Interviewer:
Sifu, you regularly use the term “realworld fighting” or “realworld self defence”. May we get your ideas on this?
Sifu Zopa:
Sure! Yes, it’s a term I try to use instead of “fighting”, “martial art” or “self defence” whenever I can as I’m trying to emphasise a mindset and a way of perceiving true martial art - what I would see as the essence of genuine martial art. I think it’s a tremendously important concept. I use it especially, but not solely, in connection with trying to explain why sparring is actually counterproductive training for a realworld fighter - particularly for their mindset. I recall some years ago some guy on a chat group at enormous pains trying to convince the subscribers that to be proficient at Wing Chun they would have to trot around and spar everyone who’d spar with them. I’ve commented on sparring elsewhere so I won’t labour the point here. He thought that because he rolled around on the floor with them and used boxing gloves and hit them (with obviously some rules) he’d enhance hi realworld application of Wing Chun. All he was doing was feeding his ego and developing a counterproductive mindset for realworld fighting. There are several problems with that guy’s argument - one was he was so closed minded and arrogant of course - but that’s another issue. The major issue is that it’s essential to develop the appropriate mindset as well as techniques and methods of powering for realworld self defence. Going around sparring everyone in sight is not the way to do this.
Interviewer:
In fact, sifu, one of your gwoon mottos is: “Real self defence for the real world” isn’t it?
Sifu Zopa:
Yes, along with “training with the mind not the ego”, it is. I condensed the notion in that phrase of “Real self defence for the real world” into the term “realworld self defence” for ease of discussion. Our other motto of “Training with the mind not the ego” is connected really as a great deal of what I see being trained in modern martial art is actually based on someone’s ego rather than an objective, critical analysis of realworld combat and the appropriate mindset. It’s not based on an objective, factual analysis of realworld combat reality.
Interviewer:
So is this “realworld self defence” concept your idea, sifu? Did you derive it?
Sifu Zopa:
My idea? No, not at all. The language is mine I believe but the concept is one all genuine and advanced martial artists are familiar with and have been familiar with for some time. The Japanese samurai certainly understood it very well. Now don’t get me wrong - and here’s the problem - I think it’s true to say the vast bulk of the people out there who think of themselves as, and talk as if they are, genuine and advanced martial artists in the sense that is implicit in “realworld self defence” simply aren’t! They’re deluding themselves! This is not to say they’re deliberately misleading people - some are snake oil salesmen definitely, but some are sincere people - those guys don’t realise they’ve been misled themselves and are misleading others in turn. It’s not to say that they might not be dedicated, fit or superb physical specimens or champions at sports martial arts or skilled in modern commercial club martial arts or very nice guys in some cases. None of those attributes has any necessary connection to skill in realworld self defence.
I often think of the proverb: “When the tiger is not on the mountain the monkey declares himself king!” What I’m saying is that not many folk seem to have understood the term “realworld self defence”. What I’m talking about here is the concept of genuine martial art. It is the essence of martial art. It is, without modern niceties obscuring it, simply the art of killing - quickly.
In fact, to expand more - when I say “genuine and advanced martial artists” I’m probably talking about a handful of the old masters - not even all of those who have found their way into martial arts history texts or modern legends would qualify, I think. I’m also talking about a very small percentage of the worldwide population training in martial arts these days. What’s the distinction I’m making? Many of these people are good athletes, dedicated and good people - yes. Some, because they’re very powerful and quick, could beat most people - until they met someone who has realworld self defence skill. The thing is that on the street under attack they’ll not know this - lulled into a false sense of security by their training hall and tournament status, until it’s too late!
So, they have an unawareness and non-practice of realworld self defence. That’s the subject of this interview. There is a distinction and it’s very real once someone introduces you to the notion. Before they do, if you’ve been initiated into martial arts, it’s a 100 to 1 shot you’ve not got the distinction. Getting it depends on you lucking into the right school and right instructor. “Right” from the point of view that the “realworld self defence” approach is taught. And, it is decidedly is lucking in, too. Hardly any prospective martial artist seeks out “realworld self defence” because they’ve been indoctrinated by sport martial art, commercial martial arts schools and the martial arts media to conceive of martial arts in ways other than how I and others who think as I do, conceive of the concept of “martial art”. Alternatively, they simply want to take up a hobby or learn the activity called “martial art” - any art will do - and they trot along to either the closest school or one the marketing for which has hooked them.
Interviewer:
How, then, sifu, would you describe the concept of “realworld self defence”?
Sifu Zopa:
I think once someone who has been accepted as my student and learnt with me for a period they automatically see things from a “realworld self defence” viewpoint and can see how differently the vast majority of others perform their martial arts. In fact, it’s very, very rare to encounter a martial artist who is familiar with this view of ‘realworld self defence”. Street fighters and criminals have it - yes. Those most likely to attack us so we have to engage, without any choice, in realworld self defence, they have it. Realworld self defence is the awareness of how a real attack proceeds, it’s a mindset that doesn’t overlook you being killed by an attacker, it’s the skill to ensure you implement the Wing Chun principles and concepts to finish the attack instantly. I think that there are people who don’t do Wing Chun who can do this - but it’s not the ones who rely on size, physical power, raw aggression and sparring mindsets.
Interviewer:
That it’s very rare to encounter a martial artist who is familiar with this view of “realworld self defence” puts the good guys at a distinct disadvantage, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
An enormous disadvantage! The experienced criminal attacker on the street will brain freeze or blindside and annihilate the vast majority of strutting and bragging martial artists with relative ease! The website warriors and dojo and gwoon dilettantes would end up belly down on the floor in the street in most realworld attacks - or belly up in a hospital or on a slab in the morgue!
Interviewer:
What of the people who say they practice a “traditional” art, sifu? Aren’t these arts realworld self defence?
Sifu Zopa:
Well, “traditional” is a funny word! Most people these days use it to market a commercial school or to isolate themselves from facing the reality that whatever it is they do, they’re wasting their time if they’re doing it for self defence if self defence is the aim. In the cases where someone is preserving usage or what they think would’ve been usage of an ancient weapon I guess that they’re not really training expecting to actually ever use a spear, double axes, three sectional staff, kwando, sai or a samurai sword. In many cases of empty handed self defence, what these people are doing wouldn’t be recognised by their ancestors. In some other cases their ancestors are fictional anyway and what they say is traditional has been devised more recently. Martial arts has a very intriguing - and often very nasty - sociology and psychology in which it is imbedded. We have to see and understand - and escape that - if we are to develop genuine martial arts skill and the capacity to engage confidently and successfully in realworld self defence.
Interviewer:
What difference might the proverbial man-on-the-street see if he were to observe our system in a realworld encounter, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
(Laughs) A lot! Obviously they’d see a high quality Wing Chun but probably might not see the similarity to more static presentations of Wing Chun they may have seen elsewhere. They’d see speed, ferocity, finality, total control of the opponent once he was engaged and very effective power - stopping power. They wouldn’t see what I call “chopping down the tree” martial art or “hit and hope” martial art, or anything that resembled what they’ve seen in sparring.
Interviewer:
Yes, I thought you might describe it a little like that. That’s what we see. Nothing like we see in our visits to other training halls or in videos or DVDs of other arts - especially Wing Chun. Entirely a different application. Is this correct, it’s entirely different?
Sifu Zopa:
I have the same quality of experience you’ve had but more of it, I guess. Yes. The expression of a martial art - any art really has to be along the lines you described. I’ve always shaken my head at most of what I’ve seen represented in martial arts training anywhere when I thought of it being transported into realworld combat. I’ve been impressed by a small percentage of martial artists but usually it’s very rare to be impressed with their application as measured against the demands of realworld self defence. Sometimes I see martial arts demonstrations that impress me a lot as martial arts demonstrations (most don’t) or people physically training very hard or exercising qualities of determination and hard work etc but the sad fact is there is still this problem that if they think that what they are doing would save them from a determined attacker on the street they’re deluding themselves. It’s very sad when I see young girls assiduously practising a martial art that I know would be utterly useless against a serious criminal. If ever they’re attacked their false confidence might stop them running - and surviving.
Interviewer:
Sifu, could I return to the issue of traditional arts for a moment? Can you say more on them? Surely an art which is traditional addresses the need for realworld self defence?
Sifu Zopa:
As I said before a moment ago - no, not necessarily. It might be that the traditional art was untested. It might be that the traditional art is bogus in the sense that it’s called traditional, for marketing purposes, but it isn’t. Our practice, as you know, is in line with the old fashioned type when people had to employ martial arts to fight to kill attackers quickly. Here, I must add, the people who practice arts which are “traditional” - they too can, and often do, have a dimension of unreality which has been passed down for a time. I know people who practice what they describe as a “traditional”, yet the art they practice would definitely get them killed if they tried it in an actual confrontation where the attacker had either, or both, skill and determination and was trying to kill them! This is not so much about particular arts even, it’s about a mindset and way of training. There’s one worldwide art and a particular geographical locality which is lauded for their traditional version of this art but their old traditional weapons arts simply require suspension of belief if one were to want to embrace the notion they were actually ever used in realworld self defence. Anyone who has any ability with weapons would not be daunted by the majority of the enormously powerful but ponderous experts who plod slowly through unrealistic forms with weapons they have never put to the test against someone with any real weapons skill trying to actually really hurt them. They say these arts were developed under real conditions but this idea has to be nonsense. The use of these weapons I’ve seen demonstrated by even top masters leaves me unimpressed that in most cases facing an expert with a sharp blade these guys wouldn’t die very quickly! This is not to denigrate these practitioners by singling them out - on the contrary I’m quite familiar with this art. It’s just the way the weapons are trained and employed is not at all realistic. A lot of modern empty handed arts seem to fit into a similar category. They’re an art for and from a former time now trained in a different world in a different way. This is assuming they’re unchanged from former times - which is a big assumption or outright error in many cases. The vast bulk of gung fu arts also contain a great deal of unrealistic forms and moves. This notion singles out no one art, it’s a universal problem. Much of what some say is Wing Chun - I see is also not realworld - or certainly not as realworld as it could be. This might not win me friends - but, sooner or later someone has to tell it like it is.
Interviewer:
Sifu, how would you see other arts rating on this dimension of realworld self defence?
Sifu Zopa:
Simple question in one way, difficult in another. I could say “it depends on the practitioner”. Now to some extent that’s true. But in another sense it’d be very misleading. The “it depends on the practitioner” statement is one of these generalisations people like to seize on these days which get repeated without understanding and obstruct real understanding. Some few arts are simply better designed, better structured for realworld self defence. I believe our Wing Chun is such an art. I guess everyone doing any martial art believes that the art they’re doing would qualify as suitable for self defence. The trouble is that the practitioners simply accept this rather than objectively analyse it, rather than test it. And, I’m not talking about in any agreement sparring situation, either.
Though it’s an unpalatable truth the egalitarian thinkers in martial arts (“all arts are good, all arts are equal if you train hard”) hate to acknowledge, some arts are simply superior to others. In Wing Chun a group in the United States recently promoted the notion that “All Wing Chun is the same”. Now that’s utter nonsense and I feel sure, having conversed with some of them for years, that some of those promulgating this political statement really didn’t believe it themselves! All arts going under the name “Wing Chun” are not even Wing Chun, let alone the same! The art you practice does matter! Not all arts are equally effective. Gung fu arts can certainly be arranged in a hierarchy of effectiveness in terms of realworld self defence. There are some very good ones. For all arts to be equal would be a logical and statistical impossibility before we even started to compare the arts themselves. So, part of the concept of realworld self defence entails selecting the right art - not this nonsense of “the right art for you” which means any old art will do but objectively the more effective art on a set of valid criteria. The saying “the right art for you” is another feel-good Americanism which may be acceptable if we were talking about a hobby or sport but is misleading if it’s introduced in the context of realworld self defence. An art will either work in that context or it won’t, there’s no middle ground.
Interviewer:
What makes for realworld self defence, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
So, what makes for “realworld self defence”? To my mind there’re technical, conceptual, powering and psychological mindset components to “realworld self defence”. A major defining characteristic is the mindset, however. I see it this way: if you go into a realworld encounter with a sparring mindset - which subliminally includes a number of factors but principally that “I might get hit” versus a “realworld mindset” that posits “I could die here”. No-one trained to automatically think in the realworld like they do in sparring will think the latter. No-one engages in sparring thinking that it’s a possibility their opponent might, or intends to end their life! They think “I might get hit” - which is a silly thing to think anyway really, if you are any good at the right art the possibility is incredibly diminished and you ought not be thinking let alone thinking defeatist thoughts. But the sparring folk do think that way. They think, for starters. Then they think: “I might get hit”. They know thy might get hit accidentally even if they’ve agreed on non-contact sparring. If the “rules”, a hilarious concept when juxtaposed against realworld self defence, permit “contact”, then they expect to get hit. But not fatally. “I might get hurt - a bit”. They don’t expect a broken limb or neck. They expect that once they’re “outpointed” or the “round” or “match” is declared over the opponent will stop hitting them. The mindset is still there that this is not “real”. What’s “contact” - a bite to the carotid? An elbow to the throat? A neck break? A knee to the groin? In realworld self defence - yeh! (Laughs) Does the attacker stop hitting you in realworld self defence? Yeh, once he hits you and puts you on the ground he stops hitting you, with his fists! Then he (and often his mates) kicks your head until he kills you! So, the mindset and self preservation tactics are very different indeed! Fighting for your life versus fighting for your ego or a trophy or prize. Big difference! It’d feel different running to escape a vicious dog to running to win a foot race. Get the idea?
Interviewer:
I can see this difference in mindset is important.
Sifu Zopa:
It’s vital. Martial artists train their bodies hard - or ought to - but not many really train the mind for realworld combat. I guess if you’re doing martial art sport it doesn’t matter. But, if you think you’re training self defence don’t delude yourself! The essence of true martial art stems from the old days when the realworld mindset was automatic. Can you imagine anyone fighting with weapons in the old days thinking “I might get hit”? (Laughs) They’d have been thinking “I have to kill him before he kills me!” “Getting hit” usually meant a strong possibility of dying anyway back then. In the contests where empty hands were used instead of weapons the thinking would’ve been the same. How would the defender know the intent of the attacker? He’d have to assume the worst. And, the worst may’ve been a fact.
Today, how do you know what an unknown assailant - who, by definition because he’s attacking you is a criminal, intends? For sure he won’t be worried about the veneer of civilisation - law, morality or any hypothetical theoretical nonsense about “human rights” or “laws of engagement”! He’ll have no compassion. This very distinction between the goodies and the baddies at the international level means the baddies know they have the upper hand when they know the goodies have any sort of restraints on annihilating them - utterly, completely and rapidly. Restraints are shackles! Restraints work against you and for your enemy! And the evil enemy is very much aware of this! Being able to understand this realworld combat mindset of the attacker and being able to ensure you don’t even subconsciously restrain yourself is what realworld self defence is about. For those who can’t understand this, they can’t arrive at this space under deadly attack, then there’s a very much increased risk of serious injury or death in combat. Look, if I want to fight a savage I must become more savage. If I want to defeat a terrorist I must do more quickly and more effectively to him what he intends to do to me. It’s really realworld offence, not defence, in fact! This is the law of survival. It’s never been any different. It can’t be! Evil people ensure this. True warriors have always understood it. Pseudo weekend warriors pretend to. The general public, especially the dull-minded sheep who disparage the sheepdogs who stand between them and the wolves, have no idea. It’s unpalatable in civilised terms - I agree. But an attack where the intent is deadly is not civilised! What sane person fights an uncivilised person in a civilised fashion? What sane person fights someone who will stop at nothing, with limits in their mind? You fight to survive! You do what is necessary to survive! You have to fight with the idea that your attacker can’t be allowed a second chance. It might be that chance that kills you!
You know how I‘m always saying “avoid dangerous places and dangerous people”? Yes? Well, it means to protect you but further, to protect you from having to become a dangerous person yourself. In a realworld confrontation you have to become the “dangerous person” that your attacker ought to have avoided! It isn’t a great experience, and we try to avoid it at all costs but if it arrives on our doorstep we don’t baulk at the situation. We do what we have to. We do what we have trained to do! We don’t spar with a killer! That’s my whole point.
If you restrain yourself or put on limits in terms of assumptions, then you’ve “brought a knife to a gun fight” as the old expression goes! In a real attack in the real world your self defence has to be real!
Interviewer:
Thanks, sifu.