Is it ok for Wing Chun to evolve?

[couch]

Yes taking out ChiSao makes sense if you are going to do boxing instead of VT.. VT is not based on seeing things and hitting through openings you see...

VT is about controlling, breaking him down, issuing force and making those openings, not seeing them...

Good VT training is not about patty cake..

Are most evolving or devolving?

I didn't say to take it out. It trains the core idea of the art. It can be expanded on (such as adding in hooks, standing grappling, takedowns, etc) during the activity but it's still limited. In that it's limited, that's why I said to not make it 99% of the emphasis that was common in my learning WC.

The average WC-Joe practitioner after learning Tan, Pak, Lop, Dan Chi Sau and finally Chi Sau can't spar worth beans. And how long did it take to learn all those tools? Too long.

This practitioner could have learned something else like boxing for the same amount of time and would have learned to spar a lot better.

So that's what I was trying to say. It's about taking a goal (to be able to spar/fight) and evolving a set idea (that WC's tools try to get across in a very generic way) to get to that goal.

[k gledhill]

Do you think it is ok to modify or change wing chun and still call it wing chun?

Should the art be flexible enough to change with the times and / or geography as it moves to different places and faces different issues and styles than what it was designed to face originally?

Or perhaps it is a piece of history meant to be preserved as is. Even that is a difficult task as different lineages have added their own flavor in the recent past.

I'm curious at to how people feel about this. Perhaps a slight modification to the name would show the root but acknowledge that it has been changed. American Wing Chun for example or Wing Chun Jistu if you want to marry the 2 styles.

How do you feel about what is and isn't Wing Chun?

VT is perfect. The human factor or 'levels' of teaching, understanding, are factors that might lead one to ask your question.
It would mix well with BJJ for its aggressive entry and persistant mind set.

[Nite Templar]

Originally Posted by YungChun
Yes taking out ChiSao makes sense if you are going to do boxing instead of VT.. VT is not based on seeing things and hitting through openings you see...

VT is about controlling, breaking him down, issuing force and making those openings, not seeing them...

Good VT training is not about patty cake..

Are most evolving or devolving?

I didn't say to take it out. It trains the core idea of the art. It can be expanded on (such as adding in hooks, standing grappling, takedowns, etc) during the activity but it's still limited. In that it's limited, that's why I said to not make it 99% of the emphasis that was common in my learning WC.

The average WC-Joe practitioner after learning Tan, Pak, Lop, Dan Chi Sau and finally Chi Sau can't spar worth beans. And how long did it take to learn all those tools? Too long.

This practitioner could have learned something else like boxing for the same amount of time and would have learned to spar a lot better.

So that's what I was trying to say. It's about taking a goal (to be able to spar/fight) and evolving a set idea (that WC's tools try to get across in a very generic way) to get to that goal.

I think you're right, couch. Chi sao and everything else within wing chun has its place. But it could take a long time to learn all these things like forms, drills, chi sao before one even considers doing some sparring. If the goal is to learn fighting, then chi sao needs to be done in moderation I would think. There's a lot more to fighting than skill in chi sao.

I'm also a bit confused about the idea that wing chun is not about seeing things and hitting through the openings you see. Isn't that a big part of fighting? It seems as though the poster is saying that chi sao is all you need, and that the sense of touch you develop within it makes you a good wing chun man? What if there is no touching in advance? And punches or kicks are coming at you. Don't you need to see things in order to fight?

[bennyvt]

I think most people forget that a big part of traditional training was chi sao, gor-sao and fighting people. Gor sao was more like just normal sparing without the gear. Two people fighting each other at a slightly lower intensity. Sparing is the modern version of gor sao and fighting. Its as close to fighting as we can legally get these days unless you compete.

[KPM]

I think there are two extreme views of Wing Chun. On one end of the spectrum is Wing Chun as a form of "kickboxing." This view sees minimal contact with the opponent as a desirable thing and therefore would de-emphasize Chi Sao. Its all about striking the opponent, and being able to see and exploit openings plays a big role. Things like closing the gap and fighting from the outside are very important.


At the other end of the spectrum is Wing Chun as a form of striking while "grappling" on the feet . This view sees maximum contact with the opponent as the desirable thing and places a heavy emphasis on skills developed in Chi Sao. It is all about attaching to the opponent, and controlling him while striking. A blind man could do this form of Wing Chun, because it is all about contact reflexes and controlling while sticking rather than seeing and striking through openings. Closing the gap and fighting from the outside are much less important because the goal is to get into "attachment" range and control the opponent.


Of course, as in most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[YungChun]

I didn't say to take it out. It trains the core idea of the art. It can be expanded on (such as adding in hooks, standing grappling, takedowns, etc) during the activity but it's still limited. In that it's limited, that's why I said to not make it 99% of the emphasis that was common in my learning WC.

The classical training need not be transformed into something else, it simply needs to be taught correctly and by someone who is skilled.. That's the core, change the core and you change the art and likely without the correct core to start with.. This is the case of fixing the house but not the foundation.

The average WC-Joe practitioner after learning Tan, Pak, Lop, Dan Chi Sau and finally Chi Sau can't spar worth beans. And how long did it take to learn all those tools? Too long.

This isn't because there is something wrong with the core it's because people only taught the core...

The answer here is simply teach the core and also teach people to be functional.. No one is stopping anyone from doing that but people are caught up more in theory than in function. This is what happens when you only do the core and then theorize about function. How to fix? Add function. Like Keith said when we discussed this: It's not taught because it's not fought..

If I had a school I would use our core and also use the KK knock down match as the functional core.. Then I would make sure my guys (who were ready) would have the option to spar outside the art, wherever that might be.

This practitioner could have learned something else like boxing for the same amount of time and would have learned to spar a lot better.

You can't learn to spar without sparring.. Don't blame the core for this blame not doing it for this...

VT needs to spar, not (we now must) add three other arts to it and then spar.. VT needs to spar.....to learn VT.. If you want to spar and do 5 different arts fine but don't try to sell that as training VT, VT is what it is, if you want to train VT you have to train to fight with THAT--that is VT training..

[k gledhill]

The 'sparring ' has been lost to the chi-sao , we strive to maintain the 'goal' to be free sparring fighters, not drillers lost in a mobius flip of perpetual self delusion. You get hit fighting, thats part of learning, you learn distance , timing, delivering forceful punches while not getting hit...kicking blah blah.
Sadly many have turned the VT idea into self serving techniques for 'a kick' , a punch.....self-defense c rap. And a 'safe' form of chi-sao where nobody gets hurt and egos get inflated with delusions.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Systems must evolve or they go the way of the dinosaur.
Every MA systems evolved from another form of H2H or whatever.
No style can or should become so stagnant as to NOT see what is useful from another system or to see what is needed to change to deal with a "new puzzle" that may have to be solved.
If anyone thinks the WC of today s like the WC of 50 years ago or 100 years ago, they are smoking some nice drugs and NOT sharing and that is just not cool.

[m1k3]

This thread has been very interesting so far.

Maybe WC is splitting apart or becoming an art within an art.

One part of the evolution is WC becoming a business. It's primary goal is not to train fighters but to make money. This can be done by watering down the art to make it safer for more people, to avoid injuries to paying customers, adding belts and sashes to give people a sense of accomplishment and to carry on the "traditions" of the art.

This is not necessarily bad. A lot of people get exposed to the art, the school makes money and the customer while far from being a fighter has a lot more self confidence than before making them less likely to become a victim.

The second part is coming back full circle to develop fighters from those customers who truly desire to become fighters. Their training will be different and not necessarily to the liking of the majority of the customers.

I read an article once that described a martial arts school as an ecology and they used the plains of Africa as an example.

The majority of your students are antelopes. This is the herd which provides the funds to keep the school running.

Then you have your fight team, these are the lions. These are the people who like fighting/sparring. It is best to keep the lions and the antelopes separate. Occasionally you will lose an antelope to a lion. (Antelope tries to spar with lions.)

Lastly you have the elephants. These are students who are not dedicated enough to be lions, don't care about belts and status and don't mind or even enjoy fighting / sparring. Sometimes an elephant will trample an antelope.

A good school will provide for the needs of all three although with a focus on keeping the antelopes safe and happy as they are the ones who keep the school funded.

[Vajramusti]

Paul says:

Systems must evolve or they go the way of the dinosaur.
((Sure- wing chun has evolved- Ip Man made important changes- later a couple of his better students made some more- some changes in the next generation too))


Every MA systems evolved from another form of H2H or whatever.
((Sure))
No style can or should become so stagnant
((Wing chun is not stagnant. Big difference between chain store adaptations and craftmanssip.
Wing chun was not originally a mass production system. Big difference between hamburger alley and kobe beef))
--------------------------------------------------------------------
m1k3 says:


Maybe WC is splitting apart or becoming an art within an art.
(Don't quite know what you mean- but so what?))

One part of the evolution is WC becoming a business. It's primary goal is not to train fighters but to make money. This can be done by watering down the art to make it safer for more people, to avoid injuries to paying customers, adding belts and sashes to give people a sense of accomplishment and to carry on the "traditions" of the art.

((I don't wear a belt or a sash and do not crave for either. Continued progression in the art and in skill development is it's own reward))

The second part is coming back full circle to develop fighters from those customers who truly desire to become fighters. Their training will be different and not necessarily to the liking of the majority of the customers.

(Sigung Ho Kam Ming-now basically retired-at 86+ has trained both fighters and craftsmen-no conflict there. Fighters have to do appropriate additional training for experience and appropriate conditioning. Some of Sifu's students and Sifu himself have fought. Some of my students work on the art and some have been fighters. A current one has both boxed and wrestled and fought and is an All American greco-roman wrestler... a torn acl kept him from the march to Beijing. Many wing chunners with gaps in their perceptions and training are doing other things- ok by me. But I believe in truth in labeling))))



The majority of your students are antelopes. This is the herd which provides the funds to keep the school running.

Then you have your fight team, these are the lions. These are the people who like fighting/sparring. It is best to keep the lions and the antelopes separate. Occasionally you will lose an antelope to a lion. (Antelope tries to spar with lions.)

Lastly you have the elephants. These are students who are not dedicated enough to be lions, don't care about belts and status and don't mind or even enjoy fighting / sparring. Sometimes an elephant will trample an antelope.

A good school will provide for the needs of all three although with a focus on keeping the antelopes safe and happy as they are the ones who keep the school funded.


(( I got lost in the above zoo, I myself come from tiger country<g>))

joy chaudhuri


Death smiles at everyone, Marines smile back.

((I have had a couple of good former Marines as good students-one with experience in Desert Storm and another in SE Asia))

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some think that by evolving things mean change and while that CAN be the case, it really means adaptability.
WC evolution is finding WC answers to puzzles that are presented at a given time.
And example is ground work.
It was not an issue in the past and it is an issue NOW, as such WC must find the WC answers to that puzzle, when it does WC will have evolved to deal with that puzzle.
Of course in a subjective and microcosmic way, WC does that already when a WC practioner testes his WC VS a ground grappler and makes the needed adaptatiions to defeat that puzzle and that is the WC way.
WC is a personal system of combat.
But for the WHOLE of WC to evolve, the whole of WC must adapt the answer to any given puzzle to the whole.
Of course soem do this at the school level and some go further and do it at the organizational level.

[YungChun]

To evolve there must be a reason... Today only a handful of people are actually fighting and we don't even know what base/core they are using... Evolve sure sounds great but there must be a reason a direction... In the end any evolving will be a personal choice and will vary depending on one's personal understanding of the art and their personal experience good or bad--as it is few can agree on what the art is... If this is the case then it seems VT has already changed into several different things that all mainly resemble lots of chain punching.

[YouKnowWho]

To evolve there must be a reason...

The reason is simple - to handle the challenge in today's environment. Since the challenge that we may face today is different from our ancestor who had to face in south China back then, we may need more or different tools.

We should look at whether "evolution" is "enhance" or "water down". To have a Walther PPK in your back pocket will always be an "enhancement".

[YungChun]

The reason is simple - to handle the challenge in today's environment.

No, there must a specific reason and direction...

Personally I see the problem of not fighting, where fighting must be a prerequisite to any evolving.. Something must be in use to evolve, otherwise you have (mainly) theoretical fighters theorizing about how to evolve what they don't use anyway... Sounds kind of silly to me.. One person may say VT can't deal with X but this may simply be out of ignorance... No one can even agree on what the core is, but many agree that core must change, but into what, from what?

In my opinion everyone is putting the cart before the horse .. Go out there and fight first and then go evolve yourself--this was always the intention of the art--see what Bruce did--he evolved himself not the core..

There are ample tools and tactics in VT to get the job done in stand up... MT, Western Boxing are fine as is apparently without adding ground work so I see no reason to "evolve" VT into a ground fighting system, since it was never intended to be that in the first place IMO.

Does VT need to evolve? Everything does but what and why depends on what you think VT is.

[jesper]

We should look at whether "evolution" is "enhance" or "water down". To have a Walther PPK in your back pocket will always be an "enhancement".

Not if you used to carry a magnum 44