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