Is Evolution a bad thing?
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
Is Evolution a bad thing? Yes, Usually.
Hi Dave,
Pardon me while I poo-poo your entire post. :p
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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....
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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,