I have heard that Ip Man only taught 5 guys the knives and two of the 5 were private students who were doctors…Does any body have any information on this?
I predict the answer will be akin to the punchline in any variant of the ‘how many does it take to change a lightbulb’ joke.
In general, look for the following indicators:
- the knife to be pointy and stabby not chubby and choppy
- the set to be short and non-repetitive
- the knives not to be flipped back along the forearms
Aside from that, several of his students, whether or not they learned the set or a set have very good sets, and some are very good with knife applications, though not all look to be both.
I know for a fact that Lok Yiu, Tsui Seung Tin and Leung SHeung know it.
Sorry Rene have to disagree with some of your statements since they represent opinion,educated as it may be, vs fact.
Set is short - From all acounts Yip Po Ching was taught a 12 section set and was the first to learn the set. WSL also was taught a 12 section set and an 8 section set. 12 section could hardly be considered short. At the same time some ,Tui Sheung Tin for example, have a short set. Yip Ching was taught an 8 section set that could not be considered short and other students of Yip man witnessed Yip Ching learning the knives from Yip Man. Yip Ching has talked about his brother learning the knives from his father and how Yip Man changed a section or two for Yip Chun since he was having some trouble with the sections.
More than likely the length of the set was determined by Yip Mans interest at the time and the size of the space being used to teach.
Flipping- Some do some dont. Yip brothers do to differeing degrees and they learned from their father according to others.
Chubby knives- Does the size of the knife really matter? Chubby knives,pointy knives, sticks or stones the concepts are applicable. Yip Man probably taught with whatever weapon was at hand. Moy Yat leaned with chopsticks after all.
So I dont think any of your tell tale signs are infallible or proof.
Why engage in controversies?
Why engage in controversies?
Hunt1, if the question was who learned anything knife related from Yip Man than you are correct.
There is too much variation in choreography and other elements for the knives to be the question. If it were, I would stick by my original points.
I have heard them actually being called double broad swords…
bat jam do in Tp Man terminology
bat jam do in Ip Man terminology
(darn typos)
Some thoughts
- Doesn’t Baat Jam Do mean 8 way chopping?
So wouldn’t it make sense that there are 8 sections? Otherwise wouldn’t the knife form incorporate 12 into it’s name?
- What is the difference between the 8 movement form and the 12 movement form?
Is it a question of breakdown of counting as there has been with the dummy set? ie 108, 112, 116, 128 versions, which seems to be more about HOW one counts the movements?
David (PlanetWC)sez:
- Doesn’t Baat Jam Do mean 8 way chopping?
((Commonly yes))
So wouldn’t it make sense that there are 8 sections? Otherwise wouldn’t the knife form incorporate 12 into it’s name?
((Not necessarily))
Re: Some thoughts
Originally posted by planetwc
[B]1. Doesn’t Baat Jam Do mean 8 way chopping?
So wouldn’t it make sense that there are 8 sections? Otherwise wouldn’t the knife form incorporate 12 into it’s name?
- What is the difference between the 8 movement form and the 12 movement form?
Is it a question of breakdown of counting as there has been with the dummy set? ie 108, 112, 116, 128 versions, which seems to be more about HOW one counts the movements? [/B]
Furthermore, as with most things WC, I’m inclined to believe the preeminent issue is how one executes the movements. On balance, issues of cardinality or choreography are trivial, IMHO. I realize some opinions strongly differ on this point (sic), thus perennial fodder for debate and “oneupsmanship.”
Regards,
- kj
re butterfly knifes
hi guys , acourding to a few people i know sigung chow sze cheun one of yips mans private students was taught the knifes, sifu chow is not well known but , he is one of the most highly regared sifu in the world, having taught sifu stevan chan and don mak both of hong kong having met and trained under steven chan with whom, has the best kicking skills, i have seen in wing chun. sifu chow must be a amazing person regards peace russellsherry
Baat Jaam Do, literally translated means “eight-slash knives”, however my Sifu always maintained that even Yip Man did not know why it was called by this name. Unlike the “empty-hand” techniques, which had ample opportunity to be tested in the real world, there had been few, if any, real opportunities to use the knives in real combat, perhaps for centuries, so that much of the essence of the Baat Jaam Do form had been lost by the time Yip Man had taught it. My Sifu was quite open that he did not really understand the full implications of the form, especially some of the latter movements, but by the same token, he also maintained that Yip Man had only taught four people, and that it would be very embarrassing to others if he (Wong Shun Leung) was to name the other three…he never did! 
Hi David,
The same tact by Wong displayed on other occasions as well. He often avoided commenting directly about other Sifus’ practice and teaching preferring to let the facts speak for themselves. Always a fighter and a gentleman!
Regards,
PH
Re: Re: Some thoughts
Originally posted by kj
[B] Furthermore, as with most things WC, I’m inclined to believe the preeminent issue is how one executes the movements. On balance, issues of cardinality or choreography are trivial, IMHO. I realize some opinions strongly differ on this point (sic), thus perennial fodder for debate and “oneupsmanship.”
Regards,
- kj [/B]
Right. Very amusing how you phrased it, “issues of cardinality or choreography” as if a movement, more or less, matters if one doesn’t have the substance behind it.
FWIW, Yip Man and Leung Sheung taught the knives only to people who they judged had the temperment to use them against another person. Teaching the set to someone who would be reluctant to use them would be no service.
Regards,
This topic can easily result in hurt feelings- without enhancing the
usage and understanding of the bjd. The others have been even more reticent than WSL- a fact not a criticism. Same reasons-avoid embarrasing others.
To the credt of WSL he taught others his bjd form and that has
spread. Another version of Ip Man’s bjd has also begun to spread.
Apparently IM showed different people aspects of bjd and pole usage. Rooted in the culture of his time and old line masters-he
doled out information as he pleased.
The oneupmanship while present to some extent in many places-
is highly heightened and exaggerated in our time and place.
The key thing is the proof of the pudding—no matter how he/she got it is Mr/Ms/Mrs X or Y proficient in its usage and are wing chun principles to trained eyes evident in the usage…or are they just swinging them around looking fierce.
Couple of things.
The proof of who knows the knives is in the footwork not the hand work.
Since no one on this board or any other was there how can anyone say what criteria Yip Man used for deciding to whom he would teach the knives?
All wing chun forms can be knife forms if you understand.
The important thing about the form is not how it is performed with the knives but without the knives.
Since WSL and a few others who did know showed the form to classmates/friends the form has spread far enough that the whole question is meaningless.
Many that didnt get the whole form or part, mixed in knife work from other versions of WC. Yip Man was not the only source of wing chun in hongkong in the 60s and certainly not by the 70s.
2 very well known students did not the the knife form but now 35 years later their grandstudents claim they did. Amazing how history changes in order to legitimize what if its quality is already legitimate. Yes for those that know I am speaking about the Yip Po Ching centered incident. For those that dont know it doesnt really matter and members of those families are on the boards and would kick up a storm saying its all a big lie etc.
Comments on snips from Hunt1.
The proof of who knows the knives is in the footwork not the hand work.
(((It seems to me that handwork, footwork and the coordination of the whole body is involved in the knives.))
All wing chun forms can be knife forms if you understand.
The important thing about the form is not how it is performed with the knives but without the knives.
((Not mutually exclusive-it seems to me))
Since WSL and a few others who did know showed the form to classmates/friends the form has spread far enough that the whole question is meaningless.
((Now-that seems to be the case.These questions are really unnecessary and divisive))
Yip Man was not the only source of wing chun in hongkong in the 60s and certainly not by the 70s.
((however- I think that Ip man’s approach was unique and simpatico with his own approach to wing chun. The bot jam do name is Ip Man related. Other lineages and styles that use double knives use other names and their motions do not appear to be the same))