The "Evolution" of Wing Chun

[Grendel]

Regarding the evolution of Wing Chun: is this term accurate?

I believe it is accurate. However, I don't think it means what many who use it think it means. :eek:

Evolution is a blind process. Peahens, Puffins, Prairie Chickens, dinosaurs, and the many saber-toothed cats and like species of the Pleistocene, cases in point. Although many critters evolve, not all of these evolutionary wonders is actually an improvement over other species, even if in some narrow case, they are improvements over their predesessor species. Evolution is characterized and advanced by mutations and most mutations are weeded out.

For example, most animals can synthesize Vitamin C from glucose. Humans cannot, an evolutionary improvement brought about in our ancestors because there is something to be gained by eliminating the process in our cells, but it makes us dependent on a dietary source which contain the vitamin or we'll slowly perish from scurvy.

Likewise, evolutionary movements in Wing Chun. Some slick marketing type decides to add in grappling techniques from outside, another perhaps sincere monkey modifies his stance, another learns an incomplete version and changes the art so radically, it cannot be recognized by proponents of the original. Or, elements of Hung Ga or other Kung Fu creep in to no purpose.

Many people learning Wing Chun have invested a lot of time in other martial arts or strength training. They may think, "Why should I give all that up? It's always worked for me." But if one clings to such baggage, progress in Wing Chun will come very slowly, if at all.

Wing Chun came in as a new style in '50s Hong Kong. Yip Man brought it to the limelight. The directness of Wing Chun was accepted very well in the Western world as well. If you follow the Yip Man ideas, then you are bound to end up with something of significance.

Wing Chun is open to interpretation. There are many versions of Wing Chun but the principles must be the same. Wing Chun has to be simple. I would be afraid without a lifetime's study to add to it or delete from it. I am not qualified to do that. Those who add or delete from Wing Chun are only showing their ignorance.

The current generation of Wing Chun practitioners is not up to the previous standard yet. But they are slowly getting there. Yip Man taught many people. A lot of people spent lots of time with him. Some got some pretty good hands. Some memorized his pedagogical style and principles very well. There are however many differences in the students. But all should have the same principles. The principles must be the same. Elbows and knees---elbows and knees must be in and must work together. It must be simple. We owe it to posterity to try to pass on the true art.

Regards,

[TjD]

i'm not sure evolution is quite the correct term. it involves something always improving. from stories at least, it seems the average ability of wing chun practicioners is going steadily downhill rather than uphill. even our best practicioners supposedly pale to the likes of ng mui and miss wing chun, yip man, leung jan if the histories are to be believed (however they probably do have some embelishing - how much cannot be told).

rather, wing chun is always dynamically changing. i think this has to do with the nature of how it's taught. a sifu shows a student mabye 30% of the system, and guides him to learn another 70%. what the student does with his sifus guidance differs from person to person, which is why we have so many variations on the WC theme. my sifu never gives me a straight answer anymore, rather he gets me to answer my own question or keep thinking about it (its really annoying - but i know its for the best).

its very easy to learn that 30%, its harder to make up the 70% even with a good sifus guidance. how good wing chun is nearly entirely dependant on the student (imho), with help from a good sifu. as long as the drills and forms are there, and a student has a firm understanding of the kuen kuit they can make up for a poor sifu with enough effort. wing chun is a system where the possibilities are endless, however rarely do people take them that far. thats why its simplicity is so beautiful, because it allows this.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I find several good points in your point of view however, I would tend to disagree with a few of them.

While I feel that it is wrong to change things for the sake of change or marketing, there are legitimate reasons for making modifications to ones approach to training. If one finds a need to be explored then one would be foolish not to address that need. Remember, Wing Chun is an Eclectic system, it was developed from the concepts and principles of other systems. Consider if the founders of Wing Chun were here today, would they make any modifications to the "original".

Look at all of the "Masters" and compare their early teaching with that of their later years. I'll bet that you will see a difference between the two ;) Yip Man taught in Hong Kong one way and in Foshan another. This could be due to growth, differences in physical ability etc. One key example is the fact that in China the inclusion of a "kneeling horse" can be found while it is absent in Hong Kong.

Wing Chun is ultimately about combat. If one trains to a high enough level then one can find all one needs within the framework of the system. Still, for one to be able to apply the art effectively quickly it may be of benefit to explore other things like grappling and learn from them to incorporate priciples found there into Wing Chun. I am not advocating learning JJ and then mixing it with WC. Rather, I am saying that one can use JJ to open ones eyes to similar concepts to be found within our system.

Bottom line is, Wing Chun is for fighting. I will do whatever I need to in order to insure that I will walk away from a fight. As I tell my students; "I CHEAT!!" I do not care if it looks pretty only that it is effective. Wing Chun is a highly personal art and the beauty of it is that it can be tailored to suit the needs of the individual practicioner while still retaining the same core concepts for all students.

Again, while I feel that it is wrong to make changes for changes sake, I do not feel that one can simply dismiss those who modify their approach. Particularily if the new approach results in a more effective fighter in a shorter period of time.

Do you truly believe that the Wing Chun being practised today is the same as that in the 1800's??

Peace,

Dave

[kj]

Hi and welcome back, Dave.


Originally posted by Sihing73
Remember, Wing Chun is an Eclectic system, it was developed from the concepts and principles of other systems.

Here is where our perspectives may differ. Whatever raw materials were used in the creation of Wing Chun (as I know it), it became, IMHO, a tightly integrated system rather than a hodgepodge.

The risks of making seemingly innocuous changes is that impacts may ripple in unanticipated ways throughout the system, and in compounded ways through successive generations. Taking the conservative POV, I rather agree with Grendel on this one, and think that most of evolution's energy is spent on miscellaneous mutations rather than long term improvement. In viewing the general state of Wing Chun as practiced and propagated today, I feel my hypothesis is supported.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

A couple oif thoughts . . .

KJ wrote:

Whatever raw materials were used in the creation of Wing Chun (as I know it), it became, IMHO, a tightly integrated system rather than a hodgepodge. . . The risks of making seemingly innocuous changes is that impacts may ripple in unanticipated ways throughout the system, and in compounded ways through successive generations.

Agreed 100%. Very good observation. TN

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

SiHing73 wrote:

Look at all of the "Masters" and compare their early teaching with that of their later years. I'll bet that you will see a difference between the two .

Of course. But I don't think the material (of WCK) changed, rather their insight into the material changed (grew) and so did how they thought to transmit it. TN

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

W/r/t "evolution" -- IME it is not WCK that changes or has changed, it we, both practitioner and the type of opponents we face, that both constantly change. So while the "information" that is WCK, the mechanics, concepts, tools, etc. remain the core of the art and doesn't change (just like the axioms of geometry haven't changed), how we develop and apply those things should never be stagnant as our understanding and skill should continue to grow (these are not shallow things) and evolve. Experience, especially from facing different opponents, promotes this growth. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Excellent post! A few quick quibbles:

"Likewise, evolutionary movements in Wing Chun. Some slick marketing type decides to add in grappling techniques from outside,"

* True, but then we added the pole from outside. IMHO, its not whether or not other material is added, its whether that material integrates with and enhances the art, rather than breaking down and diminishing the art. If the strategy, tactics, concepts, etc. remain tightly focused, it doesn't bother me.

"another perhaps sincere monkey"

LOL! That "monkey" term propagates.

"modifies his stance, another learns an incomplete version and changes the art so radically, it cannot be recognized by proponents of the original. Or, elements of Hung Ga or other Kung Fu creep in to no purpose."

The "no purpose" would be the defining factor IMHO. Remember, some people believe Yip Man learned an incomplete version of WCK (hey, the PFL people have 10 hand sets, so maybe we all did?) That kind of stuff, IMHO, is in the eye of the beholder, and "incomplete" to some is refined, while "more complete" to others is needlessly complex. I think we can only revert to the core. The material can manifest in more or less variation, but there needs to be a core that holds it all together.

"Many people learning Wing Chun have invested a lot of time in other martial arts or strength training. They may think, "Why should I give all that up? It's always worked for me." But if one clings to such baggage, progress in Wing Chun will come very slowly, if at all."

Do they want to be good at Wing Chun, or are they using WCK to be good at something else (e.g. fighting)? Purity is only a concern to some (sometimes only to those who have the luxoury of time and safety it requires). I like Masaad Ayoob's Stressfire, and while I think it has identifiable WCK/JKD influence, its only using that to improve combat hand gun proficiency, not to spend a life developing the (alleged) purity of another teacher's teachings.

"Wing Chun came in as a new style in '50s Hong Kong. Yip Man brought it to the limelight."

I'm not sure that's the case. Yip Man needed to survive so he taught more people than probably any WCK person before (probably more than he would have liked, and more than his sihingdai would have liked). Those students, using the hook of Bruce Lee and the kung fu craze that followed him, brought WCK into the international limelight. There were plenty of other arts, and plenty of other teachers, and plenty of other rooftop fighters, but the unique combination around Lee gave WCK an edge outside the Bamboo curtain.

"The directness of Wing Chun was accepted very well in the Western world as well."

I think it was still the Bruce Lee factor. Some didn't even care what Kung Fu they joined, they just wanted Kung Fu (even Shaolin Kempo, LOL!). Lots of arts were accepted and grew in the Western world. Hung Ga, Taiji, CLF all did very well.

"If you follow the Yip Man ideas, then you are bound to end up with something of significance."

For sure.

"Wing Chun is open to interpretation. There are many versions of Wing Chun but the principles must be the same. Wing Chun has to be simple. I would be afraid without a lifetime's study to add to it or delete from it. I am not qualified to do that. Those who add or delete from Wing Chun are only showing their ignorance. "

Yip Man changed his art. He changed SNT and fiddled with his dummy choreography, maybe taught some students more closed horses than others, or flatter Tan Sao. Who knows what changes Ng Jung-So and Chan Wah-Shun made? WCK is like a videotape, Yip Man a segment of that tape, his students segments of those segments. Talking about what Yip Man did with one student at one moment in one segment is a freeze-frame, a still capture. It lets you study the scene, maybe even mount it on the wall and admire it, but it gives you very little sense of the flow of the segment of the segment, much less the video as a whole. It makes rigid what is flexible, and IMHO, is mental tension as restrictive to development as muscular tension.

"The current generation of Wing Chun practitioners is not up to the previous standard yet."

It's hard to catch a ghost, impossible to catch a legend.

"Elbows and knees---elbows and knees must be in and must work together."

How do you trace that as being the important part in Yip Man's legacy?

"We owe it to posterity to try to pass on the true art."

Trouble is, everyone think's the version they're studying is the true art.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Kathy Jo,

It would be a boring world if we all thought alike :p. While I can respect your viewpoint I think we can agree to disagree.

"Here is where our perspectives may differ. Whatever raw materials were used in the creation of Wing Chun (as I know it), it became, IMHO, a tightly integrated system rather than a hodgepodge. KJ"

In this I think we are closer than it may appear. In no way do I view Wing Chun as a Hodgepodge. In fact I agree that it is a “tightly integrated system”.


"The risks of making seemingly innocuous changes is that impacts may ripple in unanticipated ways throughout the system, and in compounded ways through successive generations. Taking the conservative POV, I rather agree with Grendel on this one, and think that most of evolution's energy is spent on miscellaneous mutations rather than long term improvement. In viewing the general state of Wing Chun as practiced and propagated today, I feel my hypothesis is supported. KJ"

I guess where we differ is in whether we become restricted to what is commonly accepted or whether we are willing to expand beyond the “norm”. If I change the core foundation of the system then I am no longer doing Wing Chun but am instead doing something else. Still, I view nothing wrong with taking something, which could be of benefit to my specific needs and “integrating” into my approach as long as the underlying core does not change. As you are aware, my Sifu is known to do this. Sometimes the differences are not as major as first thought, they may simply be opening up what could be considered “advanced” concepts at an earlier stage. When we consider the fact that each of us has a different body type, mental view etc, it becomes almost a necessity that each of us will do Wing Chun slightly differently. As I have been know to say, there is validity in each approach to Wing Chun. Every lineage or approach has someone who can make that approach work for at least one person. I do think that it is a mistake to ignore the need to make changes based on the needs of ones environment or of society in general. If I knew that was apt to face a wrestler then I would prepare by exploring the art of wrestling. I would not try to “add” wrestling techniques per se but would instead try to discover how to apply Wing Chun principles to the specific things I was most likely to face. In this way my approach leads me to explore things and validate my Wing Chun. It also allows me to grow within the art.

Still, you raise a valid point in one must be very careful when making any changes. What may work for me may very well not work for another. Still, I feel that one should be open to other ideas and willing to consider incorporating them into ones approach. I recently asked my students to name me one “Great Master” who only studied one art. While I am sure there are some I think that the majority will be shown to have trained in or explored more than one system. This does not mean that they created a hodgepodge, I like that word J , but they were more aware of how to apply their own art in a more flexible way.




Terrence,

"Of course. But I don't think the material (of WCK) changed, rather their insight into the material changed (grew) and so did how they thought to transmit it. TN"


Considering the amount of variation between even Yip Mans students I would argue the opposite. Would you agree that some approaches may not have the low gaun sau while some do. A popular story has Wong Shueng Long adding this technique due to his height, or some such. Does this mean that this was not present in the “original” system? I also point out the “kneeling horse” and ask why this is not present in the Hong Kong lines? IF the technique is no longer taught then couldn’t I argue that the system changed already?

I think that the more prevalent danger lies in an instructor not teaching techniques which then are not good at. For example, if one is not comfortable with doing Bong Sau then one will be apt to teach something, which is more comfortable. Over time this has the potential for changing the system just as much as bringing in the concepts from outside of the system.

Over all I think that one must walk a fine line when making changes to anything. What may work for one person may not work for another so there is some validity to sticking to “tradition”. Still, I also feel that if one does not adapt and change according to the times then one runs the risk of becoming obsolete. Again I say WC is a highly personal system and that is one of its greatest strengths.

Peace,

Dave

[reneritchie]

A popular story has Wong Shueng Long adding this technique due to his height, or some such. Does this mean that this was not present in the “original” system?

The low double Gaun Sao is right in between the opening and the punch in our SLT, and every other hand set, and is probably the second application set (Gaun Sao Kwai Choi, right after Lan Sao Chung Choi) we learn as basic self defense (crossing hands). So was it taken out before, then put back in, or did multiple different lineages consider it important enough to show early on, or...

****, as complexity increases, and more and more patterns emerge, the system grows less and less predictable... 8)

[kj]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Over all I think that one must walk a fine line when making changes to anything.

I think we can agree at this juncture. :)


Still, I also feel that if one does not adapt and change according to the times then one runs the risk of becoming obsolete.

I can philosophically agree with this. And, as most, this is only a philosophical discussion after all. :)

Pragmatically though, I don't see how the biomechanical functioning of human bodies has significantly changed in 10, 100, or 1000 years. In the realm of hand-to-hand combat, is there really anything new because of our times?

I can make a counter argument (with myself) that one small success is born from many failures. I'm all for success, and "continuous improvement" is especially near and dear to me. When it comes to guinea pigs, it's the odds that concern me.

When a system is already highly optimized, there eventually comes a point where further optimization yields diminishing returns. Continuously optimizing one's understanding or application of the system is a different matter; and if the system itself is to be further optimized in some way, I would consider this a compelling prerequisite.

Not arguing, just ruminating. :)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[PaulH]

Hi Dave,

I think the success of the early students of Yip Man in popularizing WC is more or less they are primarily fighters like Yip Man back then. The later generations become more like teachers and shift their thinking into the technical details of the system accordingly. It is not too late to realign one's track of WC thinking more into the business of fighting at the current time. WSL advocated this strongly quite often in his interviews.

Q: Are you happy with the way WC is being taught?

A: Well, I have seen some instructors turn simple things into big mysteries, misleading their students. They not only deceive themselves but other innocent people, too. They'd do better teaching the students how to not make mistakes in real fighting.

Regards,

[Ernie]

this is a going no where fast thread ,
some people are historians and need to preserve old facts and collect scraps of the past to help fill some hole in there identity and be part of some super secret hand shake club , these people will fight for the purity of the art like some freaked out religious zealot . the majority of these people never test there skill out side of class or slapping there friends around or maybe the some one from the local karate school but the never face anybody real .
and that's fine if it keeps them happy and from picking up a gun and going serial killer on society. I don't know how many times I've seen them get dropped in seminars ,get up off the floor and try the same old text book stuff get knocked down again and still argue there point . '' you will never change or open there minds , they have some deep rooted need to hold onto to the past and try to relive it ''.
then there are the one's with open minds that step out of the box and put the theories to the test , take nothing at face value and make it work for them through experience , the find ways to make the system adapt to there body types and personal experiences , they realize it doesn't matter what your sifu can do or his sifu or the great mystical god of the system did . it's what you can pull of with some level of consistency against many different types of opponents , it's what you learn to alter when you lose , it's how you adapt ''evolve '' the system to fit your needs at that certain time , instead of trying to force the square into the cycle just because great grandmaster so in so said it had to be this way. you will always be greater than any system so screw the system just survive the situation , and then learn from it .
leave the historians to there dusty old books and imaginary days of the past , and deal with the reality of today and more so the personal realities of your training address the things that make you feel uncomfortable , find your own answers use the concepts as a guide , if that road leads you to add or subtract for your personal growth and understanding good , it means your becoming a free thinker and problem solver . we face a different bread of fighters the world is a smaller place and people are better informed in combat and science of improving the human body , there are highly skilled and scary monsters out there with highly sophisticated training methods , we need to evolve ,adapt ,change ,advance to meet the challenge .
or we can just sit here online and reminisce on how much weight yip man had on his big toe when he did a tan sau.

[[Censored]]

Only an ignorant or dishonest person will claim to know both the position and momentum of a particle. And only a hypocrite will claim the art of Wing Chun is based on principles, and then go on to select a limited set of acceptable applications.

[yenhoi]

....are only showing their ignorance.

Not so true. Arts dont fight each other, people do. People are bound or liberated by their accumulation of expierences, which may include other training or time in with other persons. Wing Chun doesnt exist, hands do. True art is a myth, a marketing scheme, and just plain bull****.


:eek:

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Rather than have this thread degenerate in one of name calling or pointing out another’s ignorance why not use it to expound our knowledge. Having a different point of view does not make one right or wrong. As previously stated, WC is a highly personal system and each of us practices the art for our own reasons. While I personally feel the emphasis should be on combat and functionality, I respect the rights of others to train for their own purposes provided they are honest about it.

Rather than try to advocate one view over another, why don’t we discuss the pros and cons of Wing Chun evolving. I think it is important for us to understand the possible ramifications if the art does not evolve as well as the dangers if changes are made ad hoc. As already mentioned by Rene, the pole came from outside of the system so there appears to already be a precedent for “evolution”. At the same time if one does not fully integrate things into the system one runs the danger of distilling what is a very effective system of combat. Change is not something to be approached lightly but one, which requires considerable thought, and insight. Having said that, I am fully in support of the “evolution” approach as long as the fundamental core remains intact. I myself have found some benefit of training in a Kali type of art as well as a past, which includes Judo.

Peace,

Dave

[yuanfen]

Wing Chun doesnt exist, hands do. True art is a myth, a marketing scheme, and just plain bull****. (sez yenhoi)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
((Oh well.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave- lots of disagreements---

I think that one has to understand wing chun in some depth
and have sound analytical and demonstrable reasons before changing it.
Sure wing chun has been influenced by other arts- but the sijos of the past made a fairly integrated set of principles which informs the art.
Sure the artist and his personal adaptations for his own usage
can be important. But both the art and the artist are important.
Wing chun is not a collection of techniques.
BTW- reiteration of an honest opinion which I have mentioned before. I really dont think that reversing the path of the wu in the slt is a good innovation. The correct wu sao aint broke for developmental purposes.
Regarding the pole... a pole is a pole is a pole... but when wing chun began to use the pole for training purposes- the usage was driven by wing chun dynamics.
Sure Ip Man taught in different ways. He was not really interested in teaching till he had to . A teacher's growth. He fiddled with the forms. Ho kam Ming also has some changes. So does my sifu. But
the subject and the principles remain unchanged. Why? Good wing chun is nature at work- more so than other arts. But a good principle based system can lead to many many sound applications
that are operational definitions within the system of principles.

The kneeling horse is an application and it still exists- the suggestion of it is in the bot jam do set.
If someone needs to do try out things againsta judoka etc in order to devlop defenses against it-I have no problem with that.
My only advice is - to learn sufficient wing chun- so it becomes reflexive and nota self contradictory set of intentions and instructions from the brain.

[Rolling_Hand]

Sihing73 wrote:

Rather than have this thread degenerate in one of name calling or pointing out another’s ignorance why not use it to expound our knowledge. Having a different point of view does not make one right or wrong.

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

Hi Sihing73,

An opportunity is too good to pass up.

Would you like to bite the bullet (J/K) and break the news?

Why did Sifu Chow change his Wu Sau?

Roger

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Wing Chun doesnt exist, hands do. True art is a myth, a marketing scheme, and just plain bull****. (sez yenhoi)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
((Oh well.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, I believe the true art is the thing, but only because I see the depth of the art and the broad flexibility of its underlying principles. I cannot prove it here, but I suspect those justifying the changes to Wing Chun don't have a complete grasp of Wing Chun and are taking the word of their teachers, their siheng/dai, or someone else. All of which is fine with me, but deplorable from the standpoint of sound reasoning.


Dave- lots of disagreements---

I think that one has to understand wing chun in some depth
and have sound analytical and demonstrable reasons before changing it.

Here, here! How often does this have to be stated before it sinks in? We'll keep trying to get through.


Sure wing chun has been influenced by other arts- but the sijos of the past made a fairly integrated set of principles which informs the art.

It also seems that some interacted with each other as Yuen Kay San, Sum Num, Yip Man, and most of Yip Man's senior students. The possibility exists that before they made any changes, they'd bounce their ideas off each other. I'm no historian, so I really don't know and will not speculate beyond this. I can't prove conclusively my historical notions.


Sure the artist and his personal adaptations for his own usage
can be important. But both the art and the artist are important.
Wing chun is not a collection of techniques.

Right. If someone wants to add an application or technique from outside, and they follow Wing Chun principles, then fine. It's when the principles are toyed with as KJ pointed out, ripples of consequence flow, and in keeping with this thread's theme, are not good things, but short-lived mutations if reality should intrude on their consideration.


BTW- reiteration of an honest opinion which I have mentioned before. I really dont think that reversing the path of the wu in the slt is a good innovation. The correct wu sao aint broke for developmental purposes.

A striking example of an ill-thought out change IMO.


Regarding the pole... a pole is a pole is a pole... but when wing chun began to use the pole for training purposes- the usage was driven by wing chun dynamics.

Yup. Wing Chun is an empty hand system. The pole is used to improve the hands, not that it doesn't also work as a weapon. A good innovation in Wing Chun training was the living dummy; a bad one is trying to retain the elements of the teacher's old art before he learned Wing Chun. :p


Sure Ip Man taught in different ways. He was not really interested in teaching till he had to. A teacher's growth. He fiddled with the forms. Ho kam Ming also has some changes. So does my sifu. But the subject and the principles remain unchanged. Why? Good wing chun is nature at work- more so than other arts. But a good principle based system can lead to many many sound applications that are operational definitions within the system of principles.
And those good principles lead to serendipitous opportunities in combat.


The kneeling horse is an application and it still exists- the suggestion of it is in the bot jam do set.
If someone needs to do try out things againsta judoka etc in order to devlop defenses against it-I have no problem with that.

I commend that advice.


My only advice is - to learn sufficient wing chun- so it becomes reflexive and nota self contradictory set of intentions and instructions from the brain.

Additions from outside the system lead to this confusion. The "evolution" of real Wing Chun has been a streamlining of the system, going away from the complexities of many MAs. In this, Bruce Lee was right in concept; wrong in making his changes to the mother art of Yip Man Wing Chun.

Cheers,

[reneritchie]

Joy, John,

Excellent posts. With the reversing of Wu Sao, from previous discussions, its still my belief that since we have the closing Wu Sao in SLT, and the extending Wu Sao in CK, if you reverse the Wu Sao in SLT, you need to reverse the one in CK as well, or you lose something. You need the balance, the Yin/Yang. Also, IMHO, the concept and application of the closing Wu Sao is very important, and while not as easy to understand as the extending Wu Sao, working on it from that early time helps to ingrain it.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

My comments to those who replied appear below. I do not agree that those who make changes to the system lack a great depth of understanding, of course this is kind of a given :) Still, some of those Sifu who have made changes have decades of training and teaching experience, of course I guess they could have just been going through the motions all of this time. I think that one must consider the motivation as well behind any changes. Is it an attempt at marketing or is it a true attempt to make the system more understandable and applicable more quickly? I guess my other consideration is whether it works for my fellow students and me.

Rolling Hand,

In answer to your question, and this has been discussed before :) Sifu Chow changed the direction of the Wu and Fook to make it easier for the beginning student to use these techniques in application more quickly. Besides as Rene points out the Extending Wu is found elsewhere in the system so it is not really “wrong”. What Sifu Chow has done is to simply introduce it at an earlier stage. The training for the withdrawing Wu is still addressed but it is done more as a partner drill in application as the Wu should always extend and only withdraw in relation to the opponent’s energy, but hey that’s just my POV. The Fook withdrawing is taught in order to stress the “listening” aspects of this technique. The intent is to use the Fook Sau to stalk the opponent and react without providing energy or tension for them the use against us. A little plug here for me :p but I actually wrote a brief article about the changes made by Sifu Chow and it should be in the E-Zine archives.

John Weiland,

We definitely have a very different POV and that is okay. I would disagree that those making changes do not “always” have a deep understanding or grasp of the system. It seems to me that when one finds a change or modification which is in agreement with ones POV then it is fine. It seems that the problem lies when that “change” goes against what one believes to be correct. I would agree that Wing Chun changes must be made carefully and simply adding things ad hoc is not the best way. However, one thing which could prove useful for “sound reasoning” is the willingness to explore new ideas. “Additions” can lead to confusion but they can also lead to a deeper understanding. I guess my big question is; “DOES IT WORK?”

Yuanfen,

Most of your points are addressed above. While I do respect much of what you have to say on this subject it is doubtful that we will ever fully agree. Again, this is fine as we each have a right to our own approach. However, considering that there have been changes made in just about every lineage, it seems as though my point above is more in line. If a “change” agrees with your POV then it is more readily accepted. While it seems that you would “challenge” me to look more deeply into the system I would like to “challenge” you to think outside of the box. This is not meant as an insult but, consider this; if changes are made to the system they must be balanced and appropriate. Having people of your view, with the experience you have honestly look at such changes with an open mind could do much to insure that any such “changes” have at least been considered from all angles. To dismiss something outright simply because it goes against the norm or does not agree with ones views is hardly the most beneficial approach to learning.

Rene,

The withdrawing or closing Wu is very important and I can see your point in training it earlier as a means to “ingrain” it. It is my opinion that Sifu Chow made the change in order to make the “application” of the Wu more accessible for the early or beginning student. Wing Chun is designed to train one to defend oneself in a shorter period of time than some other “traditional” methods. One of my goals is to train my students to be able to USE it as quickly as possible. The extending Wu is easier for most to grasp and apply, imho. Still, you make a good point regarding balance.

[rubthebuddha]

great discussion, ladies and gents. i love having as many veterans of the family going at it and being able to watch. but i do have a question:

for those who have practiced several branches of wing chun, how do you view the nuance and difference between the students of yip man?

an example of this would be the opening of siu nim tau. as far as i know, most students of yip man, once the stance is set, go straight into a double gan sau. however, leung ting (my sigung) has his students come to double tan sau first, then to double gan sau, then back to double tan sau. the reasoning for this, from what i know, is to further emphasize the kwun sau. i agree with this reasoning, as i think that my beginnings in double-hand work were more successful than they would have been not coming to double tan sau first. i'm not saying it's better. rather, i think it helped me understand by getting hundreds more kwun saus drilled into my hands before i actually used them in application.

[PaulH]

My personal opinion of the differences between the WC branches is one tends to talk more with the hands; the others talks. I would be considered rightfully among my brethrens as a big mouth by their standards. So let me hasten to say honestly that I repent and this would be my last post on this thread.

[azwingchun]

I have lived this exact thing over and over in a certain time in my training. To be honest I found it very disturbing. To get to my story, early in my training I was with a certain Sifu and organization (which I will keep nameless), and within a couple of years my Sifu joined up under another well known Sifu. At this time our forms began to change. Because of my Sifu going under his new Sifu I understood these changes.

Though, the changes to our forms and applications didn't stop there. They continued to change every time we trained with our Sifu. This was very annoying, because by the time we had learned these new changes, the next time we saw him there would be more changes. These changes included application, all the forms including the weapons. We never seemed to learn the changes before there were more changes. By the way, last I heard there have been more changes since I have left. This was part of the reason that I am no longer with that organization.

When I would question the changes, my Sifu's answer was 'Wing Chun is a growing art and needs to grow and change'. I do agree that times change, but these changes didn't seem to change anyone's Wing Chun, the only thing that changed was the external look of it when perfoming the forms.

KJ states:



Pragmatically though, I don't see how the biomechanical functioning of human bodies has significantly changed in 10, 100, or 1000 years. In the realm of hand-to-hand combat, is there really anything new because of our times?

I couldn't agree more. As I have said many times as have others, there are only so many ways to attack and defend. The biomechanics of the human body don't change. This is just my humble opinion. ;)

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by rubthebuddha
for those who have practiced several branches of wing chun, how do you view the nuance and difference between the students of yip man?

Among those sincerely trying to pass on the art, differences are just variations on a theme: principle based Wing Chun, not technique based. We should note too that Wing Chun "principles" involve not just acquired skill, but acquired teaching skill. Wing Chun teachers must follow certain principles to maximize the benefit to their students, for instance, repeating themselves until they sound like a broken record. :D

In general, people are better off learning directly from teachers close to the source, in my case, close to Yip Man. For others, say in Pan Nam's line, they should try to learn from his first generation of student, now teachers in their own right. Not that there aren't third and fourth generation students who are the real deal, but MA drift occurs and some have come to be far from the original.


an example of this would be the opening of siu nim tau. as far as i know, most students of yip man, once the stance is set, go straight into a double gan sau.

This is what Ken Chung/Ben Der teach. Plain ol' vanilla Yip Man HK opening.


however, leung ting (my sigung) has his students come to double tan sau first, then to double gan sau, then back to double tan sau. the reasoning for this, from what i know, is to further emphasize the kwun sau.

What Leung Ting has done with the opening does not violate the basic principles of Wing Chun. You do know that he has changed the opening several times, according to LT students I know from Germany and elsewhere. Nothing wrong with variety not in violation with consistent Wing Chun training principles either.


i agree with this reasoning, as i think that my beginnings in double-hand work were more successful than they would have been not coming to double tan sau first. i'm not saying it's better. rather, i think it helped me understand by getting hundreds more kwun saus drilled into my hands before i actually used them in application.

You may be correct. You might have developed certain skills faster. If so, that's a training plus. Likely, either way, you would have learnt it eventually just as well.

Regards,

[rubthebuddha]

aye, i know he's made slight changes to the snt even in the four years i've been studying. none of them on concept, but i think they help teach more than anything.

and yeah, i may have gotten my kwun sau just as good eventually, i still like the extra practice. i liken it to one tan/three fook saus near the beginning -- 1/3 is better than 1/1, because what that part of the form reinforces is so important, the repetition is warranted.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by rubthebuddha
aye, i know he's made slight changes to the snt even in the four years i've been studying. none of them on concept, but i think they help teach more than anything.

This goes back to the original question, whether in a static environment changes to an optimized system are good---as KJ said, human anatomy and physiology hasn't changed in the last 1000 years or so. I can understand a teacher making frequent changes to a single student's curriculum, but why change en masse?


and yeah, i may have gotten my kwun sau just as good eventually, i still like the extra practice. i liken it to one tan/three fook saus near the beginning -- 1/3 is better than 1/1, because what that part of the form reinforces is so important, the repetition is warranted.
Who can argue that more practice is not good?

The changes you wrote of, might have been good for you, or they might have been irrelevant as most changes probably are. Fur instance, my hair is rapidly graying, but it hasn't affected my Wing Chun yet. :D

Regards,

[Phenix]

If WCK required a body like silk which can "floating" in the air ---- with one feather cannot landing on capability to perform a Lai Lau Hui Soong.....

"thus the hero has no matched because he/she alone knows others..... using tranquil to subdue active...."

And, if we all can't even get there but constant struggle in move which growing away from the nature.... importing Hard bow and localized technics....or adding...

What evolution can it be before we figure out how to attain the silk body to gain the full potential of the art? or destruction is proceeded by the name of evolutiuon and the address of the olderst and most original... which travelling to an opposite direction. IMHO.



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

It is not about power it is about grace
It is not about anger it is about peace -------Bullet proof monk


One way of to be "faster" is to let go of one's stagnation within one's body and mind. without a "self" one will behave similar to the nature. There one float and flow. Isn't it simple and direct? It is a process of returning to nature....
who still remember TAHNNNN sau or WUUUU sau or .... call it what you like :D