An Interview with Zopa Gyatso,
Interviewer:
Thanks for agreeing to discuss Wing Chun Kum Na and Fa Kum Na, sifu.
Sifu Zopa:
OK. I’m happy to - whilst not simply giving away our art to those who are not my students, of course. That’d be foolish!
Interviewer:
Yes. Understood - it would. Can you elaborate on that please though, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
Ah, the “internet warrior” syndrome you mean? Yes, to try to impress others is not something I need to bother with. Some people seem to have a fetish in that respect if you surf the net. I am intrigued by their motivations - many seem to be inappropriate. To reveal my art in an effort to bolster my ego (it needs no bolstering) be well known (I don’t want to be - it would serve no purpose for me or others) or gain wealth or influence (I have no need of either) is not me at all, as you know. My students are selected because they are the right type of person to pass down the true art to. You pay - not much mind you - (laughs) to learn the art. It would be an insult to your dedication to just throw it out to anyone and everyone to pick up bits of to impress their friends, enhance their eclectic (or even bogus) art or for whatever their motivation might be. If you want to learn genuine Wing Chun from a genuine teacher you can’t buy it or steal it - you have to develop the right character and hold the right attitudes and seek and be accepted by a teacher who knows the art and can teach it properly. You can’t be a hunter and gatherer and cobble together a Frankenstein art with bits and pieces of incompatible dead material out of context. Alexander Pope once wrote that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and that we must “drink deep or touch not the Pierian Spring” (a spring of knowledge in Greek mythology). We have to have complete knowledge of our art and in this respect, complete knowledge of this aspect - kum na - not some bits and pieces. This interview, like all the material in the public area of our website is given to share thinking and inform but not to teach.
Interviewer:
Thank you. What then is “kum na” and “fa kum na”, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
“Kum Na” means to seize and control. “Fa Kum Na” means to evade seizing and controlling.
Interviewer:
Is it correct to say this is a less common aspect of Wing Chun, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
Yes, I guess so. Yuen Kay San Wing Chun has kum na and fa kum na. Other systems of Wing Chun have been tending to import Brazilian Ju Jutsu I hear lately. Of course, this is not Wing Chun and adds to the confusion of future generations. I mean, Brazilian Ju Jutsu may be quite good, but it must be acknowledged as such and not treated as if it is Wing Chun nor incorporated into Wing Chun. The same process seems to have occurred with respect to the Wing Chun knives with some groups. I think that in the absence of having had the genuine knife art passed down they’ve gone out and imported Arnis. Fine art Arnis, but again, not Wing Chun. The arts need to be acknowledged as such and kept separate. Neither of these two arts seems to adhere to the Wing Chun principles in total nor square with Wing Chun theory so to pass them, or a modified version of them, off as Wing Chun simply confuses people. If one has the genuine kum na and fa kum na and the genuine knife art then one doesn’t need other arts.
Interviewer:
Can you explain Wing Chun kum na, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
Yes. It utilises distinctively Yuen Kay San Wing Chun techniques and only those techniques. You’ve seen a lot of kum na, and you can always see I clearly use only identifiably Wing Chun techniques. Of course I flow with them and combine techniques so unless you have a trained eye and watch closely you might argue it is not Wing Chun. But it is. You have the advantage of having seen it whereas by far the vast majority of people who train various versions of Wing Chun have never seen the real thing. Or perhaps even anything like it. Wing Chun kum na does not choke or strangle, claw, pinch or try to tear flesh like some versions of kum na in other arts.
Interviewer:
Why is this sifu?
Sifu Zopa;
Takes too much time, too much sheer physical strength, doesn’t accord with the Wing Chun principles.
Interviewer:
What then, does it do sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
It focuses on grasping, trapping, dislocating, breaking, taking down and throwing. It also involves striking or pressing some vital targets. You’ve experienced the pain that can be caused by pressing a few of these targets. It almost always involves striking first. So, you don’t just go in and do kum na.
Interviewer:
Definitely! There are some people, though, who argue, it would seem, that Wing Chun doesn’t have such kum na techniques. Is this actually the case, sifu?
Sifu Zopa;
Their (emphasises this strongly) Wing Chun doesn’t. This doesn’t mean that no Wing Chun has it! All that means is their sifu or sigung likely did a version of Wing Chun that had lost this aspect or that at some point one of their ancestors neglected to learn this aspect. You can see from my use of kum na that it is very, very quick and effective and is definitely Wing Chun. In fact, you will understand that some of the techniques people either scratch their heads over trying to figure out a combat application or offer some patently foolish application for, are in fact kum na or fa kum na techniques. Also, it seems most people limit their applications of techniques and never employ them for kum na.
Interviewer:
Sifu, you’ve said that on occasion that some people from other Wing Chun groups have seen your kum na and argued it isn’t Wing Chun. Care to elaborate?
Sifu Zopa:
Oh yes, now and then my guard must have slipped and I allowed a person into training who patently didn’t meet basic criteria. A weak or too kind moment, I think. Yes, they said it was not Wing Chun. I then said to them that I’d repeat the action sequence slowly and when I was doing anything that was not a Wing Chun technique they could recognise to stop me, to yell out. It really humiliated them because they couldn’t! To stress the point I then repeated the action sequence calling out the technique names. I must confess it was enjoyable to explode their lack of manners along with their lack of Wing Chun understanding!
Interviewer:
Certainly I’ve never seen anyone apply so many techniques in realworld combat simulations as quickly and as effectively as you seem to be able to do, and to be able to make flow them together, sifu.
Sifu Zopa:
Thank you. Well, flow is a less well known Wing Chun principle you know. The art doesn’t stop and start it flows like the waves in the ocean! (Laughs - sifu’s gwoon symbol is ocean waves). Yes, the unpacking of forms is vital to understand them fully. To limit oneself is to limit the art. To limit the art is to limit one’s potential. Why limit yourself or your art? Kum na and fa kum na exist. They’re dynamic not static and are very useful. They are applied in accordance with the Wing Chun principles and as you’ve seen are very effective and accord with all the Wing Chun principles.
Interviewer:
What does kum na entail, sifu?
Sifu Zopa:
Kum na can be employed to break the opponent’s wrist, elbow or neck. It can be employed to dislocate these joints and the shoulder. It can be used to fully control - that is, immobilise your opponent utterly - you’ve experienced this. Fa kum na can be employed to break holds and evade attempts at breaking a joint. All this in a variety of ways beyond the imagining of someone not taught this aspect of the art.
Interviewer:
Some people say Wing Chun is a striking art. So it’s more?
Sifu Zopa:
I’m at great pains, as you and all my students know, to labour the point that my Wing Chun is what people call a “complete art”. One would never have had to argue this in the past but because of the nonsense that some modern young martial artists are spruiking about eclectic arts and combat distances I now feel the need to put paid to such stupid thinking and stress that my Wing Chun is in fact complete. Mind you, not all Wing Chun can claim this. Can I drop an opponent with a single strike? Yes. Can I kick in a versatile fashion and address combat needs with kicks? Yes. Can I fight an opponent at different distances? Yes. Can I grapple? Yes - standing up. Going to the ground in realworld combat is too risky to voluntarily undertake. (I’ve mentioned before that one of the Gracies himself says this too for those devotees of the nonsense that “all fights go to the ground” to consider) Can I manage ground fighting? Yes. Though going to the ground is incredibly rare - once in forty years in my case and that was because I was careless. I won anyway, though!
Interviewer:
You said you’d write an article on targets and the effects of striking them sifu. Is this part of kum na?
Sifu Zopa:
Yes. I will do that. Some people in other arts classify striking vital points under kum na. Our Wing Chun doesn’t. There’s a lot of nonsense around about striking vital points. Stuff that could never work in realworld combat. We certainly strike definite targets - vital points - but it isn’t kum na. It’s just our basic targeting. I’ll write the article and members - it isn’t for public dissemination - who’re interested can refer to it and think on it.