Interviewer: Thank you Sifu for agreeing to this interview.
Sifu Zopa: No worries. What would you like to ask?
Interviewer: Can you comment for us on the issue of quality in the martial arts, please?
Sifu Zopa: Certainly. Controversial topic! There are a number of facets to quality with respect to martial arts. One man’s “quality” is another’s “garbage”! What particular aspect of quality would you like me to comment upon?
Interviewer: You’ve often said that only a small percentage of the martial artists in any particular group seem to exhibit quality. Could you elaborate on this?
Sifu Zopa: Ah! OK, yes I can. I my time in martial arts, 40 plus years now, you can imagine I’ve seen a lot of martial arts and a lot of martial artists. It has been my impression that only a small percentage is impressive, that is, are of a high quality. This is so with our art, Wing Chun. It is also the case with other arts I’ve seen. It seems it is true of many things in life. The number of martial arts I’ve seen is extensive, as you can imagine. Many styles of karate and dozens of gung fu arts etc. I think my impression that quality is a rare attribute can be borne out by reference to aikido, karate, tae kwon do, gung fu, and grappling arts. On the other hand, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet and train with a few magnificent teachers who were absolutely top rate, the best in their art. I’ve seen some absolutely magical performers over the decades. Some have been quality people as well. Some were good martial artists but were deficient in manners and/or personality I’m afraid.
Interviewer: You’ve also said many of the top “names” were disappointing, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: Definitely! Although many still worship these guys. I found them to be very mediocre, if not contemptible in their posing as “masters”. On more than one occasion I’ve seen a much publicised identity in martial arts magazines perform only to be quite disillusioned at how poor they are in reality. This is true of all martial arts. It is certainly true in Wing Chun!
Interviewer: In a mass art – one which huge numbers of people practice, is this dearth of quality because of the sheer numbers of practitioners, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: In part, I think that is correct. If you have a lot of people doing anything you’ll have a wide range with respect to quality. Although long before martial arts became so widespread and popular I think my observation held. There were great arts, good arts, arts that were mediocre and arts which were simply not up to par. Quality is a function of an art, a teacher and his students. A lack of quality, conversely.
Interviewer: So a poor teacher produces a poor student, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: Almost without fail! Not absolutely always, but exceptions would be rare. It’s an old saying “see the son, know the father”. I know some martial artists that are, by fairly universal consensus outside their own followers, utter jerks. Well, it’s intriguing but they seem to attract jerks as students! The same holds true for instructors that are thugs – their students are also invariably thugs. Those who are weak, their students are weak.
Interviewer: How did you first come to the conclusion that quality is rare, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: I think it was fairly early on. It began, I think, with my observation of a demonstration given by a self promoted teacher on a TV show, really a chap who it seems had deep seated psychological problems as I recall. He was a beginner from a class I was learning in who had recently dropped out and promoted himself to a high rank. I was shocked he could claim such a high rank and expert status and still be given credibility by the media at the time. Of course, the media had no reference against which to evaluate him as martial arts in the West were quite a new phenomena then. A number of martial artists alerted the media but they simply weren’t interested. The guy appeared on TV with some clown of a compere on a regular evening show – he was appalling! The compere was a famous American star at the time so I won’t mention his name. But he was a fool as far as I could assess. Anyone with half a brain could’ve seen through this guy’s story. Later, I began to look around at a number of arts and training halls and instructors and as I saw more and more I realised that genuine art, genuine skill was rare. The norm was mediocrity! This was a very long time ago but as far as I can see it is even more so now.
Interviewer: Why is that sifu?
Sifu Zopa: The mass popularisation of martial arts and the watering down of genuine martial arts, sportification to cater for a wider cross section of society. Far more people now do an activity going by the name “martial art”. Both in absolute terms and percentage terms there are far, far more people now doing a martial art than when I was young. Ergo, there are more below average people involved – and also instructing! Once you had to be fit or quickly get fit and maintain a good level of fitness to be a martial artist. Women and children were rare as they simply weren’t strong enough or prepared to suffer enough. Even in the internal arts that could be considered fighting arts this seemed true. Today, it is different. You cannot assume when you hear someone is a martial artist that they will be above average in fitness. Often they’re, plainly speaking, unfit, overweight, slow and without any courage or fighting spirit. Nor can you assume they can defend themselves I’m not being sexist here by the way when I mention women having been rarely represented in the early days. Part of it was cultural for sure. Women weren’t encouraged or accepted. It was the way it was. I always had women in my classes who were prepared to work hard and be treated respectfully and considered but not molly coddled. I deplore sexism, as you know. I teach women and have and have had several excellent women students whom I admire as martial artists. Over the years I have had a number of fine women students. I loved them all! (Laughs) In a paternal sense, of course! As for children, I love them (I’m a child and adolescent psychologist aren’t I?) but they have no place in serious genuine martial arts. I’ll let the Koreans grade them black belts at ten! (Laughs)
Interviewer: Surely that mass popularisation must change the perception in the general public of what is genuine martial art, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: Exactly! Most martial artists seeing our art would be shocked at its reality, I have to tell you. They have a very different picture of “martial art” in their head. Even young karate-ka today whom I have met have no real comprehension of the old ways, of their real karate art. Their art has been so diluted and transformed by the requirements of sportification it has changed the essence. Some of the styles that claim to be for realworld fighting have degenerated into bash and smash fests with no real skill involved. For me, it is saddening.
Interviewer: How does a student recognise quality, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: Very good question! It’s not easily answered. Nor is it easily done. I think the proverbial “man or woman on the street” has no chance other than by intuition or comparison by seeing a number of arts, clubs, instructors. Of course the problem is they may only see poor quality so they are comparing poor against poor to decide on the best of a poor bunch. Industry bodies, controlling bodies are no help because they simply espouse all of their members over non members. They can’t favour one member over another and accept a wide range of quality as members. The best they can do is to favour their members over non-members. The issue there is not quality but that the members have accepted a minimum baseline. It is that baseline which is espoused as necessary. Well, it may be necessary – but is it sufficient in judging quality? No, not in my opinion. It may be a baseline guarantee a student will not be hurt by negligence or ignorance but past that it doesn’t guarantee quality. It can’t! It is a system set up on minimum standards. It’ great top have such standards but they don’t address the issue of quality as I see it – a high , no, “the” - highest standard. The best.
Interviewer: Is quality subjective, sifu? Can there be universal criteria?
Sifu Zopa: No, I don’t think it is subjective. Most, if not all, genuine martial artists can see someone perform – even though it may be an art with which they unfamiliar and say “They’re good!” I mean, for example, I’ve done a little Tai Chi Chuan. I’m not very skilled at it. But, and this is the key point, I can look at a Tai Chi Chuan practitioner and tell you they are good or not. In fact, it wouldn’t be too hard to rank a set of them performing together. And, yes, I think there can be universal criteria. There ate certainly universal criteria in our Wing Chun. They’re not necessarily the criteria for other Wing Chun – but they are for our style. In fact, much other Wing Chun couldn’t be rated against all the criteria I use simply because they don’t have the range of techniques which we have.
Interviewer: What do you think the criteria of quality are, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: You ask some good questions! Well, a friend of mine, a sifu brother who I might consider legitimate for example, we might both watch another sifu perform and be able to agree: “He’s good!” We would be looking at factors like: stances, balance, stance transitions, martial character, timing, focus of technique, speed, explosiveness, power, and, our perception of the practicality of the art. It’s not actually subjective. Just how good we think the person is could be subjective but agreeing he is good would not be. Look, I judged a gung fu forms championships recently. The three other judges and I disagreed on our actual scores as little but our relative rankings of the participants was very uniform. We could all see quality versus a lack of it. We also judged a sparring final. I disagreed with the other judges and judged a draw as I saw both contestants as of a poor quality. One I know came from a quality sifu and a quality school – but his sparring was rubbish that day. There was no quality. Both looked like poor kick boxers rather than gung fu practitioners. You could not tell from their sparring technique which school they came from – it was amorphous. This was a distinct lack of quality in that respect. In our own art I always give chek chun – calibrations that the student can employ to ensure they can reliably produce structurally correct, quality technique. In san sau I correct errors. In forms, likewise. By following the advice I give – the criteria of what is, and is not, quality Wing Chun, I can transmit quality to my students.
Interviewer: How would a student ensure that they embedded quality in their martial art, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: I think firs select the best art you can. Don’t listen to promotional hype. Pay no regard to the fame of the teacher or school. Look at the quality of the sifu and look at the uniformity of quality across his students. Avoid anyone who calls himself and has his students address him as “master” or “grandmaster” – too much ego. In the vast majority of cases those who do this aren’t the “master” or “grandmaster” they’d like to think they are! If you see a teacher who himself looks to be always in control of an attacker, unflustered and decisive, who can explain what he is doing and why and what to do “if ……”, then you would likely be on the right track. So, choose the best sifu and best art. The sifu may be good but the art not first rate. That’s possible. So, look for an art that can handle all the types of street attack you could imagine and do so reliably under the pressure of real combat. You don’t want to learn from a sifu who can perform a ridiculous ineffective art beautifully but would fight a different way (I’ve seen that a lot!). In other words, choose an art that has simple techniques not aesthetically pleasing but practical ones. Next, you are then able to do your bit to ensure you develop quality gung fu. Listen carefully and open mindedly. Watch demonstrations carefully and open mindedly. Ask well thought out questions. Critically self assess. Look in a mirror. Ask the sifu for feedback. Train as regularly as you are able with single minded concentration. Help the sifu where you can. Think about your art. Imagine an attacker launching an attack when you train alone. With partners in chi sau and san sau cooperate in feeding realistic attacks and examining options, examining why something worked – or did not. Aim for quality in your training, not quantity. If someone says to me they did 1000 punches I will ask how many correct punches they did and were they practising an error many times? If I make a mistake I correct it and repeat the correct version ten times – my flute or my fist it’s the same!
Interviewer: Sifu, if a student is training in a school, in an art, and they realise the quality is lacking, what should they do?
Sifu Zopa: I should answer “leave”. I think I’ll add “as quickly as possible”. Otherwise you will be accepting and supporting the sub standard and training in lower quality! Why the heck would anyone want to aim for “good enough”? “Good enough” is simply not good enough! Would you aim to be “third rate”?
Interviewer: The sixty four thousand dollar question, sifu: what do you think of quality in the Wing Chun world?
Sifu Zopa: (Laughs uproariously). Well, you know, there’s a lot of Wing Chun around. There are a lot of arts that call themselves “Wing Chun” – but aren’t! Many, many people do a less than optimal Wing Chun. There are a rare few really good schools and a rare few really good sifus. Finding them and being able to know is the challenge!
Interviewer: Thank you sifu!
Sifu Zopa: Thank you.