Is Wing Chun a ‘Self-Defence System’ or is it a ‘Fighting system’.

We cannot be in two different, contrasting states at the same time.

There is a widely held opinion that Wing Chun is a Self-defence system, purely because it is a Counter-Attacking style, but this is a poor way of looking at things.

Mohamed Ali and Floyd Mayweather Junior were both predominately Counter-attackers, even Mike Tyson, despite his aggression, was fundamentally a counter-puncher, but I do not think that anyone considers Pugilism, especially at the Elite level, as a self-defence system.

This is a complex consideration that is far more a psychological puzzle than a physical or stylistic one. 

How we frame Wing Chun in our thinking, how we internalise it, will have a direct and immense impact on not only how we use it but more importantly how we understand the training.

If we wish to train in a way that somewhere down the track does not sow confusion, we must consciously decide whether we are training for self-defence situations or training to fight, because they are very different situations that make some automatic and fundamental differences to everything we do and think.

Self-defence is two people telling themselves different stories, looking for different outcomes, whereas fighting is two people telling themselves the same story, looking for the same outcome.

Let’s look at it this way, the attacker is a guy with a hosepipe and the defender is the poor guy being soaked.

To the attacker, the only considerations are the things he wants to do, in this instance soaking the other guy, there is no thought for the other guy, there is no respect or fear just a wish to be dominant at all costs.

To the defender it is a similarly myopic situation, he does not care about the attacker, there is no searching for telegraphed movements or weakness’, no thought of dealing with the attacker’s strategy, he just wants to get out of the deluge.

Fighting is more a battle of wills than skill, the need not to lose overruled by the wish to win, patience, and planning, pay big dividends.

The desired objective in self-defence is escape and survival, and high on the wish list is to dish out a debilitating injury or something along the lines of a one-shot-knockout, whereas fighters are up for a war of attrition and work deliberately at wearing the opponent down.

We could look at it through the lens of cause and effect, what the attacker does causes the effect of defending.

In an attempt to illuminate the situation, we could consider this a ‘Cause State’ and an ‘Effect State’, the ‘Cause State’ is always dynamic, making things happen, and the ‘Effect State’ is always stuck in a reactive loop.

We cannot be in two different, contrasting states at the same time.

The real skill is not as we may think, it is not being able to switch from the effect state to the cause state, for reasons driven by ego this offer is never on the table, but to be able to establish a neutral state where we can evaluate and make sound decisions.

There is no ‘Neutral’ for a fighter.

When two people fight they are both firmly ensconced in the cause state, and frequently we will see a person getting punched stupid but still trying to push forward and cause damage to the other.

It is often overlooked in training but the first thought we have is the most important, if it is a poor thought it can instantly turn into the last thought.

All the training in the world is of little use if we are forced into an effect state when all we know is what to do in the cause state.

The most important decisions are made before the first punch is thrown.