Author’s Note: When I inherited the Ch’an Dao Hakka Gongfu Style in 1994, I was 27-years old. Everything prior to that date must now be viewed as nothing but “preparation”. All my myriad of experiences – good, bad, or indifferent – served as streams flowing into the large river and sea of life. Hereford was a vast cauldron of transformation - and this is where I lived and trained between 1984-1989. Master Chan Tin Sang had fought in the New Territories during WWII (1941-1945) – and is known to have killed Imperial Japanese soldiers using our Hakka family gongfu style. Below, I explain the situation and transformation of the Hakka Chinese community as it existed in Sutton in 1994. Many Chinese children attended “Mintak” a Chinese-language Saturday School held at a local State school. Meanwhile, I taught a remedial class for Chinese children who had trouble speaking English. Gongfu teaching, like Chinese dancing for girls, was viewed very much seen as a cultural activity – with non-Chinese lineages ignored as being racist or merely a form of mimicry (as the teachers had not sought “Permission” from the Chinese community to set-up and teach gongfu). This is still the situation today, with many well-established and affluent gongfu schools being viewed as “not Chinese” and therefore not legitimate. Those making money do not care about this contradiction. Indeed, many do not even know that such a judgement has been levelled against them – such is their ignorance. Between 1994-2011 – I participated in around 100 (witnessed) Honour Fights – and won them all. Needless to say, our school was sanctioned by the Chinese community and remains the only legitimate school in the Sutton area – despite hundreds of others. ACW (21.6.2025)

​A number of readers have asked to learn more about my early teaching of gongfu. I am happy to oblique as such an undertaking will serve as a historical statement as I thunder into older-age and to the inevitable “shuffling-off of this mortal coil” – as Shakespeare once said – and Richard Hunn once quoted to me. I took-over teaching gongfu in 1994 – a year after my teacher – Master Chan Tin Sang (1924-1993) passed away. We taught then in a small hall hidden at the back of Highfield Hall in Carshalton Road, Sutton. The main hall was set-up for high-end dancing and ballet – but a friend of a friend new the Caretaker who said that a smaller hall – which was usually used as a Badminton Court – was much cheaper because it was boiling hot in the Summer and freezing cold in the Winter (it had been a small swimming pool which had been filled-in and covered over). Virtually no one would rent it – so this was perfect for a toughened Hakka-Fist gongfa style. Initially, the Sunday morning classes ran from 10am-12pm (gongfu 10am-11am – Taijiquan 11am – 12pm) – with everyone sitting down for a cup of tea and biscuit for around 45 minutes afterwards. One-year was considered the right amount of time for public mourning (Confucius) of Master Chan Tin Sang – whilst the family carried-on privately mourning for two-more years (three in all).

These classes were for ethnic (Hakka) Chinese children (many of whom I taught English to in private education classes held elsewhere in Sutton). We also taught their older siblings (male and female), and their older relatives, such as mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, etc. This tradition stemmed directly from that as practiced in Banana Village, in the Sai Kung area of the New Territories, Hong Kong. Prior to Highfield Hall, (that is, before 1990), Master Chan taught in the large utility room next to his flat in a Council High-Rise in Sutton – usually late at night or early in the morning when no one else was using the place to wash and dry their clothes. Sometimes, we would practice forms outside on the concreted areas, or head to the nearby local parks. The non-Chinese people in these flats (the vast majority) were excellent human-beings and were always supportive and protective of this small Chinese grouping. There was NEVER any cultural friction and nobody took exception. In return, our heathen group gave out Christmas and Easter cards, respective Devali, and recognised Ramadan and any other important holidays – including the Sikh holidays. 

​Gongfu was viewed as a Chinese religious practice and given that level of respect. We practiced because it was all we culturally knew. We practiced as an expression of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism. We practiced because Hakka history is strewn with pogroms aimed at us – and gongfu was a means to protect the group. We were happy in Sutton and just got on with being alive. Sutton had a different feel in those days, a feel that anyone could achieve anything. I had spent four-years in Hereford during the late 1980s – perfecting my education and following Master Chan’s advice of researching the Chinese-roots of Karate-Do – as he felt (quite rightly) that the West was hiding this reality to boost a fascist Japan over a China that had once been a military ally of the West. He had come to the UK in 1956 at the behest of Enoch Powell and Churchill’s Tory government – to clean toilets and sweep-floors – jobs which he quietly did for ten-years, until he earned enough money to bring his wife and two daughters to the UK in 1966. Yes – my Chinese relatives now live in the UK because they were law-abiding citizens of the British colony of Hong Kong. 

​They had a right to be here – as the British invasion of sovereign Chinese territory immediately inflicted upon them the status of “British Subject”. My Chinese family did not break the law in Hong Kong, never participated in any riots, and believed in law and order – unlike the new batch of Hong Kong criminals that now live amongst us and practice a cult-like Christianity. Of course, whilst benefitting from British Imperialism, my family still had to live under the colonial oppression of British rule. We had no choice. The passports issued to my relatives born in Hong Kong had the description “British Subject – Third-Class”. My Chinese relatives and friends born in the UK had on their passports “British Subject – Second-Class” – whereas White British born inside or outside the British Isles had on their passports “British Subject – First-Class”. This is where the idea of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class citizens come from within Sociology – although today these distinctions have been withdrawn. In the 1980s, the Thatcher Tory government took away every Chinese person’s British Citizenship born after a certain date – with about half of my family and many friends having to return to Hong Kong following the 1997 hand-back of Hong kong. The inner core of my family survived these “racist” British governmental purges.

I took-over the gongfu teaching role in Sutton during 1994, teaching a Chinese-only class on Sunday morning. Although my family has had links with China extending back hundreds of years – I look “White” – and so for people who do not know me, this can be a surreal experience, as I speak Hakka and Cantonese, can read Chinese script, and have been brought up within Chinese culture. It is odd – but perhaps I am something of an Anthropologist – like Captain Blith of the HMS Bounty who he reached the lovely people of Tahiti in 1789. Whatever the situation, when I was teaching one Sunday morning in 1994 in Highfield Hall, an old White man with grey hair and beard came in and sat quietly. I was surprised because this NEVER happened and I did not know what was going on. Anyway, I got talking to him (“Pat”) and he told me how Sutton used to be a Kyokushinkai Karate area – and how he and hundreds of others used to train in this tough style. He suggested opening the class to non-Chinese people – and as this fitted-in with Master Chan’s idea of modernising whilst maintaining the tradition – this is what we decided to do. Of course, it was never about money, which is just as well because we never made a penny. 

Dear O

When Rose Lee retired from full-time teaching in the 1990s - she sent one of her long-term Taijiquan students (James) to me. He had trained with KF and this is what he said: 'I paid £200 in advance for what I thought was a private session. When I turned-up at the address - it turned-out to be lecture hall - with 50 other people present. KF came out on time and explained he was "too busy" to stay the full hour and that he had filmed the lesson on a 15-min VHS tape. He said we could watch the video "once" - and discuss its content for 45-mins before leaving to make way for the next class. A copy of the tape was £50 for one - £80 for two - and so.' He then walked out the lecture hall whilst two of his full-time students "monitored" the group. I believe this was the late 1990s-early 2000s. James did not exclusively train with me and did not learn the gongfu - the deal seemed to be Taijiquan only - and I allowed it due to my respect for Rose Lee. As for DY - I can only say what others told one of my Chinese students. They said his Longfist did not match the lineages he claimed to represent - with others questioning how it was that he had managed to master so many styles - usually a correlation equalling the number of books he has for sale at anyone time. Now, I do not really know - and you must think for yourself - which I am sure you already do. On a lighter note, I was told about year or so ago - that my style was mentioned on a racist US martial arts site that sets itself up as an arbiter of Asian combat culture. Apparently, this is a single entry from 2011 of all dates! I had honour fights from 1994 to around 2008 - about 100 in all (no pads - no rules) in front of witnesses - and prevailed through them all as tradition demands - but there were some unhappy bunnies (we think one of these made the post in question). From 1994-1998 these fights almost always involved disgruntled ethnic Chinese people looking to finish me off in front of my Chinese family and saving the face of the Chinese community. Imagine that! I used to get these out the way a few minutes to 10am on each Sunday morning so that the classes proper could start. Occasionally, these fights might happen at 11am - as the gongfu section came to an end - with the next hour being strictly internal. These fights were malicious as the opponents were motivated with anger and hatred of an ancient culture - which I respect. As a Buddhist by birth - I like fighting (but dislike greed, hatred and delusion) and I partake with an attitude rather similar to my Muslim brothers. I have always had a good relationship with the Islamic community and was even honoured with teaching a group of their children in Sutton. I think that although we inhabit a material world - the channel to the internal can only happen through a spiritual method. Honesty seems to be the deciding factor. 

Dear O

In the Hakka village, gongfu was for communal defence. The ability for individuals to be able to fight "one-on-one" was not a consideration. The New Territories of Hong Kong lay outside the British economic activity on Hong Kong island - but were inside the British political zone. The New Territories were added in the 1890s during the lasy years of the Qing Dynasty - and possessed no modern economic structure. The Hakka think they are the "original" Chinese - whist also thinking they are "mixed" ethnicity (usually Steppe barbarian and Northern Chinese). This explains the staunch "Confucian" attitude that permeated Hakka culture  brought southward over the last two-thousands years. One of our Chinese Hakka grandmothers has Siberian mDNA (some Hakka clans think they formed the Qin Dynasty - which defined Chinese culture and gave China its name). In Fujian, the Hakka chose to build Western-style (although not directly related) "castles" - but in our (Southern Guangdong) village, the structure was the Confucian square - with each family of the Chan Clan learning to man the part of the wall handed-down to them over the generations. I say "wall" rather enthusiastically - but I think we are talking about a shallow ditch and a "Dad's Army" type barricade (no disrespect to the British Home Guard). Of course, where the clan migrated from (I think Henan) there may well have been a proper wall. Certainly, thousands of years ago, there used to be Steppe ponies. Our spear forms evolved from fighting on pony-back - until we lost our ponies - then the forms changed to being practiced on foot. Although individual fighting is the modern mode of teaching - self-defence and all that - this need seems to have evolved out of "honour fights" - whereby a "foreign" clan (another Chinese person not known to us) would send an individual to "challenge" the clan-style for issues of "face" - or "public recognition and respect". An impressive victory could move a clan (and its style) up the ranking system of the usually inflexible Confucian social order. This is the underlying bases of the old gongfu films - which might come across as a little unhinged to Western audiences. From proficiency in communal self-defence - a student would then be selected for "individualistic" training. In the modern world - including China - this is often turned the other way around, with "individualism" being emphasised over "communal" Of course, the village system evolved out of feudalism - so without feudalism - the old ways must adapt and change. My teacher - Master Chan Tin Sang (1924-1993) - knew this and actually assisted in the adjustments, but I was lucky enough to have first learned within the feudalistic system. The Imperial Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong (1941-1945) allowed our style to used once again on the battlefield and I will not dwell on this matter here, needless to say, as with all war, many suffered. I always found it curious that the British Authorities would not "arm" the local Chinese population at that time - so this led to a reliance on traditional fighting, until guns could be taken from the enemy. I suppose you know the story of "Admiral Chan" - he had a wooden leg and was in-charge of the Hong Kong "Navy" - which consisted of one old speed boat. He ended up on a rock in the middle of Hong Kong Harbour - and used his wooden-leg as a club to beat off the Japanese soldiers trying to catch him. He managed to swim away and I believe made it to Singapore or Malaya, or some such. Still, just a few words. 

This particular exhibition is reported as happening in the last two-days (c. 26th May, 2025) in the Hangzhou area (Zhejiang province) of East China. However, I have seen news articles of a similar type going back to at least 2018 - and so this technology is obviously an ongoing concern. Although human aggression (formulated over millions of years of evolutionary development) makes it relatively easy to motivate human-beings to be psychologically and physically violent toward one another - it is not so easy to make an animated machine replicate the same agency of survival. A machine, regardless of its sophistication, does not possess the need (or the will) to survive in a hostile environment - at least not as yet. Instead, two of these machines are placed in a close proximity to one another (like two toasters completely indifferent to one another's presence) and go through a pre-programmed set of movements which go through the motions of "fighting". At least a sentient audience thinks that is what is happening. In reality, the two machines are performing a set of (unrelated) physical movements in a close proximity to one another. It is a type of technological theatre that supposedly touches on AI - even though there is no conscious awareness present. It is an act of mimicry. What these devises could be good for is learning the movements of Forms and Katas - and to perform these martial exercises for the benefit of their owners (who will copy the movements during exercise routines). Unlike a human - the robot could learn limitless numbers of gongfu styles and thus participate in the preservation of Chinese martial arts. Whereas a human is limited to learning one or two gongfu styles - a programmed robots has no such limitation - as the mechanical body simply does what the software tells it to do. More to the point, barring any major glitches - the memory recollection for the robot will be 100%. This will mean an end to "style variation" - which sees little changes creeping into the style from one generation to the next - generally viewed as beneficial (in the sense of a permitted "innovation) in an otherwise staunchly conservative tradition. This type of robot is an extension of the gongfu manual (which records in hand-drawn images and descriptions) the Forms of the variant martial arts styles. This manual evolved into CDs and then can be found on stream services of every kind. The advantage this robot possesses is that it is a "3-D" manifestation of the gongfu manual. A movement can be seen in every conceivable position and direction. Of course, fighting with such a machine would save human sparring partners from being damaged - but a robot might be able to inflict various types of damage of its own on its human training-partner.. 

Dear Tony

Thank you for your email - and the very interesting Dragon gongfu video!

Interesting. In the old days, Hakka gongfu was hidden and hardly discussed in public. We learned behind the scenes and always denied knowing anything. This attitude stems from Hakka people being migrants from the North - disliked by the Cantonese population of the South. Quite often, Hakka people spoke only Cantonese in public - but Hakka at home. Many Hakka even learned (superficially) Cantonese gongfu styles to practice in public as part of hiding their identity. We usually dabbled in Wing Chun - and I can still give a good lecture on its basic training (standing around "+" shape on the floor which taught where the feet were placed whilst assuming the Sanchin-type stances - knees-in). Of course, in reality, I know next to knowing about Wing Chun - but I encountered it everywhere in Hong Kong. Master Wang in this video speaks the Chan family dialect of Hakka - so his village would be somewhere near us. The younger Chinese appears to be a linguistic expert who usually speaks Mandarin (Pu Tong Hua) - but he is converting the Hakka into Cantonese and then English. Hakka is a Northern dialect. Even today in the UK - there can be friction between Hakka and Cantonese - as bizarre as that sounds. Still, things are more open today!

This videos also covers the "Arm Grinding" we practice within Hakka gongfu. The idea is to strike the opponent - and not only absorb their power - but do this in such a way that they lose their balance  are uprooted. ​In the early 2000s, I was introduced to a White American man, who was very quiet and humble. He had been accepted into a Chinese lineage of Dragon gongfu and I remember a video of him stood in Horse Stance - which looks just like the Horse Stance found in Goju Ryu - a perfect rectangle - like a bridge! My style uses this as well - but with variations (we never use toes-forward but always 45 degrees). The Hakka ancestors used to ride Steppe ponies without saddles or stirrups. Gripping the girth of the pony is where the Horse Stance developed. Hakka children stood for hours in this stance preparing them for the eventual riding of Steppe ponies. The ponies were directed by the hips being thrust forward, back, left and right - with the legs gripping and steering the animal. The hands were usually kept free for holding and using weapons. A spear, a sword, and sometimes a shield. Our Spear Forms used to be practiced on the back of the pony - but as the Hakka migrated South - they lost their ponies.

Best Wishes

​Adrian

Mr Charles Johnson - a gongfu Master from the US - forwarded this excellent video of a Shaolin martial arts master teaching in a school he single-handedly established in Benin - a country in West Africa. There is a core Shaolin Temple in Henan with a limited population of Buddhist monastics who strictly pursue Caodong Ch'an meditation and strict gongfu practices. Interaction with the general public is limited and strictly regulated. Around the original Shaolin Temple are many Shaolin Temple Colleges - which are designed to teach the laity - some of whom may assume the role of a monk in special circumstances. Perhaps the proper term is "lay-monk" - bearing in mind that all monks are not priests in the Western sense - as all monks within Christianity are "Brothers" or lay-people who reject the norms of lay-life. A lay-person who partially follows the monastic life in the Benedictine tradition is termed an "oblate" - such a person may still live in the lay-world but visit the monastery on a daily basis to assist the monks within. A similar situation exists in the Franciscan tradition - with their (Third Order) lay-brothers. Any layman or woman within Buddhism can voluntarily decide to follow the Monkish rules of the Vinaya Discipline - and where a monastic robe where required (this is a tradition in China arising out of the Confucian tradition) - although within certain Buddhist Orders some type of official permission is required. What we see above is a pure and pristine character whose mindful use of logic and reason can be clearly seen in the physical environment - particularly in the cleanliness of the school and the mind-body discipline of his students. Remember, a Buddhist monastic is a very well-educated and disciplined "Beggar" who venerates the Buddha by cutting-off the greed, hatred, and delusion that dictates the patterns of the ordinary world. The monk is not to be venerated by the public as such - although the laity often do show a considerable degree of respect  Monks should be wise and yet humble - like the dust! From this attitude - a new inner and outer world can be constructed.

Hi Tony!

Yes - when I was in Hong Kong in 1999, I made sure I acquired a good map (in English) which I could use there and in the UK for research purposes. Hong Kong is small - but in the Chinese mind - it is huge! Bear in mind that a Chinese mile (1 li) is the equivalent to one-third of an English mile. We would run up and down a 10 mile hill in the heat to warm up - but that was actually around 3 miles! The heat and steepness made it seem worse than it was. Clan migrations of 100 miles (a massive distance in the old days) turned-out to be around 30 miles. Even Westerners I know working and living in the Hong Kong area find it difficult to locate places and areas. Once, one of my gongfu students - a young man from Sutton who got into Oxford - made his way to the town of Sai Kung, and got on the correct bus (75 probably) I said we used to catch to the Chan (Banana) Village - which is out in the countryside. Our Hakka ancestors grew bananas to sell at the local markets. Otherwise, the place is covered in thick trees because the Hakka who originally settled there used to plant sustainable forests from which they made a career for themselves producing charcoal. When the charcoal market dried-up - the place was left covered in healthy forests - whereas before there was desert and malarial swamps! The Hakka farmers turned barren land into lush crop growing earth. Now, by the time the bus made it to the remote road, my student (who was the only person left on the bus) rang the bell for the bus to stop (we had given him the road co-ordinates). It is an open road with trees aligning both sides. To the untrained eye - there is no settlement there. However, if you walk through a gap in the trees and follow a private road down a steep incline - you arrive at the heavily locked village gate which is guarded by ferocious village dogs and whichever villagers are on guard duty that day. Quite often, the dogs are released to attack anyone walking toward the village they do not know. The bus-driver stopped the bus but wouldn't open the doors. He asked by student "why" he was getting off in this area - and when he explained that his gongfu teacher's family originated in this village - the driver said that no foreigners are allowed here without being escorted by Chinese people. When asked why this was the case - the driver explained that "Hakka people are very violent and unpredictable. You cannot just go to their villages - you need Chinese escorts to protect you and introduce you. If I drop a foreigner off in these parts and they get hurt - it will be my fault and not the foreigner or the Hakka people!" And that was the end of that. My student had to sit down and ride the full circuit of the bus route to be taken back to Sai Kung. What he did manage to do was take our prescription for the Chan Family Dit Da Jow to a local herbalist - who was shocked when he produced it. My student managed to get a huge bag of ingredients that will probably last more than one lifetime! 

Dear Tony
​
Interestingly, "Tai Po" (大埔 - Da Bu) is Hakka for "Great Plain" - as in "Broad Flatland". I stayed near here in 1999 - as it is famous for a Southern Praying Mantis Gongfu School. Tai Po seems to be in the Central New Territories. The Chan Ancestral Village in Sai Kung was around 10 miles South-East from Tai Po (due to the meandering road the journey is abit longer than this). I got out the map I use when in Hong Kong and have photographed the area you need. There is a "Piper's Hill" (D-7 - E-9) in Tai Po - perhaps an allusion to the Scottish Regiments that used to patrol the region (there is also "Tai Po Raod" [E-6 - G-6]). As Master Chan Tin Sang did not come to the UK until 1956 - he (and his family) was still in Hong Kong when your father was serving in Hong Kong. I attach the relevant map. Although the place is geographically small, it is very hilly with lots of valleys and steep inclines - giving the impression the place is much bigger than it actually is! Perhaps the heat adds to this impress - even though everywhere has ice-cold air-conditioning when you come in off the street. Of course, everyone works 12-hour shifts day and night - so we used to go shopping at 2 am when it was cooler and quieter (jet-lag assisted this process). 

Certainly - when I first saw Goju Ryu in the Hereford Leisure Centre - I couldn't believe my eyes! To that point, I had only seen and physically experienced Wado Kai, Shotokan, and Shukokai - all Japanese arts - but never Okinawan styles. My teacher (Master Chan Tin Sang) told me Karate-Do had come from China - but that the Japanese had altered its physical techniques (deliberately removing the distinctly "Chinese" internal aspect) so that the transplanted arts now resembled Japanese sword arts. Bear in mind that this generation of Hakka-Chinese had just fought a brutal war with the Imperial Japanese - so Okinawa was always viewed as "Chinese" (or so I learned later). Remember, I was only in my mid-teens myself and did not understand things that clearly.

​As matters stood, I experienced three Japanese Karate-Do styles - and then I learned the basics of Goju Ryu from your good-self - and my gongfu teacher was astonished! He couldn't believe the integration of hard and soft! He kept asking me who you were and where you had trained! One time (during 1987) Master Chan came to Hereford to see me - and looked in at your class. He was too shy to interfere - as he wasn't sure of the Japanese involvement (if any) - and I didn't really know (for which he told me off). Until he passed away in 1993, he would sit at dinner-time and tell his Hakka friends about Goju Ryu - and get me to show the basic kata. The circular lower block seems to be the most obvious of the "internal". 

Tony: On Tue, 22 Apr 2025, at 10:29, "morning Adrian. What are your views on this 
Softness as regarding techniques. You can plainly see the Chinese influence. Tony"

Author's Note: When young, the mind is narrow but the body is broad. When old, the mind is expansive and the body is narrow. Both realities must be thoroughly acknowledged, understood, developed, and integrated. As the body ages, the enhanced awareness of the mind takes the place (and enthuses) the former youthful functioning of the (younger) body. When young, a mind without an enhanced awareness (which must be earned through experience) - is replaced by the blatant strength associated with youth - an important part of human survival and evolutionary development. Youthful strength is not an error - but a requirement in life. Traditional martial arts mastery is a different achievement which does not need to be accomplished by every human-being - but can be achieved by some dedicated individuals. Secular monasticism is a vehicle through which an individual can renounce attachment to private property and worldly cycles of self-hindering material accumulation.

Buddhist monasticism can serve as a vehicle for "emptying-out" the inner conditioning that arises from greed, hatred and delusion - as such - religion (and religious differences - including atheism and non-theism) does not have to enter into it. I suspect the ancient Greeks encountered Buddhist monasticism when visiting India (such as Pythagoras), learned the Buddhist method of "looking within", and then adjusted the technique as a means to "prove" the efficacy of their particular philosophical perspectives (the work of Plotinus may be taken as an example of this endeavour). Later, via the Greeks, a community of Jews (in Qumran) started sitting in meditation to personally attain a "glimpse of Yahweh" - a practice that eventually spread to the reformed Jewish sect of "Christianity" - whose adherents started to meditate whilst sat in the caves found in the Egyptian Desert (this type of Christianity spread to Britain - hundreds of years prior to Catholicism - becoming "Celtic Christianity").

​Buddhist monasticism does not require a belief in theism to be effective. Many Greek schools of thought, for instance, sought to establish or discover various views pertaining to the natural (material) world. The same observation can be applied to various Hindu school where consciousness and material environment is not directly associated with a theistic entity. Whatever the case, protecting the psychological and physical space within which a martial artist exists - is the entire purpose of any traditional Chinese martial arts school. Young or old - this is the beginning, middle, and end of legitimate Chinese martial practice! ACW (18.4.2025)

We can all become extraordinarily fit at different times throughout our lives. Part of the reality pertaining to physical and psychological fitness, evolves around the concept of developed understanding. In other words, the level of effective (physical) fitness evolves around the (psychological) maturity of the individual concerned. The greater the understanding of the processes involved – the more effective the fitness the greater is the efficiency of the required output – usually expressed through various sports (unless one happens to be a professional soldier). This is all well and good – but fighting for one’s life is not the same as fighting for a coloured belt, trophy, or medal, etc. One question I ask MMA practitioners – or any of the sporting martial arts practitioner  – is that if their art is so effective in reality, why is it that professional armed forces do not make use of these arts? The answer is that “sport” has gentlemanly rules which curb human aggression, and generate a climate of artificial “fairness” and “co-operation”. 

​For children, and young people, this is positive and nourishing (children should never be exposed to the horror or reality of warfare). When not in a war-like environment – civility should prevail - and sport is the preferred vehicle to encourage a “safe” competitiveness – although one unfortune by-product is that the selfish ego is boosted and inflated. Sport fighting is 90% imagination and only 10% reality – with full-contact martial arts, MMA, Thai Boxing, and Western Boxing, etc, representing the more realistic end of the spectrum. However, sport realism is not battlefield brutality. Dealing with the shock of battle might require stepping in (and through) human blood, entrails, or various types of human offal. People with smashed-bones will be screaming, shouting, laughing, and carrying-out all kinds of despicable acts - either permitted or forbidden by the established rules of war. Battlefield hand-to-hand combat is certainly not gentlemanly – and it is unrealistic to assume that it is. A Bayonet charge is all about high-energy and immense and continuous brutality until all the battle objectives are achieved – or the bayoneteer killed. This is just one example. 

​Drones are now causing all kinds of brutality on the Battlefield – and a coloured belt around the midriff is of no use whatsoever. Genuine traditional martial arts (usually types and variants “Longfist”) are employed by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of Mainland China. Physical and psychological robustness on the battlefield (not the training hall) is emphasised. These are soldiers who train in every relevant modern weaponry available – including the most destructive technological variants (weaponry is both tactical and strategic). A similar situation exists throughout Western armies where boxing and MMA are not used on the battlefield (although such pastimes might be encouraged as a form of military-related leisure). And yet despite this distinct “modernity” in weapon use – there is a belief that after all the firepower of the various weapon-systems have been exchanged - a battle might still be decided “man-to-man” in hand-to-hand during close-quarter combat. Eye-gouging, biting, head-butting, groin ripping, throat-crushing, finger-breaking, nose breaking, ear-ripping, knee-dislocation – and any number of similar nasty techniques are regularly used. 

​Real combat is about inequality. Real combat is about establishing (and maintaining) a terminal advantage over the enemy. Victory and survival are causally linked. Of course, the State does not care if its soldiers live or die (despite rhetoric to the opposite) – just as long as all the State’s military objectives are achieved for the least amount of money (not lives). Soldiers are expendable – because that is the function of being a soldier (someone who fights for pay). A mercenary is simply a soldier who fights for anyone who is willing to pay – regardless of cause and nation. The traditional Chinese martial artist trains his (or her) body to be able to perform this function (utter brutality) – whilst retaining a calm and expansive mind-state that is reflective and unruffled under duress. Traditional martial arts practice assumes the reality of the feudal battlefield – even if the practitioner is not serving in the armed forces of their respective countries (of course, an individual might or might not be a professional soldier – but a civilian practices martial arts with an enhanced sense of combat-reality whether living in a village, town, or a city). Assuming the traditional Chinese martial artist survives a) the ongoing and arduous training (which will be harsh with no material gains such as belts, medals, or trophies, etc) and b) any experiences of actual combat (either on the street or the battlefield). 

​If all these challenges are met, which will include regular (unpadded) sparring and “honour fights” – then the traditional Chinese martial artist must adjust to circumstances as the body “ages” and transforms through the experience of maturing (this includes illness, injury, and disability). The body changes and the mind-awareness deepens. The body is no longer young and will not manifest as a younger body normally does. Despite this, a lifetime of experience will shine through, and a natural dominance will emerge. An older practitioner will understand and control a situation involving younger people as opponents – because those younger people (although full of the vigour of youth) will not possess the ability to “perceive” what is happening – at least not to the extent of the elder and more experienced practitioner. For many years, a dedicated martial arts practitioner will always experience “confusion” whilst participating in the midst of unarmed combat. It is only as time progresses that a student’s mind will “calm” and a pristine awareness takes its place. Before this change can happen, however, many sporting martial arts practitioners cease training in their chosen martial art (early) usually in their late 20s or early 30s (not granting enough time for any substantial inner transformation to occur) – whereas traditional Chinese practitioners must carry-on practicing until the moment of their final breath – and the body is “given-up”.