Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to this interview, Sifu.
Sifu Zopa: A pleasure. I believe you wish to ask me about concepts and principles?
Interviewer: Yes, sifu, if I may. Would you comment for us on the often stated view that Wing Chun is not a technical art but is a conceptual one?
Sifu Zopa: Certainly! Yes, this has become a popular expression. It is not actually anything new. On the other hand, due to the dilution of genuine Wing Chun teaching around the world these days with the mass popularisation and commercialisation movements impacting on martial arts, it may be new to some folk. I think the statement that Wing Chun is a conceptual art is at the same time both clever and misleading.
Interviewer: Can you elaborate please, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: Sure. I have often said that Wing Chun is unlike other martial arts in as much as it is based not solely on techniques. As you say, some people of late have been expressing the view that Wing Chun is a conceptual art. I daresay they’re quite pleased with themselves for expressing this supposed insight. However, it is as misleading as it is partly correct. It is a statement you may not have seen in print or on the accursed internet where so much garbage is so instantly transmitted everywhere. Wing Chun is an art that is based, first and foremost, on principles. It is also a technical art. Never overlook the incredibly precise technical requirements of genuine Wing Chun. To dismiss the technical and conceptual levels in making my statement that Wing Chun is a principle-based art would be quite erroneous. I think some of the armchair and internet Wing Chun commentators may have taken or at least encouraged the view that one can dismiss errors in the performance of the technical aspect of Wing Chun if they can assert what they are doing is congruent with a Wing Chun concept. This is quite naïve!
Interviewer: Sifu, could you comment on the technical level of Wing Chun today as you see it after forty plus years in the art, please?
Sifu Zopa: Yes, definitely. Much that passes for “Wing Chun” that I’ve seen around the world fails abysmally on this technical factor as the technical features have been of such a low standard. They’ve been illogical, needing transforming to apply, been trendy, been borrowed from other arts and “Wing Chun-ized” or simply been sloppy. Some variants of Wing Chun – or arts calling themselves “Wing Chun” are more deviant both from the principles, concepts and techniques. Some superficially adhere to one of these or the other but not all three sets of requirements.
Interviewer: Can you expand on this for us, sifu?
Sifu Zopa: Yes. One’s Wing Chun has to be technically the same in the correct forms – I say “correct” here because there are more incorrect than correct floating around - so, too, with application. It has to be, and appear, the same in forms, training applications and real-world fighting. It also has to be and look distinctively Wing Chun. I’ve seen so many so-called Wing Chun practitioners that look like kick boxers or karate practitioners when they fight it’s incredible! I watched a Youtube clip recently of a well-known British based Chinese instructor, author of several books, and was amused to see his Wing Chun looking like Tae Kwon Do! This is inexcusable! We fight as we train, we train as we fight. When we fight an informed martial artist ought to be able to say: “That is Wing Chun”. Why learn Wing Chun if you are going to fight as a kick boxer or mixed martial art brawler or grappler?
Interviewer: Sifu, can you detail the distinction between “principle” and “concept” for us, please?
Sifu Zopa: Yes, OK. Wing Chun entails not only the principles but several concepts. There are eight main principles which together with concepts and together with our technical requirements distinguish Wing Chun from all other martial arts. These are: simplicity; directness; safety (self protection/preservation or risk minimisation) whilst defending and attacking; efficiency, flow or fluidity; practicality; unification; and relaxation. What’s the difference between a principle and a concept, you ask? Well, a principle can be defined as: a determining characteristic of something or an essential quality. Further, it is an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct, It’s a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived. It’s a fundamental doctrine or tenet. It’s a distinctive ruling opinion. Principles are specific bases of conduct, adopted rules which govern application in action. Thus we can see they are over-arching. A well-known example, but more often misunderstood than understood, in Wing Chun is the principle of what we translate into English as “relaxation”. This quality has to pervade all our Wing Chun and always be present. Without it, you don’t have genuine Wing Chun. And, I’ve seen a lot of Wing Chun people who say they’re “relaxed” but in reality they’re quite tense! A concept, on the other hand, can be defined as a general notion or idea formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars. It’s a directly conceived or intuited object of thought. A “bright idea” if you like. The kuen kuit and the sup yee faat are a rich source of concepts.
Interviewer: What of simultaneous defence and attack? That’s sometimes stated as a principle of Wing Chun.
Sifu: A moment’s thought will tell you it isn’t a principle. We don’t always simultaneously defend and attack. That’s a valid but basic level concept. There are necessarily times, in real world combat, where we have to initiate and land a pre-emptive strike. In the sense that we’re defending with offence, that complies with that concept. But, in the sense that we use a structure to deflect, this isn’t correct in this example. Also, we can apply the concept “the hand that deflects, strikes”. In these cases, that simultaneous defence and attack doesn’t apply either. It simply isn’t a principle. I’ve seen a number of lists of principles that are either minimalist or promoting the style the person touting them has developed himself.
Interviewer: OK. Thanks. Sifu, would you mind talking briefly on kuen kuit for us please?
Sifu Zopa: Absolutely. One has to be careful with what passes for a genuine Wing Chun kuen kuit these days as some writers – and I’m referring to big name Wing Chun personalities here – have borrowed some from other arts or devised quite inane, if not misleading, ones themselves. Quite a few of these have even made it into texts! One I recall, which is really quite stupid, is “wrong bong, kick”. I won’t destroy that here but simply note it as an example of what I’m saying. These days one has to be careful as to the actual authenticity of the kuen kuit you hear.
Interviewer: Thanks. So, the major practical difference between principles and concepts is their generalisability?
Sifu Zopa: The principles penetrate the art. Concepts have differing ranges of applicability. It’s a concept in Wing Chun that we kick low, for example. This is the “mo ying gerk” concept. This only has applicability to kicking. Whereas the principles of economy of motion and safety predicate kicking low but also have applicability to the whole art. The most important point for us to note is that any given concept may, or may not, be pertinent to any given Wing Chun technique or application. This only takes a moment’s thought to appreciate. Some concepts are logically specific to a particular technique (eg. “bong does not stop”) or context. Others are more general. For example, “receive what comes, escort what goes, strike when the hands are free and the line clear”. A principle must always be present. Collectively, they largely define the art. A given concept may or may not be expressed in any given encounter. This is contingent on circumstances
Interviewer: Sifu, you’ve stated we have eight principles. Have you, or has anyone else enumerated the number of concepts we have in Wing Chun?
Sifu Zopa: Interesting question. No, not as far as I know. Commonly it is often thought there are a few core concepts. These are often listed as: tactile and proprioceptive sensitivity; sticking; forward energy; and, redirection and usage of the attacker’s force. The Kuen Kuit: “receive what comes, escort what goes, strike when the hands are free and the line clear”, which I just cited could be considered a core, defining concept. There are a large number of other concepts. Some of these are deconstructed and discussed at levels appropriate to the trainee’s experience on our website. The fact is there is a hierarchy of levels of different types of concepts. Some, as traditionally expressed, require unpacking and deconstruction by a fully qualified sifu (not from a Wing Chun text!). Others are straightforward and self-evident. I have a list from Sum Nung but counting how many there are has never been a concern (laughs). I guess my main point is that we must be proficient in our understanding and incorporation and expression of the technical, conceptual and principle levels of Wing Chun if we hope to become proficient in it.
Interviewer: Thank you sifu for an interesting interview.