim about anything on the net!
    You and i certainly have differnt versions of VT.
    For a start, i use a Pole.
    Last edited by Liddel; 08-17-2006 at 12:34 AM.
    Training is the pursuit of perfection - Fighting is settling for results - ME

    Thats not VT

    "This may hurt a little but it's something you'll get used to"- TOOL

    "I think the discussion is not really developing how I thought it would " - LoneTiger108

    Its good to be the King - http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=2vqmgJIJM98

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Colonia de Sant Jordi, Mallorca
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chiang Po View Post
    Wing Chun was developed for fighting on a boat.
    That is the first time I have ever heard that statement, but each to their own, I cannot argue with it as I was not there when it was conceived; I am old but not that old

    The only similarity I believe in between pole and pikestaff relates to the length and its purpose, my thinking is a weapon that is basically so heavy, unwieldy and unsuitable for hand to hand combat, must have a legitimate use on the battlefield, hence I came up with the "knocking people off horseback" theory. (Later re-inforced by the Pikestaff reality)

    Upright prepared stance for deflecting lances, dropping into the low horse stance giving you momentum, drive and structure when striking into a rider.

    Again just my vision on how I legitimise the pole to my students and to make sense of the numbers here are my thoughts.

    (The next bit is taken from my post in "The Wing Chun Mystery" where this thread originated in my mind)

    I look at the the 3 techniques as the spearing, horizotal energy and the vertical, the half technique is both the dropping at the start and the outward thrust at the end, I interpret these as either throwing the pole at an opponent to give me time to rush them or simply drop the pole as I attack with the knives, not so much a technique as such more of an action, hence the half concept.

    These are just my interpretations from the form on how I would use the pole on a real battlefield, I appreciate that as weaponry has advanced the pole and the knives have become redundant in the real world but they do have value with other aspects of training the hands, as well as getting the mind beyond the hands which helps projecting your energy outside the limits of your body.

    More advanced than the 6,1/2 ? no just simpler, and in my opinion of more 'real' value, as I have said the extra 3 energies can be used for pole against pole and useful for students 'sparring' with the poles, but if my life was on the line in combat I would prefer to have my knives in my hands.

    I seem to remember also the little saying "with the best pole there is only one sound" and that is the 'hit'.

    I agree the the skill level of using the pole is past its sell by date but its usefulness as a training tool never will, my attempts to keep it REAL at least in theory, I feel help when teaching, so that the student can visualise what they are trying to acheive with the pole.

    If all it was about was punting about on the river, I could just send them off to a local boating lake.

    And as far as ground fighting and grappling is concerned you can imagine my suprise when I found this on another forum proving where the reality ground fighting comes from a Traditional Chinese Matrial Arts System.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L70tjwNTtuI

    Now if I can just get my tongue out of my cheek as it is so firmly wedged, I might stop laughing, but to give it some credence you can see the leg breaking concepts, but like I said at the start.

    EACH TO THEIR OWN
    Take care out there and keep

    me
    www.tjwingchun.co.uk
    sifu
    www.kwokwingchun.com
    sigung
    www.ipchun.org
    my family
    www.ipfamilywingchun.com

    questions are how we grow, answers how we develop

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Punch View Post
    No, they are not characteristically different ...

    1) They are both long blunt sticks, primarily used with both hands.

    2) It is therefore nothing like a pair of WC knives v a stick.

    Nah. That's a lazy catch-all circular argument. All the understanding and experience in the world of the pole form taught in WC would not stand up to all the understanding and experience of jojutsu. Why? Because jojutsu has live stick v stick sparring, and a few basics such as a sweep, a dripping water deflection (in fact any number of deflections and counters), a 'cut' as opposed to just a thrust (and yes, I know the thrust is quicker than the cut, but that doesn't make it all-conquering), the use of both ends etc....BTW, you say 'you would'... does that mean you're not a teacher, or that there is some other reason why you don't teach it at the beginning? Just out of interest of course...
    Dude, the pole and the jo are three feet different in length and several pounds more in weight. If you don't think that changes the charachteristics of the instrument and it's implementation then you must be developmentally challenged. Not only are they physically different but the way a WC person uses the pole and the way an Akidoka uses a jo (form wise) is completely different.

    Hence, style vs. style.

    stick vs. stick sparring? That's a training method, not a direct aspect of any specific art (to mean, it's not 'owned' by any art).

    Oh, and I am teaching it. I mean 'would' as in I would teach it to new students (as in students that are new to me and WC, but I can't currently teach because they aren't students yet ).
    Sapere aude, Justin.

    The map is not the Terrain.

    "Wheather you believe you can, or you believe you can't...You're right." - Henry Ford

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5,714
    Jujitsu comes from a Chinese form of grappling.
    Not really. It would be just as correct to say it came from India or Ancient Greece.

    Make sure you have read the history chapters in "Mastering JuJitsu" by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher, before arguing.
    "Once you reject experience, and begin looking for the mysterious, then you are caught!" - Krishnamurti
    "We are all one" - Genki Sudo
    "We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion" - Tool, Parabol/Parabola
    "Bro, you f***ed up a long time ago" - Kurt Osiander

    WC Academy BJJ/MMA Academy Surviving Violent Crime TCM Info
    Don't like my posts? Challenge me!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •