Is Evolution a bad thing?

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Recently there has been some discussion concerning the “Evolution” of Wing Chun. Some people are staunch traditionalists who feel there is no need to change our art. Some have even gone so far as to accuse those who do make changes of not having a sufficient understanding of the arts principles. Others feel that one must adapt the art to ones own needs. Many who feel that the art needs to evolve point to the arena of combat as proof when they or those who follow their philosophy do well. I think that when one looks to the past you will find that most “MASTERS” had some training in more than one art. Rather than specialize in a narrow area of expertise they built up a strong foundation and then incorporated things they felt they needed from elsewhere.

Someone who I respect mentioned that people today are not that different than those of yesterday. While this is for the most part true, I would argue that the needs of combat have changed quite a bit. First of all there is much more variety available to us today. The chances of being exposed to different arts are far greater than it was 100 years ago. It was not that long ago that those in the US had not knowledge of Kung Fu/Karate/Arnis/Silat etc or the differences between each. Today, one can find examples of most, if not all of these, in many major cities. So while our forbearers may have been quite capable of dealing with the local arts they may have never encountered some of the things we may face today.

Another consideration is that of the “Legal” consequences of applying the arts today. Our society is less tolerable than that of the past in accepting excessive force. In the past one may kill an opponent in a duel and no one, other than the deceased friends and family, took much of an interest. Today, even if one is attacked one must be careful of how much force is used. Too much may land you in jail or civil court. Thus, there is a need to allow our arts to “evolve” in order to meet the needs of its practitioners today.

Something else which I always like to point to is the fact that most recognized “Masters” have made small modifications to their way of practicing over the years. Some of these were quite incidental and others could have far reaching effects. A great example, IMHO, is that of the pole. This is a weapon that was brought in from outside of the system. While much of it has been adapted to incorporate the principled of Wing Chun, it still utilizes quite a different stance and somewhat different body mechanics. The knives follow more in line with the hand techniques and body structure of the system with minimal medication. The pole is quite a bit different in some aspects. This could be viewed as an example of the need for the art to be adaptable and grow or “evolve”.

I think that the key is not so much to look outside of the system and make broad sweeping changes. Rather I think that one must explore the principles and theories of Wing Chun and have an open mind. Our system is one of the most efficient ones available. Part of this is in its directness and simplicity. I feel it is a mistake to add things simply to add them. However, the key, in my mind, is to be open to the possibility that some things may need to change in order to fit our needs today. The difficulty is in not changing the basic underlying framework of the system but to take things that one likes or feels are needed and restructure them so that they can be applied from a Wing Chun framework, much like when the pole was added to the system.

The automobile has been around for over 100 years. While there have been some rather dramatic changes the basic concept of the internal combustion engine remains intact. Look at Wing Chun like that; if you think of a way to make your Wing Chun more applicable to your needs then why not include it? Of course, one must first build a strong foundation so you will have something upon which to build.

This is just my opinion and as such is not necessarily right or wrong. I only ask that you keep an open mind. Conversely, if the system is to grow and improve it will require the input of all of us, not just those who happen to agree with my views.

Peace,

Dave

[reneritchie]

Evolution beats the alternatives (stagnation and extinction) but it works through a process of mutation, with beneficial ones passing one and non-beneficial ones dying out. Only time sorts one group from the other.

[Grabula]

I think to a limited extant evolution is a good thing. The art should evolve to suit each individual, or the changes of society. It shouldn't evolve to suit someones ego, or to help them sell a gimic.

[John Weiland]

Hi Dave,

Pardon me while I poo-poo your entire post. :p

Originally posted by Sihing73

Recently there has been some discussion concerning the “Evolution” of Wing Chun. Some people are staunch traditionalists who feel there is no need to change our art. Some have even gone so far as to accuse those who do make changes of not having a sufficient understanding of the arts principles.

I had the good fortune to meet Phenix this last Saturday. Seeing his Cho family Wing Chun and recognizing the similar principles of it and Leung Sheung lineage Yip Man Wing Chun shows me that Wing Chun has had it's unique character and it was taught so for all those years of separation of these two distinct lineages. I have seen no lineage which has gotten better due to changes in the basic principles.


Others feel that one must adapt the art to ones own needs.

The art itself accomodates individualism. The art does not need to change to do so.


Many who feel that the art needs to evolve point to the arena of combat as proof when they or those who follow their philosophy do well.

Nonsense. As was pointed out in the "Evolution" thread, most 'evolutionary' changes are fatal. So it has always been, and so it is in the modern world.


I think that when one looks to the past you will find that most “MASTERS” had some training in more than one art. Rather than specialize in a narrow area of expertise they built up a strong foundation and then incorporated things they felt they needed from elsewhere.

The only "Master" who matters in modern times is the one who has truly grasped Wing Chun principles. Yip Man was one of these. Self proclaimed masters, grandmasters, and other poobahs are not in any case true masters of Wing Chun. Probably only Shang Chi qualifies in modern times, and of course, he is a comic book character.


Someone who I respect mentioned that people today are not that different than those of yesterday. While this is for the most part true, I would argue that the needs of combat have changed quite a bit. First of all there is much more variety available to us today. The chances of being exposed to different arts are far greater than it was 100 years ago. It was not that long ago that those in the US had not knowledge of Kung Fu/Karate/Arnis/Silat etc or the differences between each. Today, one can find examples of most, if not all of these, in many major cities. So while our forbearers may have been quite capable of dealing with the local arts they may have never encountered some of the things we may face today.

A deep understanding of Wing Chun should give one the capability of dealing with other humans. That is where the understanding that humans have not changed in the last several millenia comes in.


Another consideration is that of the “Legal” consequences of applying the arts today. Our society is less tolerable than that of the past in accepting excessive force. In the past one may kill an opponent in a duel and no one, other than the deceased friends and family, took much of an interest. Today, even if one is attacked one must be careful of how much force is used. Too much may land you in jail or civil court. Thus, there is a need to allow our arts to “evolve” in order to meet the needs of its practitioners today.

This is not a factor in martial arts. Let me dismiss your concerns. Humans since the dawn of time have followed laws, which were referred to as "customs." When in Rome, do as the Romans do.


Something else which I always like to point to is the fact that most recognized “Masters” have made small modifications to their way of practicing over the years. Some of these were quite incidental and others could have far reaching effects. A great example, IMHO, is that of the pole. This is a weapon that was brought in from outside of the system. While much of it has been adapted to incorporate the principled of Wing Chun, it still utilizes quite a different stance and somewhat different body mechanics.

This is not true about the Leung Sheung/Yip Man pole form. The horse used in the pole form follows Wing Chun principles. Of course, its primary purpose is to train the hands, developing significant power in movement.


The knives follow more in line with the hand techniques and body structure of the system with minimal medication. The pole is quite a bit different in some aspects. This could be viewed as an example of the need for the art to be adaptable and grow or “evolve”.

Ok. Here I agree. But, the recent innovations that have been made have not been of this nature, but often simply mistaken conceptually or simply change for the sake of claims to uniqueness.


I think that the key is not so much to look outside of the system and make broad sweeping changes. Rather I think that one must explore the principles and theories of Wing Chun and have an open mind. Our system is one of the most efficient ones available. Part of this is in its directness and simplicity. I feel it is a mistake to add things simply to add them.

I agree 100% to this point.


However, the key, in my mind, is to be open to the possibility that some things may need to change in order to fit our needs today.

We should start a thread such as this....


The difficulty is in not changing the basic underlying framework of the system but to take things that one likes or feels are needed and restructure them so that they can be applied from a Wing Chun framework, much like when the pole was added to the system.

Remember the caveat about the Law of Unintended Consequences. Specific applications do not matter, but more fundamental changes, such as changed the Yee Gee Kim Yung Mar are much more dangerous to the survival of the art.


The automobile has been around for over 100 years. While there have been some rather dramatic changes the basic concept of the internal combustion engine remains intact.
Look at Wing Chun like that; if you think of a way to make your Wing Chun more applicable to your needs then why not include it? Of course, one must first build a strong foundation so you will have something upon which to build.

Maybe the inventors of automobiles were correct in making the internal combustion engine their engine, but Wing Chun is more like the entire design and manufacturing process. If you change one simple thing on a car you manufacture, the entire system has to accomodate the change. Why do think that car manufacturers only change models on average every three to five years? Because the entire system has to be changed from one end to the other. The changes to Wing Chun are like adding big tail fins to cars. They don't change the principles and they don't really add value except in the minds of consumers.


This is just my opinion and as such is not necessarily right or wrong. I only ask that you keep an open mind. Conversely, if the system is to grow and improve it will require the input of all of us, not just those who happen to agree with my views.

I fear that such open-mindedness will lead to the complete loss of real Wing Chun over the next 20 to 40 years as the older generation dies and the true art is not passed on.

Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

DAVE:

An absolutely FABULOUS first post to start off this thread...

Well done!

Evolution is the whole purpose of life...to try and make things (and ourselves)... better...and... better.

Some basic principles may be timeless, because so intelligent...
but the details HAVE to evolve, as well as new principles occasionally being introduced - in order to keep up with the rest of the world; or, in order to simply lead the way forward...

[yuanfen]

Because wing chun is such a logical and principled system rather than a collection of techniques, evolution in a "good" sense is built
into the art.

Many arts have numerous forms and a fairly stringent learning system that can be packaged ( such as in JMA)- for belt levels for instance.

Wing chun is much more dependent on the quality of the teacher and the student. The good teacher and the student can readily see different applications of a specific motion and principle- hence
both diversity and creativity without abndoning tried and both loigically and experientially verified principles.

[foolinthedeck]

change is natural.
show me one thing which never changes!
evolution implies an upward motion, a development, improvement.

but it depends on your point of view. one species evolution is another species extinction. everything finds its own path.

cultivate quality and let go of the rest.
thats my opinion

[Grabula]

yuanfen -
Because wing chun is such a logical and principled system rather than a collection of techniques, evolution in a "good" sense is built

What do you mean?

[yuanfen]

Grabula- based on very good obervationally and experientially based study of natural human structure, motion and dynamics.
Stood on the shoulders of other CMA developments.
Good changes rather than bad changes ...example- moving away from primary dependence on two person prearranged movements to chi sao.

[tparkerkfo]

Here is my thought

Evolution is needed and it is a death trap. As John pointed out, evolution often leads to dead ends. Most modifications don't work out. However, without any evolution, wing chun itself probably wouldn't exist, and it probably wouldn't be the same when Yip Man got it.

The problem I see is that people feel they have all the answers and that they are qualified to change it. This is rather egotistical. My teacher doesn't seem to feel qualified enough to change it from what I have gathered. I think that is a stagaring realization. He is happy jsut trying to grasp its depth and to be able to pass it on. The depth is fantastic. Back this up with TST's thoughts and I wonder how any one can say the art is limited and needs to be altered. Who so far that has modified wing chun has surpassed TST? I would doubt any.

Evolution doesn't happen in one generation. It happens over a long period of time. Yik Kam or Cho family wing chun has evolved seperatly as has Leung Sheung wing chun, yet they held shared much of the same core and shared many of the fundamental concepts. Both have slowly evolved to include some differences no doubt. But it is a slow change. Now look at others who change it after a couple years study. I think it is important to have people who are throughly knowedgable about the arts keep it intact. Sooner or later they will find some little bit that they don't like or feel is oout of synch with the rest, so they fix a little tiny bit. After many generations, you get a little improvement. If it is good, it survives. If not, it dies away.

Just my thoughts
Tom
________
Michigan medical marijuana dispensaries (http://michigan.dispensaries.org/)

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
Here is my thought

Evolution is needed and it is a death trap. As John pointed out, evolution often leads to dead ends. Most modifications don't work out. However, without any evolution, wing chun itself probably wouldn't exist, and it probably wouldn't be the same when Yip Man got it.

From what I've seen of Hendrik's Wing Chun, there must have been a kernal of very solid Wing Chun principles extant at the time his line split away from Yip Man's line pre-YM. Separated over 100 years, yet still retaining the essence. Not every line has retained the essence, so it seems reasonable to me to counter that the evolution that had already occured up to Yip Man created a complete and intricate principled system, simple and yet deep.


The problem I see is that people feel they have all the answers and that they are qualified to change it. This is rather egotistical. My teacher doesn't seem to feel qualified enough to change it from what I have gathered. I think that is a stagaring realization. He is happy jsut trying to grasp its depth and to be able to pass it on. The depth is fantastic. Back this up with TST's thoughts and I wonder how any one can say the art is limited and needs to be altered. Who so far that has modified wing chun has surpassed TST? I would doubt any.

We need to preserve what our ancestors have passed down. A few years of study doesn't begin to prepare one to judge the whole system. Modern folks lack patience, and that will lead to the demise of the whole of TCMA if we do not find a means of transmission through the ages.


Evolution doesn't happen in one generation. It happens over a long period of time.

Wrong. Moderen Evolutionary theory supposes that evolution happens in leaps and bounds. Look back at the Pleistocene dawn of the Age of Mammals, from a handful of little shrewlike creatures an entire menagerie of silly evolutionary efforts sprang forth at once. Much as MMA has today. :p One of those evolutionary trends led to us. The jury is out on our species' success. :p


Yik Kam or Cho family wing chun has evolved seperatly as has Leung Sheung wing chun, yet they held shared much of the same core and shared many of the fundamental concepts. Both have slowly evolved to include some differences no doubt.

Both are complete. Both are complementary in principle to each other IMHO. The differences are more of choreography in the sets, and Cho family has no chi sao to my understanding, something that is equally good at free exchange of hand, but appear otherwise very compatible.


But it is a slow change. Now look at others who change it after a couple years study. I think it is important to have people who are throughly knowedgable about the arts keep it intact. Sooner or later they will find some little bit that they don't like or feel is oout of synch with the rest, so they fix a little tiny bit. After many generations, you get a little improvement. If it is good, it survives. If not, it dies away.
I agree if you're saying that we should try to pass on the complete system. :)

Unless there is some major flaw that we have overlooked in it, Wing Chun has almost infinite potential depending on the individual. While not particularly gifted naturally, I grind away at my study with intermittant success, while one of my sidai has surpassed me effortlessly. What do I do? Do I throw up my hands and find another art, or do I buckle down, knowing that he finds the answers in the art, and that I can too. If one man or woman can do it, then another can.

[black and blue]

In the organisation I belong to my Sifu talks about "... elevating the art of Wing Chun to its next evolutionary level".

In part this is, I believe, about examining how we need to deal with attacks today (what type of attack, person, weapon etc will threaten us). Perhaps it's fair to say the person who attacks you late at night in London or LA etc, will not do so in the same way as someone in Hong Kong in the 1800s.

At Kamon I believe it is also about HOW the art is taught, as much as what is taught. Where we place emphasis (our Feeding Techniques for example). Dealing with random, heavy attacks from a neutral stance is as important to us as Chi Sau. I know someone who trained in Hong Kong last year, and he said they trained Chi Sau almost exclusively.

My Sifu also makes a point of sparring with boxers, Karate and TKD exponents, Thai Boxers etc. One of the reasons I'm so impressed with what he does/teaches, is his willingness to put-it-on-the-line in order to advance what he does/teaches.

In my opinion he and his Wing Chun evolves because of this. The great thing is that he hides nothing... this evolution and experience filters down to those he teaches.

[jesper]

WT must Evolve or die.

otherwise you imply that WT stands above the law of nature.

[reneritchie]

In part this is, I believe, about examining how we need to deal with attacks today

I tend to agree with Strong's assertion that modern self defense involves little to no MA (maybe 10%). Attacks of today come from small, concealed blades, guns, sniper rifles, cars, bombs, airplanes, etc. Neither WCK nor any ancient cultural artifact will likely be of much practical physical use in all but the crudest, most limited of attacks a modern person faces (though certain non-physical skills can be of benefit).

[Grabula]

I beg to differ on the modern attack. The reason being that I know more people who have tussled on the street or in a bar or at a party or similar venues, face to face and fist to fist. I don't know many people who have been shot, a few who have been mugged at gun point, and only one who was stabbed. If I had to break it down I would say about 90% of all the fights or asaults I am aware of personally were straight physical confrontations.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I wanted to share the following quote:

["Today's evolution is tomorrow's tradition" People who don't like to change will be the yesterday. People who make the change will be the future. If it weren’t for "evolution" there wouldn't be any Wing Chun at all.]

If you can read it without taking offense then think about it and let me know if it is true.

I also wanted to remind everyone that the reason we have grown as a society is because we had forefathers who were not afraid to initiate change. While ALL change is not a good thing, NO change can be just as dangerous. I believe that one must very carefully balance the need for change along with the perceived benefits. If a change allows the student to more quickly understand and apply the art then why is it bad? If something does not violate the underlying principles of the system why not incorporate it?

Once you have a firm foundation then there should be no reason you cannot incorporate things into your approach to meet your needs.

Peace,

Dave

[tparkerkfo]

Evolution is now part of the conversation. Many seem to think we should evolve the art in some way. So I ask, how do you evolve it? Do you have the knowledge to do so now, in a couple weeks say? Or is it a long term evolution? If we change it all at once, then the person changing it should be VERY good so that he can do it in a way that will survive, else it is a evolutionary dead end and not worth the time to invest in learning it.


What kind of modification should we make to the art? Do we add the ground fighting to wing chun? How do we do that? Do we study another art and add it in or do we work with what we have? How does wing chun principles work on the ground and how do they not work? Wing Chun is a very effecient, elegent, effective art that has survived an impressive amount of time and seems to have kept its core. Can we do this with ground fighting?

Who do we have make the changes? Any sifu/student that feels his wing chun sucks? Should we task the top wing chun person to make the change, maybe Tsui Shueng Tin? Or perhaps a special task force of Wing Chun people. maybe including some grapplers?

Tom
________
Deepthroat Choke (http://www.****tube.com/video/10609/deepthroat-almost-choke-to-death)

[tparkerkfo]

Opps, sorry, if my above post sounds a bit wierd,, it is because I confused a couple posts. This post was about evolution but I was thinking about ground fighting. Though I think it still stands. But lets run in a different direction instead of just ground fighting.

Why should we change it?
What should we change?
How should we change it?
Who should change it?
Not so concerened with the where ; )

Tom
________
Uggs (http://uggstoreshop.com/)

[Phenix]

There are at least four catagories about Jing.


The listern

The recieving

The Breaking vectors

The Issuing

The....


we are not running in WCK's full potentail yet if the above issues are not fully understood and implemented. IMHO. So, the evolution can't be complete without understanding of what potential has the ancestors reaches....



Fomulars about time and space doesn't work in advance WCK because
the sensitivity of listern, the recieving, the breaking vectors, the issuing happen in the same touch "contact".

there can be atleast 3 types of changes in a single contact which control by Yee...... not to metion the degree of intensity....

That is the place where time become non linear. and the closes distance between two point is a curve... a paradigm beyond daily physical.. There is no olderst and most original WCK. There is only if one can get into this paradigm and play.... it is about cultivation...does one has the technology to get there? even getting there depend on a lots of personal training...... lots of factors... even knowing not necessary will get there due to not refining........ IMHO

So what to evol? when we still don't understand the full potential of ancestors but messing around with myth history? IMHO

[omarthefish]

kind of an interesting thread here. Just wanted to interject that there's nothing inherently directional about evolution. The idea of survival of the fittest means fit as in a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole. In nature nothing evolves to be better or worse just more suitable, a better fit. Animals can evolve bigger and then smaller. There are dead ends (extinctions) and divegent branches (new species) and co-evolution (no common roots but similar enviromentws producing similar results).

In this sense Wing Chun could evolve without becoming better or worse. Just different. In fact, it does so all the time. If an art, for example, becomes more health and fitness oriented and less martial, who is to say this is worse? Considering the enviroment, it may certainly be more fit.

To take an example from the current scene, lately a lot of schools are emphasising much more grappling defenses because the introduction of a new predator (:) ) , the grappler. Non-grappling dodo birds of the MA world in America, having not faced this particular threat were being gobbled up left and right. As those who wern't able to adapt to this new threat died off, certain fighters who did, gained new prominence and began to proliferate. Low stances came back into style and many teachers stopped separating students who spent too much time in the clinch.

Now fast forward a decade or so...

Let's say most fighters now have a well balanced game and more and more fights start being won or lost standing. Both fighters can wrestle or at least defend themselves on the ground and the game becomes heavy on clinchwork and sprawling. In fact, the punchers, being more exciting to watch, tend to earn more as they draw bigger crowds and inspire more little wannabee's. The evolution could then go back to more of a stand up game...

One should also keep in mind that from a certain persective the grappling craze could be seen as a step backwards, or at least further away from the original intent or MARTIAL (a.k.a. war like, resembling the god of war, Mars). One on one 20 minute duels being really impractical from a military standpoint. Knives, ruksacks, etc... Generalization and specialization both have their strong points.

Just a warning against the implicit assumption on much of this thread that things evolve into better or more advanced states. Bacterium? Sharks? The duckbilled platypus?

[tparkerkfo]

A couple other thought based on some comments from previous threads.

Yes todays modification/evolution will be tommorows tradition in a sense. I think some people get too hooked into tradition in that they borrow cultural references from 150years ago. Things do change and we should probaly do the same to a degree. However, I think wing chun is pretty much fine the way it is.

I think evolution is a slow progression rather than a radical shift. Evolution takes thousands of generations to take affect. Most are not succesfull and die off. Some do make it and enter the gene pool. So if Yip Man tweaked this or that. Your teacher tweaked this or that, you tweak this or that, then your student tweaked this or that, then we can begine to see a slow gradual change in the art. I think it is much more healthy than those that try to fuse this and that together to make wing chun better.

One thing about evolution, is it is not linear. We don't constantly evolve to a set point progressing each time. It is random, what works well this millenium may not be good in the next. Evolution is not about bettering, in my opinion, it is about change. Usually only good change is kept around, but not the best change.

jsut rambling
tom
________
Kitchen Measures (http://kitchenmeasures.com/)