Interviewer: Good afternoon, sifu. May I ask you about a distinction between categories of martial arts I’m hearing of these days?
Sifu: Good afternoon. Yes, of course.
Interviewer: I refer to people distinguishing between what they call “reality based” and “traditional” martial arts. What are your views on this, sifu?
Sifu: Well, in a nutshell, on the one hand it’s an utter nonsense. On the other there may be something to it.
Interviewer: (Laughs). Can we talk about how it’s utter nonsense first?
Sifu: Yes. I believe this is a distinction devised by practitioners of brawling who want to validate their approach to fighting by calling it a “martial art” and then by inference putting down arts that are not like theirs or their view of fighting or self defence by saying it is “reality based”. Look, Wong Fei Hung was a traditional gung fu practitioner. Would these people say he wasn’t “reality based?” For crying out loud, he took on challenges that entailed a risk of loss of life or limb! Hhhmm, now let’s see was that reality based? By gosh …… yeh! If the term “reality based” is contrasted with “traditional” what the heck are the people who use such terms trying to say? Because an art is traditional that it isn’t effective on the street? That it isn’t “reality based”? Tell that to Sifu Sum Num who, along with other real world fights – death matches in his youth, took on and defeated twenty Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. I’ll bet those young Red Guards thought that their injuries were reality based, huh? (Laughs).
Interviewer: You’re an interesting blend of very traditional and reality based if I can say so, sifu.
Sifu: Yes, I think that’s a good description. Our art is, was, and if I have my way, always will be, for real world self defence first and foremost. We fight as we train, train as we fight. There’s no difference between what we do in basics, forms, drills and real world application – none at all! I adhere strictly to tradition in the art but in training methods I use all the knowledge I can from any and every modern source that I can. Our art is not, and cannot be, a sport. It isn’t a fitness activity. We don’t enter tournaments. We aren’t a commercial business interested primarily in profit. And, our motto – “real self defence for the real world” isn’t just marketing – those who see our art in our gwoon can’t possibly argue with that!
Interviewer: Indeed! So are those who employ the term “reality based” doing so to market their art?
Sifu: Yup! I would suggest that is exactly what this is about. The underlying platform on which their pitch is based is that you won’t be able to apply your martial art in the real world unless you learn from them. That you won’t be able to defend yourself without their sparring games and that their ways of training are the only so-called practical ways!
Interviewer: I can’t help wondering what these guys mean by, and think of, when they use the term “traditional”.
Sifu: Well, I guess they are trying to infer that those martial arts that engage in lots of forms and pre-arranged two person drills are traditional. And that traditional is ineffective. They invariably engage in a great deal of sparring sport. Often they make a fuss about including wrestling or jujutsu but that’s nonsense in the street. Going to the ground is exceptionally dangerous and very likely to get you killed! But, yes, to define “traditional” is an interesting exercise. Take Wing Chun, for example. As you know, Bill Cheung calls his martial art “Traditional Wing Chun”. Others, from Canada to Australia to Hong King, discussing the not inconsiderable controversy he stirs up, can, very credibly argue that it is not traditional and was devised by him. So, what is “traditional”? It is hard to define and gain any universal acceptance of the definition but I think most of us have some idea of what it means.
Interviewer: You said there’s a sense in which the guys who contrast “reality based” and “traditional” have a point. Could you elaborate on that please, sifu?
Sifu: Yes. The guys who use that term lump all arts they call “traditional” into the one category – and damn them all together. As I’ve just noted, however, there are many “traditional” martial artists I’ve seen who would hand some of the “reality based” guys their backside in a bag if they really fought. Now, on the other hand, there are huge numbers of people who think they’re practising a martial art who are actually just engaging in a social activity, physical fitness training and theatrical performances.
Interviewer: May I say that you’re what I’d call traditional but there’s nothing that isn’t reality based in what I’ve seen you do. For example, our mitt work.
Sifu: Yes. As you know I believe that you have to be able to hit with knock down or knock out power, precisely to selected targets – not just landing your strikes anywhere. So, we do mitt work to develop impact power.
Interviewer: Seniors also strike the wooden dummy.
Sifu: Yes, true. That’s another way we develop such power. We also train against the common street attacks – not only punches but grabs, attempts to throw and so on. We don’t train exclusively against our own art. Traditional martial artists that train that way are being unrealistic. That’s certain.
Interviewer: Then you are both traditional and reality based? Our art is both?
Sifu: Yes. That’s my point. I think that, on the one hand, this term “reality based” is yet another marketing ploy the commercial martial sport teachers will seize to recruit more students, to make more money. On the other hand, I think there are a lot – a lot – of so-called martial arts that simply wouldn’t stand up to the road test of the real world. My final comment would be that our traditional art is reality based! Well before the term was popularised – ten years ago in the Year of the Golden Dragon – we adopted the motto: “Real self defence for the real world” as an accurate summation of what we teach.
Interviewer: Thank you, sifu.