# Force Flow skill transmission



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 19, 2016)

I am interested in where this 'force flow' comes from. 

First, let me just say that I think the skill itself is valid as evidenced by Alan Orr's and Sergio's demos of being able to effectively control people's balance. As an internal martial art enthusiast, I think this is an important and fascinating skill. 

I have tried reading through posts from this forum to understand its origins better, but I have gotten lost in the fighting and details. 

All of the force flow skills sets seem to be sourced from Hendrik. (Let's not discuss his character at all to avoid argument). I just want to know facts. 

Where did HS learn the force flow skill set? 

a) Was it learned directly from his teacher? (If so where can we see other people with this skill (ie people that he didn't teach)? E.g. his teacher, older/younger kung fu brothers/sisters who learned from his teacher). Do you know what I mean? 

b) Or, did he piece together these skill sets himself (and bring life to them) based on all of his research and making connections with other arts? I understand that the concept and terminology (as well as a manual of how to do it) of 'force flow' already existed as outlined in Kuen Kuits etc. Has he taken it upon himself to bring this back into wing chun. 

Is it A or B?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2016)

Can someone give me a break down on what force flow actually is and what it is supposed to do?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 19, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I am interested in where this 'force flow' comes from.
> 
> First, let me just say that I think the skill itself is valid as evidenced by Alan Orr's and Sergio's demos of being able to effectively control people's balance. As an internal martial art enthusiast, I think this is an important and fascinating skill.



I see balance being controlled in a chi sau type situation.My main questions would be 1) why? 2) what does it train in terms of fighting? We don't see people being bounced around in Alan Orr team fights.



> Where did HS learn the force flow skill set?
> 
> a) Was it learned directly from his teacher? (If so where can we see other people with this skill (ie people that he didn't teach)? E.g. his teacher, older/younger kung fu brothers/sisters who learned from his teacher). Do you know what I mean?
> 
> b) Or, did he piece together these skill sets himself (and bring life to them) based on all of his research and making connections with other arts? I understand that the concept and terminology (as well as a manual of how to do it) of 'force flow' already existed as outlined in Kuen Kuits etc. Has he taken it upon himself to bring this back into wing chun



Impossible to tell. Where do you see the force flow idea in the kuen kuit?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Can someone give me a break down on what force flow actually is and what it is supposed to do?



I have to say that I don't know.

Videos of Alan Orr demonstrating it appear to show that in chi sau it amounts to bouncing an opponent away and controlling balance - a type of stand up grappling really. In terms of fight team footage I don't see the same things happening, or an indirectly transferable skill.

I find video by Henrdik explaining the phenomenon to be completely incomprehensible and no help in terms f understanding.

I am in the same position that you are. Probably all of us are.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I have to say that I don't know.
> 
> Videos of Alan Orr demonstrating it appear to show that in chi sau it amounts to bouncing an opponent away and controlling balance - a type of stand up grappling really. In terms of fight team footage I don't see the same things happening, or an indirectly transferable skill.
> 
> ...



I had a look on line.  For me it seemed like he was trying to direct horizontal force into the ground. Making you very hard to push over. 

If it is actually doable it would be a good trick. 

We tend to slip sideways and deflect force  that way.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I had a look on line.  For me it seemed like he was trying to direct horizontal force into the ground. Making you very hard to push over.
> 
> If it is actually doable it would be a good trick.
> 
> We tend to slip sideways and deflect force  that way.



It is definately doable. It is what wrestlers are doing when they keep straight back, bent knees, short arms, e.g. when pushing into the opponent. It is also what most wing chun would do in terms of stance and force vector when punching.

In terms of standup grappling it is of limited use because you can't realistically root all force to ground - it just changes too fast. You need to be more flexible. Alan would talk about "delinking" when pulled, i.e. losing connection, going limp, but it is overly simplistic try and categorise grappling in this kind of way. You need a more expansive approach. 

In terms of striking, such a ground path can make sense in terms of some striking platforms, e.g. VT, in terms of force application.

But I assume that force flow must be more than this? I don't know what the goal of it is.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 19, 2016)

If you don't mind guys I would like to keep the conversation to my original question. Really want to establish that first. I think whether it works in a fight or not would make for a good discussion in another thread. 

Are there old wing Chun masters out there from China or Malaysia or wherever that have this skill that Hendrik teaches?

Sergio eludes to learning internal skills off old wing Chun masters with these internal skills, but who are they?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Can someone give me a break down on what force flow actually is and what it is supposed to do?


I think force flow as they described it, is how force against a body is being managed.  In Tai Chi we give with force or redirect force.  We never try to go directly against force. From what Alan Orr was explaining it seems that he took Tai Chi concepts and created a different term to talk about how to apply similar concepts to Wing Chun.

For example, If you punch towards my center line, my goal would be to redirect your punch away from my center line. I have no interest in stopping it because redirecting it will allow me to counter and reduced the damage that I may take from the punch.   A  Wing Chun punch moves in one direction in a linear motion.  That punch can only move in one direction (forward).  Because of this there is no resistance to force being applied to the side of the punch so I'll be able to easily move it or redirect it with very little effort.  Now take that same concept and apply it to the body.  If you lean on me, I should give and flow with the force that you are using against me.  Not only should I flow with it, I should help you generate more force than you are expecting to handle, by pulling on you.  The pull will actually cause you to fall off balance giving me the opportunity to counter.

Sports like Judo, Shuai Jiao, wrestling, BJJ, Tai Chi, Akido and some others actually use similar concepts of dealing with force where the goal isn't to stop it but to let it flow with little resistance and in some cases increase the flow as a way to throw the person off balance.  Here's a Wing Chun Example





Here's a Tai Chi Example





This is probably what influenced the concept of force flow.





take note of the similar jerky motion


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Impossible to tell. Where do you see the force flow idea in the kuen kuit?



Actually I don't know. I think I read somewhere that there is a scripture or non-yip man kuen kuit that actually details force flow, what it is and how to apply it. 

Or perhaps I got that wrong. I also read somewhere that HS has made connections between Wing Chun and other arts like White Crane and found sciptures to be very closely related making him conclude where he thinks wing chun came from. Maybe force flow was detailed in this and he added it from here. 

More and more I am beginning to think HS has pieced together this idea and sill set himself from his research. He hasn't actually learned it from an actual teacher. He is adding something that he believes was originally supposed to be in the art in the first place and was lost. That is how he has justified doing it. 

Can anyone dispute this? Does anyone have any evidence of HS's teachers or kung fu brothers (from same school) as having this force flow skill?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> If you don't mind guys I would like to keep the conversation to my original question. Really want to establish that first. I think whether it works in a fight or not would make for a good discussion in another thread.
> 
> Are there old wing Chun masters out there from China or Malaysia or wherever that have this skill that Hendrik teaches?
> 
> Sergio eludes to learning internal skills off old wing Chun masters with these internal skills, but who are they?


You're in Nz, Alan is in Nz, why not simply meet the guy? You won't find a more definitive answer to your questions and will be able to give a valuable hands on insight to how force flow works real time..,,


----------



## guy b. (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I am interested in where this 'force flow' comes from.
> 
> Where did HS learn the force flow skill set?



No idea. I think you are extremely unlikely to get any answer to this question here.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> More and more I am beginning to think HS has pieced together this idea and sill set himself from his research. He hasn't actually learned it from an actual teacher. He is adding something that he believes was originally supposed to be in the art in the first place and was lost. That is how he has justified doing it.



And you're absolutely right.

On the KFM forum, he proudly stated that an Emei master was able to identify as Emei-related what he called "_Wck technology I have developed_".

He claims the development of this "Wck technology" and doesn't credit a Wing Chun ancestor, but nor has he studied either Emei or White Crane. 

If it is identifiable to Emei and White Crane masters, that means he has grafted it onto his own Wing Chun after researching those styles online.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> You're in Nz, Alan is in Nz, why not simply meet the guy? You won't find a more definitive answer to your questions and will be able to give a valuable hands on insight to how force flow works real time..,,




No I don't think meeting Alan will help me with this. Alan would possibly teach me how to do it and show how it works in fighting. But that's not what I am after right now. At a certain point I would be interested in meeting Alan. But there's enough to learn in what I already do for now.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

LFJ said:


> And you're absolutely right.
> 
> On the KFM forum, he proudly stated that an Emei master was able to identify as Emei-related what he called "_Wck technology I have developed_".
> 
> ...



... Ok. So in one sense, maybe we could say good on him for all his research and effort. He could be absolutely right in trying to revive this concept and skill.

In another sense, there is something wrong with how he and the above mentioned situs are presenting this. I know at least several of them from exchanges and people I know who have met them, that there is this theme of "Yip Man wing Chun is not authentic and has lost this force flow and knowledge, but other non-yip man lineages haven't". Among all these Sifus there also seems to be a theme of theme knowing and learning many non-yip man wing lineages even though they started with Yip Man.

It seems as though they are promoting their wing Chun as being more authentic as well as having skills that have been lost in yip man wing chun.

In this sense, that is an awful lot to speculate based on one man's research. Also they need to be clear that even if Hendrik is right (about how it used to be in wing chun), it's not just yip man wing chun that lost it. ALL wing Chun linaneges lost it.

I think there is a bit of a marketing ploy at work here.... And it is all based in Hendriks work.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> ... Ok. So in one sense, maybe we could say good on him for all his research and effort. He could be absolutely right in trying to revive this concept and skill.
> 
> In another sense, there is something wrong with how he and the above mentioned situs are presenting this. I know at least several of them from exchanges and people I know who have met them, that there is this theme of "Yip Man wing Chun is not authentic and has lost this force flow and knowledge, but other non-yip man lineages haven't". Among all these Sifus there also seems to be a theme of theme knowing and learning many non-yip man wing lineages even though they started with Yip Man.
> 
> ...


I agree.  If I had to take a wild guess, I would compare the mindset of students today and assume that students in the past behaved the same way.  Very few students have the patience to learn how to control their energy and how to create force without muscling it.  Most students just want to hit the pads, spar, or get straight to the application.  We even see it in Martial Talk where people don't do forms or kata practice simply because they think it's a waste of time.  If this is true today then it's probably an issue that has existed for as long as martial arts have been taught. This issue causes techniques and understanding to be "peeled" off with each generation as the student is likely to take the same mindset of this teacher.    I think Kung Fu in general has taken this path in different areas such as grappling and the ability to generate force correctly.

As a person that doesn't study WC, I have to say WC there is definitely more internal conflict between the different WC schools and I don't know if that's because some people are teaching WC as Sifus even though they haven't been appointed or recognized as a Sifu by their teacher.  For Jow Ga it's really easy to find out if someone is a self-proclaimed Sifu.  It's even easier to find out if someone has been officially appointed Sifu.  In Jow Ga (because it's the only reference I have) there's a student like Alan Orr who went out and did well with winning, but he was never made a Sifu by his teacher.  He's won many competitions and fights and has more out there in terms of Jow Ga DVDs than official Jow Ga Sifu's.   His name is Ron Wheeler and he teaches Jow Ga from his perspective.  From the conversations and the aggression I've seen on WC discussions, I think WC has a lot of "Ron Wheeler's"

Alan Orr refers to the system that he teaches as a "Modern Wing Chun" which tells me right away that there have been some changes that have been made to the original system.  And such changes will most likely not have any lineage tied to it.  Meaning no Sifu from the past taught the techniques that he is now teaching by combining WC with fighting concepts and techniques from other fighting systems.   There is nothing wrong with what his doing but at this point he probably should not refer to his system as Wing Chun.  He should probably rename it so that it accurately embodies the new stuff that has been added.

The founder of Jow Ga blended 3 different fighting systems and instead of claiming the new system he created as Hung Gar or Shaolin.  He gave it a new game.   Jow Ga.  I think there are many WC schools out there that probably need to take a similar route if they have made new changes to the fighting system that causes the system to greatly change. Tai Chi movements in WC would be a good reason to come up with a new name for a fighting system.


----------



## geezer (Mar 20, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> ...Most students just want to hit the pads, spar, or get straight to the application.  We even see it in Martial Talk where people don't do forms or kata practice simply because they think it's a waste of time.  If this is true today then it's probably an issue that has existed for as long as martial arts have been taught. This issue causes techniques and understanding to be "peeled" off with each generation as the student is likely to take the same mindset of this teacher.



I'd agree that this is an age-old debate. One side favoring tradition, and the other favoring practical application. Veering too far in _either_ direction is a problem. And even most "traditional" arts have a rebel, reformer, or at least an innovator or two in their history. Imagine how a Hung Gar or Choy Ga purist would have viewed Jow Ga when it was a new art. 

Sorry I can't shed light on the OP's question. From all the posts by Hendrick on this and that other forum, I gather that a lot of this comes from his own research. He feels it is old and authentic ...a restoration of stuff that has been lost. Many others would question this. If Alan Orr can apply some of these ideas practically, that would merit attention. Otherwise, I haven't been able to make heads or tails of Hendrick's many posts.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

Yep, I would agree Geezer. I think the skill itself is awesome and Alan's put a lot of work into making it work for him. I personally feel there should be more focus on body mechanics etc. 

But if what you say and what I am getting from others is also true,  I think we need to be clear about where it came from. It came from Hendrik. It was his invention or at best his revival of something lost through his research. 

I am not thinking so much about Alan, but in Sergio's case he has posted something in regards to CST and how there are way better internal masters than him, especially outside of the yip man wing chun. He points at how yip man wing chun has lost it. Actually, what I think is happening is the internal wing chun he is talking about is from Hendrik and Hendrik only. I think the other internal masters he refers to and of whom he has learned are from Taichi. He doesn't even hide the fact that he visits Taichi masters. 

So to be clear: 'Force flow' is a Hendrik Invention or a Hendrik Revival


----------



## geezer (Mar 20, 2016)

Here are some more references to "force flow" in WC":

Sifu Sergio--





Jim Roselando--





Hendrick Santos--




and again here--





Personally I was very disappointed with the last clip. I was really hoping to see Hendrick demonstrate bouncing on the pogo stick.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

I can only suppose Hendrik can do the stuff he is teaching because you can see the result of his teachings in his students. But it would be nice to see him do them himself.


----------



## JustSomePerson (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> [...]
> But if what you say and what I am getting from others is also true,  I think we need to be clear about where it came from. It came from Hendrik. It was his invention or at best his revival of something lost through his research [...] So to be clear: 'Force flow' is a Hendrik Invention or a Hendrik Revival



Technically force flow is nothing more than a more user friendly term for a 'force vector' as used in branches mathematics and physics, nothing more nothing less.

Hendrik openly admits that this idea is present and taken from other Chinese martial arts and internal practices as well as found throughout the world in different martial arts systems. How we translate older terms into contemporary English always throws up debates but the content or the ideas they point to are pretty much accepted.

Sometimes I have seen him claim certain points to be of his own invention but it is, in my view, more the case of the way lots of existing things have been put together as a series of exercises, thoughts and meta points that are of his creation, over the individual parts constituting them.

However, even here there has been cross pollination and I can name some that have freely and openly helped him better articulate what he wanted to articulate and to refine what he wanted to get across.

Hendrik can speak for himself but from what I see of wing chun today in general it is debased and devoid of some of the basic ideas that Hendrik wants to get across in addition to the deeper level stuff and on which Hendrk is very, very knowledgeable and in my view correct.

So yes, the term 'revival' is perhaps a better term with regards to some aspects Hendrik emphasises and 'creation' a better term for the system approach he is advancing (and which works IMO and is applicable to many different martial arts systems and even playing musical instruments and sweeping the floor).

I hope this goes some way to answering your question and if I am error, it is of my own making.


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Where did HS learn the force flow skill set?



First, there is no evidence that Hendrik has learned or developed _any _'skill set'.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> a) Was it learned directly from his teacher? (If so where can we see other people with this skill (ie people that he didn't teach)? E.g. his teacher, older/younger kung fu brothers/sisters who learned from his teacher). Do you know what I mean?
> 
> b) Or, did he piece together these skill sets himself (and bring life to them) based on all of his research and making connections with other arts? I understand that the concept and terminology (as well as a manual of how to do it) of 'force flow' already existed as outlined in Kuen Kuits etc. Has he taken it upon himself to bring this back into wing chun.
> 
> Is it A or B?




Anyone who has been following this character for the past 5 years or so on KFO & many FB forums knows the answer is clearly B. The Cho family Hendrik learned his WC from have openly denounced Hendrik's conclusions that their WC=Snake+Crane. As well as his interpretations of _their_ Kuits. As well as his ideas that their WC was missing much information (as HS puts it), along with these 'missing pieces' HS has tacked onto his 2-or-so years of learning from his Cho family Sifu. So it is clearly not A

As a side note since he was brought up, Sergio recently wrote a book about the stuff Hendrik is peddling/'taught him' - before Sergio even met Hendrik in person! How do you learn about and write a book on subject matter you've never even learned in person??
And Henrik's book costing close to $100 US (after he's repeatedly said for years that he has nothing to sell or gain from this information he's 'sharing'), it all smells of fishy marketing to me.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 20, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Yep, I would agree Geezer. I think the skill itself is awesome and Alan's put a lot of work into making it work for him. I personally feel there should be more focus on body mechanics etc.
> 
> But if what you say and what I am getting from others is also true,  I think we need to be clear about where it came from. It came from Hendrik. It was his invention or at best his revival of something lost through his research.
> 
> ...




"I personally feel there should be more focus on body mechanics etc."


Could you expand a little on this? I'm not a force flow expert but have both Hendriks and Alan's books and body mechanics is a huge part of this concept. Not sure why you would make this kind of observation.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> "I personally feel there should be more focus on body mechanics etc."
> 
> Could you expand a little on this? I'm not a force flow expert but have both Hendriks and Alan's books and body mechanics is a huge part of this concept. Not sure why you would make this kind of observation.



You misunderstand me. I believe that the the wider wing chun community in general are missing many body mechanic, force and internal martial art concepts. So yes, Hendrik and Co. have identified a gap in Wing Chun skill sets. To this end, it is a good thing. You can see when Alan chi saos with other lineages, he is displaying better body mechanics and is able to control their balance. The people who he is rolling with have a gap in that understanding and skill. It is something that I have a personal interest in. It is something that CST wing chun is pretty good at also. CST uses a certain type of engine and I have been studying another art that uses body mechanics in a different way. 

The specific issue I have, is this idea that Hendrik and his students have been promoting (fairly actively) that all other wing chun lineages are missing these important concepts and therefore it is not the pure form. When in fact, it seems the only lineage that has these concepts and ideas is the Hendrik lineage. Nothing wrong with adding something that you believe wing chun is missing or has lost. I just think we should be honest about the fact that it has been added. There was no teacher to teacher transmission of this skill. It has been pieced together.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> So yes, the term 'revival' is perhaps a better term with regards to some aspects Hendrik emphasises and 'creation' a better term for the system approach he is advancing (and which works IMO and is applicable to many different martial arts systems and even playing musical instruments and sweeping the floor).
> 
> I hope this goes some way to answering your question and if I am error, it is of my own making.



Ok, yep the picture is becoming clearer for me now. Thanks for your explanation.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 20, 2016)

Just a concern of mine. Force Flow was/is an invention of HS. Now I do not wish to speak badly about a student of WC but he has not really done any battle testing on his theories. HS is not a fighter, more of theoretical kind of guy.

Now we wish to discuss something that was made up, pieced together, by a guy that is not testing anything in real life scenario. My fear is that if someone is spending too much time on this it could very well be similar to all other wonderful killer techniques that automatically win fights without ever getting hurt that we know exist today. They work in theory and during practise in controlled environment, but never in a fight.

Is Force Flow the same thing? A good theory, a party trick. A trick that simply does not work? If someone has to study a lifetime in order to master it well enough to be usable, then that time is better spent learning to fight.

Oh, and tai chi may be influencing the WT I learn a bit. Does not mean I study Force Flow, reason being that according to HS noone can understand what it is without his teachings. So I can live without it.


----------



## JustSomePerson (Mar 20, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just a concern of mine. Force Flow was/is an invention of HS.



Actually this is not the case. If you take a read of my post you will see why. In short, what you have just said is akin to saying gravity was Newton's creation rather than being something there that he named and articulated!

And no I am not referring to Newton's  contemporaries getting there first but the historical argument there does have relevance to what is being argued right now.

The point is force in the physics sense is real as are force vectors and the way they pass through the body. Force flow is just an easier term with greater character and colour for something that is real and is mentioned by many.

EDIT: in Alan's thread that was locked I showed a video of a special kind of material that allows one to see force vectors pass through it. When we say be empty and loose it is because if you carry tension not only are we unable to use the skeletal structure properly, one is also unable to store any more force potential in your body. The force potential remains in a material like it does in a rubber band when loaded and not released. If you have incorrect tension you load your flesh and bones by yourself so that you cannot load and store the opponents and indeed, you become overloaded and 'spill' over. This is a physics argument so please excuse my lack of an adequate articulation. I will work on it to make it more understandable.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just a concern of mine. Force Flow was/is an invention of HS. Now I do not wish to speak badly about a student of WC but he has not really done any battle testing on his theories. HS is not a fighter, more of theoretical kind of guy..



I personally don't think he needs to be a fighter to discover or revive a way of movement that has a demonstratable effect on a partner. I find fighting to not be a suitable platform. Too many variables. 

[QUOTE=" Now we wish to discuss something that was made up, pieced together, by a guy that is not testing anything in real life scenario. My fear is that if someone is spending too much time on this it could very well be similar to all other wonderful killer techniques that automatically win fights without ever getting hurt that we know exist today. They work in theory and during practise in controlled environment, but never in a fight.

Is Force Flow the same thing? A good theory, a party trick. A trick that simply does not work? If someone has to study a lifetime in order to master it well enough to be usable, then that time is better spent learning to fight.

Oh, and tai chi may be influencing the WT I learn a bit. Does not mean I study Force Flow, reason being that according to HS noone can understand what it is without his teachings. So I can live without it.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't believe it is a party trick at all. This concept and similar ones, are where real depth of practice and knowledge come from. It is not easy to learn. In my experience, techniques have little effect on people who have excellent body mechanics and structure. 

Some may wish to learn these skills and not put them into a fighting or sparring context. I am probably in this category. People who do this tend to develop higher levels of this skill and skills like this in my observation. However, there are people like Alan, who have taken this skill set and have made it applicable to cage fighting and live sparring etc.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 20, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> Actually this is not the case. If you take a read of my post you will see why. In short, what you have just said is akin to saying gravity was Newton's creation rather than being something there that he named and articulated!
> 
> And no I am not referring to Newton's contemporaries getting there first but the historical argument there does have relevance to what is being argued right now.
> 
> ...



Ummm yeah. It is a principle that works and is grounded in science. To that end it cannot be disputed. Just don't go around saying that you (I mean people, not you in person!) have a more authentic and internal version of wing chun. You don't. It was a revival of something. We don't even know how authentic the revival is. I think Teacher to Student transmission is obviously the ideal.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 21, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> Hendrik openly admits that this idea is present and taken from other Chinese martial arts and internal practices as well as found throughout the world in different martial arts systems.



When did he start conceding that?

I've always seen him responding to people who say they know what it is with "_no, that's not it_". He never wanted to admit that it wasn't something unique. But I haven't paid him any attention for a couple years.



> Technically force flow is nothing more than a more user friendly term for a 'force vector' as used in branches mathematics and physics, nothing more nothing less.



In that sense, I'd be surprised if any WC lineage didn't understand this basic concept.

Our _pun-sau_ is exactly loaded structure training of force vectors. Some people do it too stiffly or in other ways that negate the flow of force, but they tend to understand the basic concept.

The difference, I think, is in application.

For us, it's developing punching mechanics and power within the VT structure. Very important, because otherwise we lack the knockout power that boxers have, and we need to make our punches count while making use of the punching structure for simultaneous defense functions.

But in the videos of Sergio and Jim, it's a way to bounce people off of you. In Alan's videos it's a way to control an opponent's body through their arms, unbalancing them and opening them up for strikes.

This is a neat trick that works in _chi-sau_ where someone gives you their arms. But in free fighting, I think there's no opportunity to apply what he's showing and says is directly applicable. 

If anyone disagrees, his team has plenty of public fight videos. Point to a timestamp where it was used and worked. I'd really like to see it in action.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure it's just a basic although core concept and they're wasting their time misapplying it in unrealistic ways.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

So I think the same mechanics that bounce people back or take their balance can be used to make a punch way more powerful. 

I think I know what you saying. In terms of fist flying on both sides etc. 

But you know as wing chunners, we hope at some point to bridge. At that point we hope to have an advantage in controlling someone.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> So I think the same mechanics that bounce people back or take their balance can be used to make a punch way more powerful.
> 
> I think I know what you saying. In terms of fist flying on both sides etc.
> 
> But you know as wing chunners, we hope at some point to bridge. At that point we hope to have an advantage in controlling someone.



Slightly off topic, but in terms of bridge this has already been discussed and we concluded that we do not all agree on that term.

LFJ would say that we do not hope for bridge, we hope to hit our opponent. As simple as that. I tend to agree with that statement. Me personally think a bridge is something I only hope for if obstructed (hindered to hit my opponent), and to me bridge is at that point a way of clearing/getting a path to hit. If I am not being obstructed I do not need a bridge and therefore none exists, instead there is just a road.

So I don't think this can be agreed between lineages either.

Force Flow might be simple, I am just turned off by HS some years ago stating that it is not simple, it is not something we can know, it can only be known by those who studies it from HS or his followers (at that time). All other attempts or believes that someone knows Force Flow is wrong.

This got me to think that either HS just wants to make money, or he is teaching something which has no part of WC and has not had ever or as far as we can trace. I am allergic to Force Flow since, and could be I am wrong but I rather believe in the body structure I build and test myself if my only other option is to learn something that is untested and unconfirmed by anyone that does not hold a financial interest in the concept.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I think the skill itself is awesome and Alan's put a lot of work into making it work for him.



What is the awesome skill that Alan makes work for him? Can you describe it?


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Yeah I see your point with the bridging aspect. Yeah I think I would debate that another time. I mean yeah you want to hit. But even boxers are going to clash right? That's when you would hope a wing chun guy would have an advantage. Also good internal skills and mechanics can mean you can punch through arm structures etc. 

Well .... I think it is hard to learn some internal concepts without without instruction. There is stuff you can work out and mature on your own, but there is no substitute for instruction. I regularly go overseas for instruction and get a lot out of it. 

I am not allergic to the skill or ability, because I don't believe it is unique to Hendrik's wing chun. It's the sort of thing taichi people could do. 

But I know what you mean about not wanting to learn it of him. I think him and his other students could have made it something worth learning if they were upfront about it and honest about where it came from. If Hendrik and his followers were a little less condescending and more upfront there might be more of us keen to learn it. Imagine if HS was like "Hey guys I have done some research and made some connections with these arts. I have discovered some pretty cool stuff that could quite possible be how wing chun was originally practiced. In any case, I find it really compliments my understanding of wing chun and enhances it". If he and others had that attitude, people would be a lot more open to it.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> Technically force flow is nothing more than a more user friendly term for a 'force vector' as used in branches mathematics and physics, nothing more nothing less.



Force vectoring is already understood quite well in VT (and implicitly by anyone extering any force successfully on any object).

What then is this idea adding?


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What is the awesome skill that Alan makes work for him? Can you describe it?



I am just interested in internal martial arts in general. I like to see people get bounced off and dropped and tossed around. I find it a fascinating science. You may be right in being skeptical as to how it applies to fighting. 

Umm as for how Alan makes it work? I think you have already made your points on this issue. But there are certain things he does when he is gloved up in response to japs etc. sinking and rising when punching for extra power, and clinch work. I suppose it is in the sinking and rising. I don't really know to be honest but he seems to make a case how he uses it on youtube videos etc.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Also good internal skills and mechanics can mean you can punch through arm structures etc.



What makes you think this? What is an internal skill?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> But there are certain things he does when he is gloved up in response to japs etc. sinking and rising when punching for extra power, and clinch work. I suppose it is in the sinking and rising. I don't really know to be honest but he seems to make a case how he uses it on youtube videos etc.



The sink rise is from white crane or similar. The purpose is power generation without much movement (i.e. without body momentum), required because of the strategy used in this kind of system. I don't see how using it in the VT system is optimal in terms of the strategies employed, or how it would mesh in terms of body mechanics already there.

I think Alan shows these things being effective in chi sau, and if you approach chi sau as a directly applicable thing then these ideas might work for you. 

I don't think most white crane practitioners would see the sink rise as internal, per se. Personally I don't really understand what internal means, and how it is different to "external"?


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Well the same mechanics that make someone fly back are going to help with a punch. 

So say if we are rolling with pressure and I load the pressure in my joints and align properly. By doing this I am finding an efficient pathway of force that is supported skeletally and by the ground. Some people call this a smooth ground path. Essentially I am looking for the positions and the ways I move where I am not relying heavily on muscular force to move or hold the positions. Ok so with that same idea in mind, when you punch you are looking for that smooth force path. If you held a pad to your chest and I try to punch it, if I feel tension muscular tension when I punch it, then something isn't aligned right. The force doesn't have a smooth force path, and therefore the muscle has to kind of bare the force. And another result of this is that some of the force is going to bounce back on me. On the other hand, if you can get it aligned, you are going to be able to punch that pad smoothly and the holder of the pad is going to bare all of the force.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I am interested in where this 'force flow' comes from.
> 
> First, let me just say that I think the skill itself is valid as evidenced by Alan Orr's and Sergio's demos of being able to effectively control people's balance. As an internal martial art enthusiast, I think this is an important and fascinating skill.
> 
> ...




Thank you for your interest. I'm in NZ now. You should make a visit. I am based in Tauranga.

Force flow is one skill in layers of many others. Some on the forums are upset as they do not understand it so they are looking for holes and making statements on what they think, which is very limited. 







Here is a link to a video from Hendrik addressing your question. 

Please do not listen to the fools that post their ideas on what they think. They really have no idea.

My fighters have had over 200 MMA fights and I train professional fighters with the skills we teach. Training does not look like application as the platform changes. But the skills are expressed. Just because they can't see it or understand it doesn't mean anything. 

I have posted lots of videos and over 900 lessons on my site now. So its not simple as they think.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Some people define internal martial arts as being able to issue unusual force with little effort. I would be largely on board with that. 

Perhaps another reason it is called 'internal' is because you generally make adjustments and move from the inside of your body. When you punch, pak sau etc its not just the movement and position, it's how you are holding your alignment, how your rotate the joints. How you think about your arm when you move it also seems to make a big difference e.g. thinking of moving from the elbow not from the hands.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

guy b. said:


> The sink rise is from white crane or similar. The purpose is power generation without much movement (i.e. without body momentum), required because of the strategy used in this kind of system. I don't see how using it in the VT system is optimal in terms of the strategies employed, or how it would mesh in terms of body mechanics already there.
> 
> I think Alan shows these things being effective in chi sau, and if you approach chi sau as a directly applicable thing then these ideas might work for you.
> 
> I don't think most white crane practitioners would see the sink rise as internal, per se. Personally I don't really understand what internal means, and how it is different to "external"?



I really have no idea why you just keep guessing and making statements referring to what I do when you posts all clearly should you do not understand it at all.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> I'd agree that this is an age-old debate. One side favoring tradition, and the other favoring practical application. Veering too far in _either_ direction is a problem. And even most "traditional" arts have a rebel, reformer, or at least an innovator or two in their history. Imagine how a Hung Gar or Choy Ga purist would have viewed Jow Ga when it was a new art.
> 
> Sorry I can't shed light on the OP's question. From all the posts by Hendrick on this and that other forum, I gather that a lot of this comes from his own research. He feels it is old and authentic ...a restoration of stuff that has been lost. Many others would question this. If Alan Orr can apply some of these ideas practically, that would merit attention. Otherwise, I haven't been able to make heads or tails of Hendrick's many posts.



??? My guys have had over 200 fights and I teach professional fighters and my skill holds up very well under pressure. What more do you need?


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> No I don't think meeting Alan will help me with this. Alan would possibly teach me how to do it and show how it works in fighting. But that's not what I am after right now. At a certain point I would be interested in meeting Alan. But there's enough to learn in what I already do for now.



meeting up for an exchanged would make things very clear


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Thanks for the invitation Alan, as I have been clear about, I am not downplaying the skill set at all or its effectiveness.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think force flow as they described it, is how force against a body is being managed.  In Tai Chi we give with force or redirect force.  We never try to go directly against force. From what Alan Orr was explaining it seems that he took Tai Chi concepts and created a different term to talk about how to apply similar concepts to Wing Chun.
> 
> For example, If you punch towards my center line, my goal would be to redirect your punch away from my center line. I have no interest in stopping it because redirecting it will allow me to counter and reduced the damage that I may take from the punch.   A  Wing Chun punch moves in one direction in a linear motion.  That punch can only move in one direction (forward).  Because of this there is no resistance to force being applied to the side of the punch so I'll be able to easily move it or redirect it with very little effort.  Now take that same concept and apply it to the body.  If you lean on me, I should give and flow with the force that you are using against me.  Not only should I flow with it, I should help you generate more force than you are expecting to handle, by pulling on you.  The pull will actually cause you to fall off balance giving me the opportunity to counter.
> 
> ...



NO I did not take anything from Tai Chi at all. Why do people guess all the time?


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is definately doable. It is what wrestlers are doing when they keep straight back, bent knees, short arms, e.g. when pushing into the opponent. It is also what most wing chun would do in terms of stance and force vector when punching.
> 
> In terms of standup grappling it is of limited use because you can't realistically root all force to ground - it just changes too fast. You need to be more flexible. Alan would talk about "delinking" when pulled, i.e. losing connection, going limp, but it is overly simplistic try and categorise grappling in this kind of way. You need a more expansive approach.
> 
> ...



In much the same way your views on what I do is also very simplistic


----------



## JustSomePerson (Mar 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> When did he start conceding that?
> 
> I've always seen him responding to people who say they know what it is with "_no, that's not it_". [...] In that sense, I'd be surprised if any WC lineage didn't understand this basic concept [...] Otherwise, I'm pretty sure it's just a basic although core concept and they're wasting their time misapplying it in unrealistic ways.





guy b. said:


> Force vectoring is already understood quite well in VT (and implicitly by anyone extering any force successfully on any object). [...] What then is this idea adding? [...] What is the awesome skill that Alan makes work for him? Can you describe it?



From what I've read from the pair of you I would have to say that no, you do not understand physics and the material sciences and the way forces operate on the body internally and how they can be best managed. 

You cannot take words like force flow or force vectors in isolation and what 'they add' is a little bit of a disingenuous question, and I say that acknowledging that it seems you both don't know the science bits all that well and are thus unable to even really judge those 'words' as isolated points to discuss.

Its not my job to educate you both on the science but I will suggest that you spend some time conducting your own research here as I think you will both find it useful. That is if your modus operandi is one of a genuine want to learn and to further your own understandings.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> meeting up for an exchanged would make things very clear



Again, thanks for that, but my original question is one you could probably answer right here as it is not about how to do 'force flow' which I totally understand is something that could not be done over a forum. I happen to be impressed with the skill and want to learn it. 

Has Hendrik discovered this from his research or has he learned it from a teacher? What I am getting is that he kind of discovered it or revived it.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Again, thanks for that, but my original question is one you could probably answer right here as it is not about how to do 'force flow' which I totally understand is something that could not be done over a forum. I happen to be impressed with the skill and want to learn it.
> 
> Has Hendrik discovered this from his research or has he learned it from a teacher? What I am getting is that he kind of discovered it or revived it.




Did you not watch the video I posted? Hendrik answers your questions

What is your name? What school do you train at in NZ?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> NO I did not take anything from Tai Chi at all. Why do people guess all the time?



So Alan, given that I don't condone the whole strategy of telling people what they can and can not know. Do you have a video you recommend that does not cost an arm and a leg (cost is always the case but not really feel the need to waste a fortune) that would actually explain Force Flow in good ways.

And do you consider an internal art such as Force Flow as something that can ever be taught over video? This last question is something I hold serious doubts in, and to learn how to punch, utilize body structure and knowing how to direct force going through my body it is unclear what the purpose of Force Flow is, especially given that it is constantly said it is not the same thing as what is currently learned in WC.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Thanks for the invitation Alan, as I have been clear about, I am not downplaying the skill set at all or its effectiveness.



I am just saying the best way is to test it out and feel it


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

My name is Gray and I train CST here in Auckland. We are just a very small group but my teacher has been teaching here for about 10 years.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

Phobius said:


> So Alan, given that I don't condone the whole strategy of telling people what they can and can not know. Do you have a video you recommend that does not cost an arm and a leg (cost is always the case but not really feel the need to waste a fortune) that would actually explain Force Flow in good ways.
> 
> And do you consider an internal art such as Force Flow as something that can ever be taught over video? This last question is something I hold serious doubts in, and to learn how to punch, utilize body structure and knowing how to direct force going through my body it is unclear what the purpose of Force Flow is, especially given that it is constantly said it is not the same thing as what is currently learned in WC.



My blueprint course is cheap and has 65 lessons, plus loads of over courses. So its not an easy answer. My book also covers a lot of information on it. 

You check out looks of free clips on my you tube channel

In the end if you want to learn you have to put time and effort in.


----------



## Alan Orr (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> My name is Gray and I train CST here in Auckland. We are just a very small group but my teacher has been teaching here for about 10 years.



I'm up in a few weeks I think as I have a fighter on a show. Would be cool to meet your group.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Sure! As long as keep it friendly!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

I am not a fighter by any means!


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 21, 2016)

Phobius said:


> according to HS noone can understand what it is without his teachings.



EXACTLY 
Or even discuss it with him.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> say if we are rolling with pressure and I load the pressure in my joints and align properly. By doing this I am finding an efficient pathway of force that is supported skeletally and by the ground. Some people call this a smooth ground path.



But this is basic VT training, yes? It is used to improve the punch in WSL VT. It may be used to bounce people, unbalance people in other wing chun, I don't know, and I will not comment on what I believe to be the relative efficacy of these different approaches.

What I don't see is what is new or different about it, or what requires books, very long and confusing video explanations, and so on? Surely everyone's wing chun has this training? I wouldn't call it internal, special or anything unusual. It is just VT?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> Why do people guess all the time?



I suppose people "guess" because on the one hand you wish to bring it to the people, make it understandable, show it to be simple; but on the other you and/or Hendrick will always dismiss any understanding that anyone else brings as completly trivial. On this thread for example. 

That's ok, but then when asked for clear explanation it isn't available. 

It appears that you wish it to be deep, esoteric and profound, but also highly practical and realistic. Palpable in real combat but also very hard to see or define. Accessable to anyone, but also a closely guarded secret that only the few understand. These desires seem a bit contradictory, and I think suggest that it is more about marketing than anything else.

It goes round and round like this, with you appearing to get progressively more angry (while still pumping out the videos) and Hendrick getting progresively more difficult to understand (while apparently trying his best to make it understandable).

Again it is up to you to show otherwise, if you wish to do so. I would say that if you wish it to be secret then don't talk about it. If you wish to make it public then talk straight. If you wish to sell it then maybe continue as you are, but be careful of the image you project.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> ??? My guys have had over 200 fights and I teach professional fighters and my skill holds up very well under pressure. What more do you need?



I don't know Alan but know of several of his fighters and I especially know Pete Irving who runs one of Alan's fight teams and credits Alan as a mentor. Pete first fought on the very first show we did in 2003, as well as the first Pride & Glory show we in again in 2003, he's fought on our shows twice since against good opponents in 2005 and 2006, He's since become an extremely knowledgeable and serious instructor so if he says Alan is good at what he does I'm positive he is.


----------



## JustSomePerson (Mar 21, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I suppose people "guess" because on the one hand you wish to bring it to the people, make it understandable, show it to be simple; but on the other you and/or Hendrick will always dismiss any understanding that anyone else brings as completly trivial. On this thread for example.
> 
> That's ok, but then when asked for clear explanation it isn't available.
> 
> ...



In my view it only seems esoteric and profound to you becasue you perhaps refuse to take a closer look at the physics a la 'western' thought and have even refused to let people experienced with what Alan teaches, show you in person in a friendly manner.

Like some certain others it is my view that you are intentionally disruptive and that this is shown across many a different web forum over many years. I remember reading some mma forums a long time ago and found that posters there were the same as others on the KFO forums and that in that thread on the mma forums, they discussed how best to disrupt 'wing chun' forums and to intentionally sully any meaningful and constructive dialogue.

It could just be, however, a similar agenda but from the perspective of lineage bashing and for the sake of agendas there. I will say no more on this matter beyond noting that your posting behaviour matches others and that it is perhaps the case that behind the scenes you work in cahoots to sully meaningful debate by offering up intentional disruptive obstinance. It is a shame that just as a certain group brought KFO forums to a disruptive end, that that group has then targeted these forums with a similar aim in mind.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> From what I've read from the pair of you I would have to say that no, you do not understand physics and the material sciences and the way forces operate on the body internally and how they can be best managed



I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the maths of vectors, angular momentum, linear momentum and how these apply to the human body. I don't think that it is important to be a master of physics or materials science in order to be a martial artist. I don't think that MA systems were created by people looking at vector diagrams and calculating applied forces. I think that they were created by feeling, doing, and by observing effects.

I think that most of the discussion and analysis of this kind of thing on MA forums is pseudo science, i.e. pointing out obvious truisms like elastic materials and structures can load and release, angular momentum is higher the further out from the axis you go, loaded structures without a ground force vector tend to collapse, a shorter lever requires more torque to do the same work. That kind of thing. It is merely putting a scientific gloss on things that everyone understands implicitly. I think that mostly it is done in order to try and claim authority, as on this thread. There is no need to talk in this way when dealing with what are simple and easily understood ideas.

VT contains a large range of structured and progressive drilling, the point of which is to create and build the structure, internal musculature and body movement required to apply concussive force to an opponent using the hands. It is self correcting and does not require understanding of esoteric ideas in order to work. It is genius. I don't know what force flow is offering that improves upon this?



> Its not my job to educate you both on the science



Why are you here posting about "science" then?


----------



## JustSomePerson (Mar 21, 2016)

guy b. said:


> [...]
> Why are you here posting about "science" then?



Providing key words is very much like providing a bibliography; its for you to follow up and not for me to educate you more fully. The choice is yours, either read up or don't.


----------



## Pat M (Mar 21, 2016)

Hi WCA great topic,
I used to be part of a group that specialized in this deep energy approach. My previous Sifu (cult leader) came upon this himself over time, it was not taught by someone else. It was referred to as "gung lik"
The stance used for this was very earthed however only when required, it was not something that could be seen, being on the receiving end of it was like having your your energy sucked up by a vampire. I was not and by no means am an expert however it is interesting now being at another school as it works. This is not a strength thing however it was hard on my joints because of the pressure during the kneeing chi sau.

My take on the OP would be both A and B as generally you are taught followed by more learning as you teach.

Regards further discussions:
Who can be more authentic than the next guy has been an age old battle, marketing has been around for as long as there has been a market, the timing depends on the socioeconomic climate of the location. Today it is every where. There is very little that is new so revival is everywhere.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 21, 2016)

No GUYB you don't automatically obtain these skills by just practicing "VT". If that was the case do you really think the amount of material produced by Alan et al would be necessary? These force flow skills as I understand them are CONCIOUSLY trained and refined over a period of time. Your simplistic views of force flow are ignorant and insulting to people who invest time, money and effort to obtain these skills.

Just because you can't personally see any worth or validity in training force flow doesn't mean it's a waste of time. 

Who are you to judge people who put out verifiable material when you don't have the balls to put up one clip of yourself doing your invincible "VT".

From what I can gather you seem to have a personal problem with Alan Orr and his methods. Any chance you get to discredit him and you're there like a shot. I suspect he might have perhaps bested you in chi Sao or something at some point and ever since have been butt hurt about it. I think you are a pencil neck keyboard warrior who would sh$t himself if Alan or any of his people called you on the crap you spout face to face, But that can't happen right because no one knows who you are, hence the reluctance to put up any clips in case you get recognized...


----------



## LFJ (Mar 21, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> From what I've read from the pair of you I would have to say that no, you do not understand physics and the material sciences and the way forces operate on the body internally and how they can be best managed.



Really? From what you've read from me? 

I haven't ever discussed this topic in any detail on the forums. So just what are you talking about? 

That I say it's a basic concept? Do you think calling it basic diminishes the science of it or something?


----------



## LFJ (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> My fighters have had over 200 MMA fights and I train professional fighters with the skills we teach. Training does not look like application as the platform changes. But the skills are expressed. Just because they can't see it or understand it doesn't mean anything.



Well, Alan, you say in your videos that the "bridge" skill of unbalancing the opponent and opening them up for strikes as you show in _chi-sau_ is force flow in use and directly applicable to free fighting. 

One need not understand it or see force flowing through you in order to see its effect on the opponent's body as they're bounced around. Yet, when asked for a timestamp from any of your team's numerous fight videos, you can't do it. 

You either avoid the question, call insulting names, or invite people to feel it in person, which doesn't actually demonstrate that it works in free fighting.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 21, 2016)

*Admin's Note:*

Please keep this discussion civil.  While attacking someone's argument is generally tolerated, attacking someone personally is not.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> Providing key words is very much like providing a bibliography; its for you to follow up and not for me to educate you more fully. The choice is yours, either read up or don't.



You haven't said anything that seems beyond normal everyday VT, and therefore no reason to get the physics text books out.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 21, 2016)

You guys are all going offtopic.

Question is, what is the value of learning Force Flow rather than practising and training other areas such as body structure and power generation? Everyone doing WC will learn things about force vectors and how storing/transferring energy as well as directing it to floor just to have an equal force move back through the body and into your opponent.

This is simple physics which would require a masters degree to explain. Easily understood but hard, or near impossible, to do math on.

But what does Force Flow add that those other elements don't? What is it besides what I just wrote? I am am interested in what people consider Force Flow to be.

One can argue, just train it and learn. But this is something which HS said will require time and patience to learn properly. Not by reading a book. Do we want to spend all that time and money chasing something when it is unknown what it will give us, unknown how it works, unknown when it is applicable, unknown what it is and unknown if not already taught and learnt through normal training.

My answer is 'I need more information'.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> No GUYB you don't automatically obtain these skills by just practicing "VT". If that was the case do you really think the amount of material produced by Alan et al would be necessary?



I have seen no reason to suppose that it is necessary beyond what the normal VT system entrains.

Some specifics would be helpful.



SaulGoodman said:


> These force flow skills as I understand them are CONCIOUSLY trained and refined over a period of time. Your simplistic views of force flow are ignorant and insulting to people who invest time, money and effort to obtain these skills.



How would you know that as someone who has not trained these skills? The way force flow is presented is contradictory and needs further explanation.



SaulGoodman said:


> Just because you can't personally see any worth or validity in training force flow doesn't mean it's a waste of time.



I don't say that I can't see any worth in it. I don't yet see anything in force flow that is different or better than what is trained in the normal VT system. I think that VT is worth learning, certainly.



SaulGoodman said:


> Who are you to judge people who put out verifiable material



I am not putting out public videos advertising a method which is an imporovement on conventional VT. When I do so then feel free to ask questions.



> you don't have the balls to put up one clip of yourself doing your invincible "VT"



Have you put up videos of your VT?



SaulGoodman said:


> I suspect he might have perhaps bested you in chi Sao or something at some point and ever since have been butt hurt about it. I think you are a pencil neck keyboard warrior who would sh$t himself if Alan or any of his people called you on the crap you spout face to face, But that can't happen right because no one knows who you are, hence the reluctance to put up any clips in case you get recognized



This is just trolling. Please stop.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Question is, what is the value of learning Force Flow rather than practising and training other areas such as body structure and power generation? Everyone doing WC will learn things about force vectors and how storing/transferring energy as well as directing it to floor just to have an equal force move back through the body and into your opponent.
> 
> This is simple physics which would require a masters degree to explain. Easily understood but hard, or near impossible, to do math on.
> 
> But what does Force Flow add that those other elements don't? What is it besides what I just wrote? I am am interested in what people consider Force Flow to be.



I agree, this is the question


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Really? From what you've read from me?
> 
> I haven't ever discussed this topic in any detail on the forums. So just what are you talking about?
> 
> That I say it's a basic concept? Do you think calling it basic diminishes the science of it or something?



It is basic in that it is fundamental and takes a long time to develop. This is why it is practiced so much in VT


----------



## guy b. (Mar 21, 2016)

JustSomePerson said:


> In my view it only seems esoteric and profound to you becasue you perhaps refuse to take a closer look at the physics a la 'western' thought and have even refused to let people experienced with what Alan teaches, show you in person in a friendly manner.



People have shown me what they understand of it in a friendly manner.



> Like some certain others it is my view that you are intentionally disruptive and that this is shown across many a different web forum over many years. I remember reading some mma forums a long time ago and found that posters there were the same as others on the KFO forums and that in that thread on the mma forums, they discussed how best to disrupt 'wing chun' forums and to intentionally sully any meaningful and constructive dialogue.



Seems an odd thing to say. I have no knowledge of this.



> It could just be, however, a similar agenda but from the perspective of lineage bashing and for the sake of agendas there. I will say no more on this matter beyond noting that your posting behaviour matches others and that it is perhaps the case that behind the scenes you work in cahoots to sully meaningful debate by offering up intentional disruptive obstinance. It is a shame that just as a certain group brought KFO forums to a disruptive end, that that group has then targeted these forums with a similar aim in mind.



I have nothing to do with any such group. Do you wish to take the matter up with the moderators?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> So its not simple as they think.


 This is internal martial technique in a nutshell. People often simplify it so that others can get a general idea but there's like 1000 internal things going on at once but on the outside it looks like nothing much is happening.  When my internal skill set kicks in (because I can't always get it to work at will) it's like I get a visual of everything that is going on with my opponent. His stance, his movement, what strike is going to come next based on how his body is balanced or not balanced. Sometimes it's almost like seeing with through my hands.  It's a strange sense of awareness that makes it seem like 5 seconds have passed, but in reality your body is picking up tons of information in less than a second.   Now if people tired to explain the actual experience of being able to use an internal martial art technique then they will begin to sound crazy, sort of like what I sounded like explaining my own experiences just then.

I don't think internal martial art techniques can be fully explained by science and mechanics.  I don't know what biological science would explain "seeing with your hands"  descriptions or time slowing down descriptions.  In the past I know some contributed the "slow down in time" effect to adrenaline, but in martial arts, these moments come during relaxed and calm states, which is totally different than being pumped up with energy.   

I agree 100% that it's not simple as showing force vector. There's just too much that goes on in internal martial arts before the push or punch is thrown.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> NO I did not take anything from Tai Chi at all. Why do people guess all the time?


Because it looks exactly like Tai Chi (the fighting systems not the exercise stuff).  I'm looking at what you do and I see my Tai Chi drills that we do in class.  Not only that I'm seeing and hearing some of the same things that my Sifu explained in Tai Chi.  This is why I guess, because it looks like what I train.

At one point your demo looked like Tai Chi push hands.  If you didn't take it from Tai Chi then you have discovered, on your own, the same concepts of Tai Chi and most internal martial arts, which would then explain why it looks like "bad Tai Chi" to me.  I'm not saying it's "bad WC"  but it would qualify as bad "Tai Chi."

If you don't take Tai Chi or some type of internal martial art then I would highly recommend it, because it will help you get a deeper understanding of the "force flow" that you speak of and I think it will actually help you deliver your "force flow" better.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to fight with Tai Chi techniques. I'm saying to use your deeper understanding of how Tai Chi directs force to help you with your "force flow" concepts.  Because from where I'm sitting with Tai Chi experience that's exactly where it looks like you are going naturally with your "force flow."  

If you have never taken Tai Chi or an Internal martial art system then you have no idea of how closely what you are doing looks like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know Alan but know of several of his fighters and I especially know Pete Irving who runs one of Alan's fight teams and credits Alan as a mentor. Pete first fought on the very first show we did in 2003, as well as the first Pride & Glory show we in again in 2003, he's fought on our shows twice since against good opponents in 2005 and 2006, He's since become an extremely knowledgeable and serious instructor so if he says Alan is good at what he does I'm positive he is.


For me I don't care about good or how many fights someone has done.  That's besides the point.  I'm more after the exchange of knowledge and understanding.  Sometimes what people know in their martial art will help you learn more about your own martial art and why things are done certain ways.  I think trying to define good and bad, fights or no fights, tends to throw the topic off.  In my opinion I wouldn't use it as a validation unless someone is specifically saying that they are using a specific technique in a free sparring or fighting scenario.  Me winning a fight doesn't necessarily mean that I used a specific technique or concept to win the fights.

This is why I usually show a sparring video and point out a technique that was used vs full sparring video of me just getting the best out of someone.  I don't have any competitive fighting videos as of yet, but hopefully next year, at the age of 44, I'll have some lei tai videos of me using my techniques against people who are younger and faster than me.


----------



## geezer (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> ??? My guys have had over 200 fights and I teach professional fighters and my skill holds up very well under pressure. What more do you need?



I don't need anything more, Alan. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with what you've accomplished, and I think it's contributed a lot to all WC regardless of lineage.

My comments were directed at "Jow Ga", who frankly is a bit more on the "traditional" side than I am. Also, he is not a WC guy. Sorry if I gave offense. Not intended.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 21, 2016)

Guy B,

I think in terms of actual fighting, sure, there are things that should be prioritized e.g. fitness, sparring, technique, conditioning etc. 

But I feel that as we get older, the above things start to become harder and harder to maintain and rely on. One of the advantages of an internal approach is that your power increases with age along with your understanding and refinement. 

I would say that while you may think these are basic concepts, they are really not. They have to be taught, refined and practiced. I have found many other WC schools (that I have met and trained at) have a limited understanding of them which affects their power and structure (usually causing them to speed up to compensate). A lot of WC say they are doing these same things but are not. Plus it just has to be something that the school itself is focussed on to get good at, right? If a schools focus is body mechanics and force, they are going to get really good at it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> Thank you for your interest. I'm in NZ now. You should make a visit. I am based in Tauranga.
> 
> Force flow is one skill in layers of many others. Some on the forums are upset as they do not understand it so they are looking for holes and making statements on what they think, which is very limited.
> 
> ...


OMG.. that was a rough video to watch. I'm going to get him some happy pills. lol.  I have no idea of what "Reaction force injection means"  what he said didn't make sense to me.  This is what I understand when stepping.  One foot is always rooted while the moving foot follows steps 1- 4.
1st Step:
2nd Root:
3rd:  Maintain root, Release Root, or Drive Power from Root.
4th: Repeat Step #1

31:40 - 32:00 gives me my answer.  He said that he didn't invent it, and that he just filled in the gaps, which is what I was thinking all along. He also mentions that he read a lot of books which is different from actually training the technique from someone who understands the technique. I didn't hear him say that he trained in an "internal fighting system" that really focuses on internal methods and techniques that deal with force.  The saying that has been thrown around for years is that there is really no internal or external fighting system because all systems have both.  The only thing is that the "internal" fighting systems are more aware of it and actually have techniques built around it.  I've taken Tai Chi from my Sifu and I tried to learn from a book (before I met him). The one thing that I learned is that you can't learn and understand and apply internal techniques, methods, and concepts correctly without someone who knows it, to fill in the gaps that aren't covered by a video or by a book.

Until you get a solid understanding, learning from a book or a video is not going to be a good way to learn.  Wing Chun's famous inch power is not unique to Wing Chun. It's also present in other fighting systems.  I showed a video of me getting collapsed from punches that were less dramatic than the Wing Chun punch, and it took me a month to heal from those punches.  

When he made the statement about Tai Chi 36:05 "having to shift thew weight from one leg to the other"  or "always put the weight on one leg"  tells me that he hasn't studied Tai Chi before nor does he understand some of the other systems out there.  In an internal fighting system I can drive energy through my root and shift my weight without shifting the weight in my legs.  This is especially true in Tai Chi and any student who has done Tai Chi Push hands quickly understands why sifting the weight as he describes is bad.  A person who is good with sensing can pick up that shift in your balance and they will exploit it.  If he actually studied Tai Chi from a knowledge teacher that knows how to use it to fight, then he would have never made that statement.  If I only watch videos, instructional videos, and read books about Tai Chi then it would be easy for me to make such an assumption.

Thank you for posting the video.  It has answered all of my questions about "Force Flow"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> But I feel that as we get older, the above things start to become harder and harder to maintain and rely on. One of the advantages of an internal approach is that your power increases with age along with your understanding and refinement.


  This is why Tai Chi is so cruel and unforgiving with it's techniques. From what I know of Internal Martial arts arts the plan and the goal is the same.  I'm going to use my strength to attack my opponent at their weakest points.  The weak points aren't always weak, but depending on what the attacker is doing that action has structural weak points. Internal Martial arts specializes in stuff like that.  I'm not saying external arts can't do the same thing, but they don't do it to the extent that Internal martial arts do it.

And before I get bashed lol.  I'm not saying internal martial arts is better, because internal techniques take a really long time in comparison to external martial arts.  A person would have advanced 5 levels of WC before I could advance one level in Tai Chi.


----------



## mograph (Mar 21, 2016)

Naah. Deleted.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me I don't care about good or how many fights someone has done.



You may not, but establishing credentials is always good, if someone says he has trained fighters and has, it set the parameters for their truth telling. It has nothing to do with actual fighting but establishes character


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> You may not, but establishing credentials is always good, if someone says he has trained fighters and has, it set the parameters for their truth telling. It has nothing to do with actual fighting but establishes character


With stuff like this, the truth will come out when the technique is demonstrated in free sparring or actual fighting provided that the person knows what to look for when analyzing the fight.   The other way which is even more reliable is to experience it both from the receiving end and from the giving end.

As far as training fighters, that's only going to establish the truth of if he's a good trainer and coach.

Too many discussions on Martial Talk have been about who is telling the truth and who isn't.  Very few try to actually understand what is being said.  I remember my first months were spent showing videos of me doing things that people said couldn't be done.  Even after I showed the videos people didn't try to understand what I was saying in the first place which wasn't about whether or not I could do what I claimed.

What would have been really nice would be if Alan were to analyze one of his free sparring or fight videos and point out when during the fight that "force flow" came into play and how it came into play. Hopefully I'll be able to get that opportunity soon.  If he's lying then the lie will come out on it's own through friendly discussion, if he's not lying then that to will come out too.  I don't need proof of truth when I'm seeking understanding.  By me seeking to understand topics. Issues move from Truth vs False  to Correct (efficient) vs Incorrect (inefficient methods).

Who he trains and how many he trains has no bearing on what what I'm trying to learn about my own style by understanding how his style works and how he's trying to apply internal martial art techniques.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 21, 2016)

Alan has done a video where he breaks it down with Ale. Its just not for public.

I have learnt the basics of force flow and its helped me a lot. The only people who talk rubbish about it are people who have never met Alan. You will see and feel it when you do.

I did WC for a long time before I met Alan too. 

Why people so obsessed with proving that Hendrick is wrong and this and that ? If you dont like what he does then just ignore it ? If you think your WC/VT has all it needs then why all the fuss over force flow ? You got your complete package so shouldn't you be happy with that ?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 21, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Alan has done a video where he breaks it down with Ale. Its just not for public.
> 
> I have learnt the basics of force flow and its helped me a lot. The only people who talk rubbish about it are people who have never met Alan. You will see and feel it when you do.
> 
> ...



You are missing the point, noone knows whether or not WC has Force Flow in their training already. You know why? Only those training Force Flow knows what it is, the rest have no clue whatsoever and never will have. And those training Force Flow are most likely not training body structure and power generation the same way. Well at least in my belief... you want to know why? The Force Flow replaces that training. If it does not, then please tell me what it is intended to do.

I have seen Force Flow used to unroot people in chi sau. Very nice to have technique, but I have seen my sifu unroot people near daily also. Nothing mystical about it as he taught us the key is simple. Master your basics, eventually you can master your opponent. 

EDIT: And this has nothing to do with Alan, I like the stuff he has done for WC. One day I would not mind training with him or attend his class. But question whether or not I would want to spend that time learning Force Flow? Well I am still in serious doubts.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 21, 2016)

Phobius said:


> You are missing the point, noone knows whether or not WC has Force Flow in their training already. You know why? Only those training Force Flow knows what it is, the rest have no clue whatsoever and never will have. And those training Force Flow are most likely not training body structure and power generation the same way. Well at least in my belief... you want to know why? The Force Flow replaces that training. If it does not, then please tell me what it is intended to do.
> 
> I have seen Force Flow used to unroot people in chi sau. Very nice to have technique, but I have seen my sifu unroot people near daily also. Nothing mystical about it as he taught us the key is simple. Master your basics, eventually you can master your opponent.
> 
> EDIT: And this has nothing to do with Alan, I like the stuff he has done for WC. One day I would not mind training with him or attend his class. But question whether or not I would want to spend that time learning Force Flow? Well I am still in serious doubts.



I guess my old school had zero force flow. From what iv seen of CST they have there own way of " force flow" where it does seem a bit more like bouncing people away and  producing a ton of power ( I could be mistaken, Wing Chun Auckland could comment on that ). What iv seen of WSL they use there hip and elbow connection with a solid stance and footwork, got structure but I guess that does not count as force flow. Ip chun/Ching/ seem to have zero structure but are very focused on Yiu ma shifting to get power,but my old teacher for that style may have just not been of the best standard like he made us believe. There were bits of sink and rise in that lineage but it wasn't explained properly at all and I dont think the sifu actually had in-depth knowledge about it.

I dont know where people are getting its mystical and stuff ? Though I dont read much of Hendriks or Sergios stuff and only learn from Alan so maybe the other guys make it mystical ? Alan has never explained it to me like its some magical force that bounces people away. Iv only learned the basics. Theres sink, press, rise, spit , swallow ( not sure if thats part of force flow)  and you got counter weighting, pulsing force, reaction force, linking and delinking. Using the bows or joints of the body to be able to load/take force. There is a lot too it. Its not some magical power that lets you blow people away with your chi.

It gives you better structure and power in your movements and allows you to take on stronger people. Its allowed me to be able to take the force of someones punches with my hand techniques without buckling under pressure. I do not think I would be able to spar like I do now without learning all this stuff from Alan.

If possible just meet Alan and glove up and spar with him and also chi sao. You will see what is is and if you have it.

Also im pretty sure Alan and Robert Chu knew there body structure stuff before Hendrik got involved. 6 core elements is a way to break it down into layers to understand better.

I cannot put words in Alans mouth ( with everything I say that mentions him) but Id imagine he is tired of trying to explain over and over and over to random people on the internet who are just looking for points to criticize. Why do that when he has alot of students who are willing to listen and learn and train that he can put his time and effort into making them good and answering there questions, which he does well. Hopefully I have done his system some justice with this explanation.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Phobius said:


> You are missing the point, noone knows whether or not WC has Force Flow in their training already. You know why? Only those training Force Flow knows what it is, the rest have no clue whatsoever and never will have. And those training Force Flow are most likely not training body structure and power generation the same way. Well at least in my belief... you want to know why? The Force Flow replaces that training. If it does not, then please tell me what it is intended to do.
> 
> I have seen Force Flow used to unroot people in chi sau. Very nice to have technique, but I have seen my sifu unroot people near daily also. Nothing mystical about it as he taught us the key is simple. Master your basics, eventually you can master your opponent.
> 
> EDIT: And this has nothing to do with Alan, I like the stuff he has done for WC. One day I would not mind training with him or attend his class. But question whether or not I would want to spend that time learning Force Flow? Well I am still in serious doubts.


To be honest I think the term Force Flow is what's mucking things up.  I have never heard these concepts referred to as Force Flow until I started talking to you WC guys. lol.  When I look at some traditional WC techniques being performed, I see the same concepts that are being described as "Force Flow" but it has never been referred to as Force Flow.
For example: I see many WC practitioners advance like this.  My thought is that this stepping technique should be less about stepping and more about launching into the opponent over a short distance. This way you have the full weight going into a punch.  The reason I say this is because my non-Wing Chun system uses a similar stance but not movement.  In my system his stance would be a just a fighting stance.





Now before you close your mind watch this other video of him actually doing the movement a little faster.  Don't watch his hands watch his feet and the feet of his partner.  They aren't actually stepping, they are lifting their front leg and pushing off the back leg. The front leg isn't reaching out to pull forward. The front leg is lifting so that the rear leg can push force forward.





Once you are able to understand the movement then you should be able to generate force from the root without actually moving forward.

This was my original outsider's perception of what you guys understood about your system but it seems that I was totally wrong with that. I see that the concepts of generating energy and moving energy through the body to create force is something totally new.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> With stuff like this, the truth will come out when the technique is demonstrated in free sparring or actual fighting provided that the person knows what to look for when analyzing the fight.   The other way which is even more reliable is to experience it both from the receiving end and from the giving end.
> 
> As far as training fighters, that's only going to establish the truth of if he's a good trainer and coach.
> 
> ...




Wow, pardon me for breathing. I can see this thread joining the list of ones being locked, if you can't discuss something without attacking posters there's little point in people actually posting anything but I expect they will and it will be like a snake biting it's tail.
I'll leave you to this mess then.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> This was my original outsider's perception of what you guys understood about your system but it seems that I was totally wrong with that. I see that the concepts of generating energy and moving energy through the body to create force is something totally new.



This is basics for anyone learning WC. However since it is basics, it is not Force Flow. This is why there is a question as to what Force Flow really is.



dudewingchun said:


> If possible just meet Alan and glove up and spar with him and also chi sao. You will see what is is and if you have it.



I would love to and one day I might, but not all people are free to travel the world like that. There are certain stages of ones life where you have to remain where you live, I am at that point at this stage.



dudewingchun said:


> Also im pretty sure Alan and Robert Chu knew there body structure stuff before Hendrik got involved. 6 core elements is a way to break it down into layers to understand better.



Now THIS is the explanation I have been trying to receive for so long time. Can you believe it but you are the first person I ever hear trying to explain Force Flow without using words like "unique", "different", "new", "authentic" and so on. If Force Flow is not something new but rather a way to break it down to more understandable terms that can perhaps be taught without mastering techniques and realizing your own body with time, that would make it interesting.

Can Alan confirm or deny? I mean a simple Yes/No. No offense to dudewingchun but as he said he did not feel confident or was afraid of speaking about it incorrectly.



dudewingchun said:


> I cannot put words in Alans mouth ( with everything I say that mentions him) but Id imagine he is tired of trying to explain over and over and over to random people on the internet who are just looking for points to criticize. Why do that when he has alot of students who are willing to listen and learn and train that he can put his time and effort into making them good and answering there questions, which he does well. Hopefully I have done his system some justice with this explanation.



If he is tired that is sad, but I have not tired him. As such I feel myself free to ask questions. We can not judge all people by the words of a few, if we did we would go through our internet lives pissed off at everyone. Because lets face it, there are a lot of jerks on the net.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest I think the term Force Flow is what's mucking things up.  I have never heard these concepts referred to as Force Flow until I started talking to you WC guys. lol.  When I look at some traditional WC techniques being performed, I see the same concepts that are being described as "Force Flow" but it has never been referred to as Force Flow.
> For example: I see many WC practitioners advance like this.  My thought is that this stepping technique should be less about stepping and more about launching into the opponent over a short distance. This way you have the full weight going into a punch.  The reason I say this is because my non-Wing Chun system uses a similar stance but not movement.  In my system his stance would be a just a fighting stance.
> 
> 
> ...


If "master Wong" is your main point of reference no wonder you are confused.


----------



## geezer (Mar 21, 2016)

Jow Ga actually doesn't do so badly for somebody on the outside looking in. He's not a chunner you know. Me I can never understand squat unless I am taught it in person, ...many times over. Then sometimes words help. But not until an instructor really shows me physically as well.

So, I'll wait till Alan decides to visit the Western U.S. again (I think I read he's been out here before?). Hopefully I'll be able to attend a seminar and get some meaningful sense of what's going on. That's assuming he's willing to teach old people who just do this stuff out of love. Going on 61, I'll never be a fighter. More of a martial hobbyist  with an eye on self defense, that's all.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 21, 2016)

Also Alan is teaching  and training morning to night everyday. I dont think he has much time for forums. 

Would anyone here bother to argue and fully type out an explanation to random people on the net when you have a school to run and many students to teach who actually care and listen and you also have a ton of videos that explain the very thing you are typing to try explain? I wouldn't, I would make a comment here and there and would direct them to videos which actually show it been explained.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Wow, pardon me for breathing. I can see this thread joining the list of ones being locked, if you can't discuss something without attacking posters there's little point in people actually posting anything but I expect they will and it will be like a snake biting it's tail.
> I'll leave you to this mess then.


It wasn't an attack on you.  don't read it that that.


----------



## Tames D (Mar 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It wasn't an attack on you.  don't read it that that.


She can't help it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> If "master Wong" is your main point of reference no wonder you are confused.


I doesn't matter who I used because that forward step that you guys take regardless of who is showing it still has the same mechanics and still reminds me of generating force through movement of body.  I used Master Wong because he also does Tai Chi so he would understand the internal martial arts.  The guy in the video with low energy and Alan, to my knowledge have never stated that they trained in an internal martial arts.  The guy in the video with low energy).  Now we have 3 people who train WC, but only one has actual trained in an internal martial arts system, while the other 2 haven't.

In Jow Ga as well as Tai Chi learning how to do basic movements is the key foundation to learning how to apply internal techniques and methods of generating power.  This is the same with many striking arts, where first you learn your root and how to move. Then you learn how to generate internal power from that root.  If you don't learn how to properly use your stance or root your stance then you won't be able to generate internal power or as Alan calls Force Flow.  Without a good foundation of stance and movement of stance you won't be able to allow force to flow through or past you. "Your grow a tree from the roots" A weak root system will not allow a tree to bend or with the flow of the wind.
In Tai Chi Force is not just about receiving it's also about sending. Energy in the form of motion is sent through the legs, into the arms, and out of the hand or fist.  Think of a car that is moving forward and suddenly stops. Any thing that not secure will continue to go forward. Our bodies works the same way.  If we start forward motion and then it suddenly stops what every is most relaxed will continue to go forward.   If you arm and fist is relax then that energy flows into your arm.  If you know how to control the flow of that forward motion then you can have that energy leave your fist and aid in generating a powerful hit.

If Master Wong is confused then so it this guy.









And this guy. Watch his footwork






They use the same concept that is known in internal fighting martial arts systems and in some external martial arts system. Forward motion adds to the power of the punch. I was taught to generate the energy from the root, move it forward, and have it exit my fist fist. Even if I don't step forward can still move the mass of my body forward. So when I hit someone it's not just the energy from my arm sending my fist.  It is the energy from 200 pounds moving forward and exiting out of my fist.

When I see Wing Chun forms, being performed. This is what I see.  If I'm wrong then I don't mind being wrong and I'll just accept that I'm wrong with my assumptions as I don't train WC.  I can't argue that I'm Right or seeing something correctly when I don't practice the system.  I can't only analyze the root and try to understand what is being generated, how it's generating force and how it is dealing with incoming force.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> Going on 61, I'll never be a fighter. More of a martial hobbyist with an eye on self defense, that's all.


I don't know if this true or not, but I do know that in most martial arts no one wants to fight the old guy that has years of experience.  Correction. No on in their right mind wants to fight the old guys with experience except for the young guys who think they know everything. lol.  The fact that you even said that would make me be very careful around you. lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 21, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Also Alan is teaching  and training morning to night everyday. I dont think he has much time for forums.
> 
> Would anyone here bother to argue and fully type out an explanation to random people on the net when you have a school to run and many students to teach who actually care and listen and you also have a ton of videos that explain the very thing you are typing to try explain? I wouldn't, I would make a comment here and there and would direct them to videos which actually show it been explained.


I wouldn't do it if I know what I do works.  In terms of internal arts, it's already difficult to explain even when you have someone physically teaching  you.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 21, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I cannot put words in Alans mouth ( with everything I say that mentions him) but Id imagine he is tired of trying to explain over and over and over to random people on the internet who are just looking for points to criticize.



Over and over and over?

He has never answered the question of where the opponents being bounced around by unbalancing "bridge" skills are in his team's many fight videos.

Instead of simply pointing to a timestamp, he uses many copouts like calling us "blind" and "fools" or just saying we can't understand it.

He has never not dodged this question.

Asking where it is in public fight videos is criticizing it? Only if it's not actually there!


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 22, 2016)

What has Bruce Lee got to do with this discussion? In the "1 inch punch" clip his stance is in no way shape or form optimised to be able to utilise force flow. His hips are facing AWAY from the target and his bows look pretty locked to me, inhibiting correct force flow usage. Using forward momentum and speed to generate power is not force flow. I trained in Leung Ting system and EBMAS (both Boztepe systems) and I can assure you the mechanics are not the same as what Hendrik/Alan Orr is teaching. Using Bruce Lee as part of your argument is a bit desperate tbh.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It wasn't an attack on you.  don't read it that that.



I read it as someone being bad tempered and not reading posts actually, not an attack on me.
anyway there's way more important things happening at the moment that have my attention, Brussels has been attacked and many dead, I have many Belgian friends I have to see if they are alright. So I'll leave you to what is a very petty argument in comparison.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 22, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I read it as someone being bad tempered and not reading posts actually, not an attack on me.
> anyway there's way more important things happening at the moment that have my attention, Brussels has been attacked and many dead, I have many Belgian friends I have to see if they are alright. So I'll leave you to what is a very petty argument in comparison.


Hope everyone is safe Tez, horrible atrocity


----------



## guy b. (Mar 22, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Instead of simply pointing to a timestamp, he uses many copouts like calling us "blind" and "fools" or just saying we can't understand it.
> 
> He has never not dodged this question.



Agreed. If there is time for Alan to dismiss the lack of understanding and to issue challenges then there is time to answer a few questions about force flow and what it is training that can be seen in fighting videos from his team


----------



## geezer (Mar 22, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Agreed. If there is time for Alan to dismiss the lack of understanding and to issue challenges then there is time to answer a few questions about force flow and what it is training that can be seen in fighting videos from his team



But why would he bother. I haven't seen Philip Bayer on here defending his VT either. Or Emin Boztepe, or Augustine Fong, Hawkins Cheung, or Gary Lamb... Well known people who are busy with instructing and seminars generally don't hang out on forums a lot.

The very fact that _we_ do is probably a pretty good indication that although some of us may be good, but we sure aren't great.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 22, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I guess my old school had zero force flow. From what iv seen of CST they have there own way of " force flow" where it does seem a bit more like bouncing people away and producing a ton of power ( I could be mistaken, Wing Chun Auckland could comment on that ). What iv seen of WSL they use there hip and elbow connection with a solid stance and footwork, got structure but I guess that does not count as force flow. Ip chun/Ching/ seem to have zero structure but are very focused on Yiu ma shifting to get power,but my old teacher for that style may have just not been of the best standard like he made us believe. There were bits of sink and rise in that lineage but it wasn't explained properly at all and I dont think the sifu actually had in-depth knowledge about it.



Well yeah. While we don't tend to focus much on fighting aspects, once someone gets to a good level in CST they become pretty powerful. So with the advanced people I have trained with, there is not much you can do to them structurally. You can't move their arms or stance etc. But they can. When they punch through your structure or pull you down, there is a sudden jolt in your spine that feels awful as you buckle a little. At this point, your mind goes blank as you try to recover your balance.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 22, 2016)

geezer said:


> I haven't seen Philip Bayer on here defending his VT either. Or Emin Boztepe, or Augustine Fong, Hawkins Cheung, or Gary Lamb




I haven't seen them advertising their books and videos, or issuing challenge fights either.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2016)

geezer said:


> But why would he bother. I haven't seen Philip Bayer on here defending his VT either. Or Emin Boztepe, or Augustine Fong, Hawkins Cheung, or Gary Lamb... Well known people who are busy with instructing and seminars generally don't hang out on forums a lot.
> 
> The very fact that _we_ do is probably a pretty good indication that although some of us may be good, but we sure aren't great.



Nah some of us are great but retired with kids married and living away from home so we can do what we like when we like.


----------



## geezer (Mar 22, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I haven't seen them advertising their books and videos, or issuing challenge fights either.



No, Emin Boztepe would never, ever have issued a challenge to fight. 

Now here are some videos for sale by Gary Lam, oh and another by Emin:

Gary Lam Wing Chun DVDs from the Wong Shun Leung Method of Ving Tsun Kung-Fu.
Emin Boztepe - Combat Martial Arts DVD Vol 1 - Punching Techniques

BTW I think you totally played that "challenge" thing. I read Alan's post. An invitation to participate in sparring with some of his guys to check out what they know or can do ....in a school where sparring is a huge part of their daily training... that doesn't sound like a challenge to fight to me.

Guess maybe I'm just naïve.


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 22, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I haven't seen them advertising their books and





geezer said:


> No, Emin Boztepe would never, ever have issued a challenge to fight.
> 
> Now here are some videos for sale by Gary Lam, oh and another by Emin:
> 
> ...



Bang on, it was the offer of a spar, nothing more nothing less. Had he had the mettle to accept and wanted to upgrade the spar to a fight with Peter, I know who my money would have been on...


----------



## guy b. (Mar 22, 2016)

geezer said:


> I read Alan's post. An invitation to participate in sparring with some of his guys to check out what they know or can do



Alan was angry and said that I had insulted Peter Irving by talking about his level as an MMA fighter. In this context an invitation to spar with the person in question is never friendly. It was Alan's choice to take offence in a situation where he could have simply provided information. 

It is an example of exactly the logical fallacy highlighted by Mograph in the other thread. You should read that post with unbiased eyes. It is ok to critique a video clip posted on the forum. Doing so doesn't entail an obligation to fight the people involved.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 22, 2016)

*Admin's Note:*

Final warning: Those who fail to discuss things in a civil manner will be hit with warning points that can lead to the suspension or banning of the account.

Just as some advice, if you don't like what someone else has to say, you are certainly welcome to use the "Ignore" feature.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

geezer said:


> But why would he bother. I haven't seen Philip Bayer on here defending his VT either. Or Emin Boztepe, or Augustine Fong, Hawkins Cheung, or Gary Lamb... Well known people who are busy with instructing and seminars generally don't hang out on forums a lot.
> 
> The very fact that _we_ do is probably a pretty good indication that although some of us may be good, but we sure aren't great.



I disagree but I'm not gonna *X* your post and not say why...

Philipp actually used to be quite active on German language forums. Contrary to your post, people who eat, breathe, and live VT are very enthusiastic about it, and between training they might enjoy discussing it on forums.

So, it's a little silly to think (all) people who post on forums must talk more than they train, or that they can't be great at what they do just because they aren't too high up in the sky to mingle with the normal folk online.

It's also silly to think that if someone doesn't post much on forums it's because they are too busy being well-known and great.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

I believe Michael Kurth still posts quite a bit on German language forums.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> *Alan was angry and said that I had insulted Peter Irving by talking about his level as* *an MMA fighter.* *In this context an invitation to spar with the person in question is never friendly.* It was Alan's choice to take offence in a situation where he could have simply provided information.
> 
> It is an example of exactly the logical fallacy highlighted by Mograph in the other thread. You should read that post with unbiased eyes. It is ok to critique a video clip posted on the forum. Doing so doesn't entail an obligation to fight the people involved.




Where was this posted?  I can tell you now categorically that Pete wouldn't turn a spar into a fight and he wouldn't have a fight with someone over something that was said on the internet. Pete is a well known and well respected MMA fighter and now trainer here in the UK if you get a chance to spar with him take it, it won't turn into a fight and you will come away having learnt a lot.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I can tell you now categorically that Pete wouldn't turn a spar into a fight and he wouldn't have a fight with someone over something that was said on the internet. Pete is a well known and well respected MMA fighter and now trainer here in the UK if you get a chance to spar with him take it, it won't turn into a fight and you will come away having learnt a lot.



I would happily train with Peter Irving without Alan Orr's involvement. just as I have done with others in the UK. I am sure that he has a lot of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately this was not what happened. 

Read Mograph's post on the other thread for the fallacy inherent in Alan's position. He is creating fuss and avoiding the question for some reason. I have little interest in continuing to ask about something that is never likely to be answered.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

Give Alan the benefit of the doubt. Trying to show in hindsight where something exists that is not a technique but rather a thing you train into your every fiber is very hard to do. Especially for older videos when you no longer recall the exact feeling in your body.

My concern is still that Force Flow benefits are undefined. Noone has a clear understanding of what is expected outcome of Force Flow (I mean a better answer than it being a bit better at same thing as what people train today because I am a believer in evolution and do not think people have not already evolved what is so well practised every day)

Best answer I have heard so far is that Force Flow is not about something new, but rather a way to break it into parts that are more easily understood and trained. If so everyone may have what the goal of Force flow is, but not all people have it. Just hoping someone with more insight can confirm this.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I would happily train with Peter Irving without Alan Orr's involvement. just as I have done with others in the UK. I am sure that he has a lot of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately this was not what happened.
> 
> Read Mograph's post on the other thread for the fallacy inherent in Alan's position. He is creating fuss and avoiding the question for some reason. I have little interest in continuing to ask about something that is never likely to be answered.



I can arrange for you to train with Ian 'The Machine' Freeman. 



I hope you guys know that 'Force Flow' sounds like a sink unblocker.................... ok I'm going now.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I can arrange for you to train with Ian 'The Machine' Freeman.



You seem to want me to get hurt for some reason? Do you also feel that I offended the good name of Peter Irving?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You seem to want me to get hurt for some reason? Do you also feel that I offended the good name of Peter Irving?




ROFL. The Machine can be a pussy cat as long as you don't upset him  and Pete can look after his own good name. I do remember Ian's face when he first saw Pete though, it was wtf! Pete was a skinny kid with a spiky Mohican hair cut, tattered jeans with a sort of tartan loincloth over the top. We thought he was having a laugh. He fought Ian Butlin ( amateur fight), lost but Ian has a good background in boxing, he's into promoting bare knuckle fights now. Ian's brother Dave and Andy fought on there too. Gav Bradley who sadly died not long ago fought as did one of our students Chris in the junior kick boxing section who was killed in Afghanistan. 
A lot of memories now.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Give Alan the benefit of the doubt. Trying to show in hindsight where something exists that is not a technique but rather a thing you train into your every fiber is very hard to do. Especially for older videos when you no longer recall the exact feeling in your body.





Why do you guys keep ignoring the fact that Alan has demonstrated a visible effect on the opponent's balance by control through the arms?

Just look for the effect on the opponent. That's something easily seen and pointed to in a video if it ever actually happens.



> Noone has a clear understanding of what is expected outcome of Force Flow



Alan shows a direct application of affecting the opponent's balance and opening them up for strikes.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Why do you guys keep ignoring the fact that Alan has demonstrated a visible effect on the opponent's balance by control through the arms?
> 
> Just look for the effect on the opponent. That's something easily seen and pointed to in a video if it ever actually happens.



Actually no. He has demonstrated and effect in chi-sau context. Have you gotten any confirmation that this is the same effect expected in actual sparring or fighting? I have not heard anything of that sort, assumptions are not my way in this matter.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Pete can look after his own good name



That's what I would have thought. 



Tez3 said:


> He fought Ian Butlin ( amateur fight), lost but Ian has a good background in boxing, he's into promoting bare knuckle fights now. Ian's brother Dave and Andy fought on there too. Gav Bradley who sadly died not long ago fought as did one of our students Chris in the junior kick boxing section who was killed in Afghanistan.
> A lot of memories now.



Quannum a good place to train


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Alan shows a direct application of affecting the opponent's balance and opening them up for strikes.



I am unsure if it is supposed to be applied directly like this in fighting. I think it was KPM who said so.

Alan didn't deny it, and I remember the video clip he showed had him bouncing the girl into the cage. So I would say on balance of probability that it is intended to be used in this way.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

He talks about it being directly applicable in unbalancing the opponent and opening them up for strikes. This is exactly what he shows when demoing it gloved up and speaking in context of free fighting.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I remember the video clip he showed had him bouncing the girl into the cage.



 that sounds SO wrong!


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> He talks about it being directly applicable in unbalancing the opponent and opening them up for strikes. This is exactly what he shows when demoing it gloved up and speaking in context of free fighting.



So then what are you asking for? If he demonstrated it already in a video?

IF you want to see it in another video, you first need to know whether or not that other video the same end result can be expected. It might not be that Force Flow only does this, or that this is what Force Flow means but rather be a visible effect in some scenarios of Force Flow.

We need more information before we can even say or request anything.

Good body structure can allow you to bounce people around in training/sparring context. Does not mean this is the expected outcome of body structure but more of an effect of it in a certain training environment.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

He says it's directly applicable that way in free fighting.

I just asked where it has happened in any of his team's many fight videos.

A simple timestamp will do if it has ever worked.


----------



## geezer (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I disagree but I'm not gonna *X* your post and not say why...



LFJ, I appreciate your response. I agree that just hitting the "disagree" button does nothing to inform or correct. And I did not know that PB was active on forums... German Language or otherwise.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> So then what are you asking for? If he demonstrated it already in a video?



Assuming LFJ is correct about what Alan said regarding applicability to fighting (I can't remember), then it is quite reasonable to ask to see where it has been used in fighting. Alan is demoing it in his clips, not using it in a fight.


----------



## geezer (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Assuming LFJ is correct about what Alan said regarding applicability to fighting (I can't remember), then it is quite reasonable to ask to see where it has been used in fighting. Alan is demoing it in his clips, not using it in a fight.



Frankly, it sounds like he doesn't want to be bothered. He's busy and what is said on this forum probably isn't very important to him.

For myself, I see that force flow stuff looking like it would be very applicable as you get in close toward the clinch, and less applicable at a longer range of boxing. Or at least less visible. Just guessing, really.

Anyway, a lot of Alan's sparring clips show his fighter's at that longer range. So you wouldn't expect to see that balance control stuff so much. Doesn't mean it isn't useful. And that's about all you can do with _words_. To really know what it's about, you have to cross bridges and feel what it's all about. In other words, taking a seminar or meeting up with Alan or some of his better guys.


----------



## JPinAZ (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Actually no. He has demonstrated and effect in chi-sau context. Have you gotten any confirmation that this is the same effect expected in actual sparring or fighting? I have not heard anything of that sort, assumptions are not my way in this matter.



Only point I'll make in this mess - if something (anything) doesn't have the same effect in actual sparring or fighting and only works in demo or a fixed/controlled drilling format, then there isn't really much benefit in training it, or promoting it. At that point, you're only selling parlor tricks.

So, if this isn't the case with Alan, the same or similar effects he shows in his controlled demos
should be easily identified in his students' actual fight clips. It should be rather easy for him to point out. Unless he is the only guy this stuff really works for... 

* and yes, Alan is pretty active on forums to date, both promoting his art/books/videos, as well as calling people names lol. So it's not that he's 'too busy'. Hopefully he'll chime back in, post up some of the clips where his fighters are doing what he does in the videos and put this to bed..


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 23, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> Only point I'll make in this mess - if something (anything) doesn't have the same effect in actual sparring or fighting and only works in demo or a fixed/controlled drilling format, then there isn't really much benefit in training it, or promoting it. At that point, you're only selling parlor tricks.
> 
> So, if this isn't the case with Alan, the same or similar effects he shows in his controlled demos
> should be easily identified in his students' actual fight clips. It should be rather easy for him to point out. Unless he is the only guy this stuff really works for...
> ...



The only time he is on is late at night NZ time. He runs a school, is there morning till 8-9 pm, is in the process of changing locations and has a student fighting this weekend. He is busy.

I can see the stuff hes teaching when I watch the fights. I dont expect to be able to bounce around people who train to fight, but it gives me a good advantage in the clinch especially, even offsetting someone a little bit with force flow stuff opens up opportunities to strike or get better positioning,when you are able to adjust to minute changes in pressure and redirect force in the position, it helps, you can control the clinch, for people who are training for mma this is perfect when against the cage also. Ale in her fight pretty much controlled the girl in the clinch the whole fight and she won.

What are you guys looking for ? as soon as one of his fighters touch there opponents they are going to be flying away ?

Please link me to videos of all your guys live demos and fights that show all your stuff ?? I guess I wont get any links because there are none. The VT guys have zero apart from PB doing chi sao against his own students and shawn obasi. The Michael Kurth videos are good, but he is obviously training with someone who does VT aswell.

The only person im aware of who trains fighters apart from Alan is that Mark Hobbs guy from Lun Gai wing chun at KFA.

Im also going to take leave from this forum. Joined to learn more about different lineages, I have achieved that goal and dont need to learn much more. Just politics now.. everything wing chun whether it be this forum or the facebook forum ends up been petty arguments. Especially the facebook one. A bunch of grown men who practice a fighting art, arguing like high school kids and then when fighting( which we practice our art for hours & hours for) actually gets brought up they make a big deal about it like its the last thing they want to do ?


----------



## SaulGoodman (Mar 23, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> The only time he is on is late at night NZ time. He runs a school, is there morning till 8-9 pm, is in the process of changing locations and has a student fighting this weekend. He is busy.
> 
> I can see the stuff hes teaching when I watch the fights. I dont expect to be able to bounce around people who train to fight, but it gives me a good advantage in the clinch especially, even offsetting someone a little bit with force flow stuff opens up opportunities to strike or get better positioning,when you are able to adjust to minute changes in pressure and redirect force in the position, it helps, you can control the clinch, for people who are training for mma this is perfect when against the cage also. Ale in her fight pretty much controlled the girl in the clinch the whole fight and she won.
> 
> ...


For whatever reason, people are expecting demo results in real time application. Demos are not fighting, they are there to give the uninitiated a general overview of how something might work. Regardless of system, real fights/full contact matches never look like martial arts demos, no super clean tecniques, it tends to get scruffy. I don't recall Alan ever saying that force flow skills equate to effortlessly bouncing people around a cage whilst being able to easily punch them into oblivion. Force flow as I understand it isnt just about "bouncing people". It's an engine that allows striking power to be generated, it allows the practitioner to be able to absorb force efficiently through the bows of the body, it's many things. I believe DudeWingChun has hands on force flow experience so can correct me where necessary. I'm not posting anymore on this subject/forum as it just seems to get incredibly argumentative here in every thread. This place is way too stressful. Hope it doesn't end up like the kung fu magazine forum, it seems the same individuals who contributed to derailing threads there are alive and kicking here.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 24, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> The only person im aware of who trains fighters apart from Alan is that Mark Hobbs guy from Lun Gai wing chun at KFA.



Sport fighters, you mean.



SaulGoodman said:


> For whatever reason, people are expecting demo results in real time application.



Simple reason, Alan demos something in _chi-sau_, says it's directly applicable in free fighting, gloves up and demos how it's supposed to work.

But so far, it's still just theory as far as I can tell, because he won't (can't?) point to a timestamp where it has worked in any of his team's fights.

Force flow may have more layers and applications, but this unbalancing "bridge" skill is one he demos and says is directly applicable. That's what I'm waiting to see show up in their fights.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2016)

SaulGoodman said:


> Bang on, it was the offer of a spar, nothing more nothing less. Had he had the mettle to accept and wanted to upgrade the spar to a fight with Peter, I know who my money would have been on...



It would have been a fight. You would be nuts to think that would ever have been sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2016)

Alan Orr said:


> ??? My guys have had over 200 fights and I teach professional fighters and my skill holds up very well under pressure. What more do you need?



Could that also be due to conventional training. Like cardio strength or good basic technique?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It would have been a fight. You would be nuts to think that would ever have been sparring.





drop bear said:


> Could that also be due to conventional training. Like cardio strength or good basic technique?



Great to see some common sense on the forum


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It would have been a fight. You would be nuts to think that would ever have been sparring.



As you don't know Pete and I do, I can safely say you are wrong.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> As you don't know Pete and I do, I can safely say you are wrong.



And as i dont know you............


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And as i dont know you............



thank goodness for small mercies .....


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 25, 2016)

I know a lot has been said, but something like this 'force flow' will not just be an application of bouncing people back. It will be in every technique. It is a type of engine. So the result in sparing or fighting may not only be just that you control balance it maybe:
1. Increased knock out power
2. Clinch control
3. Clinch control / pressure against the cage
4. Throwing
5. Slight off balancing forward or back to set up a big hit. 
6. Stronger less movable arm structures (it's scarey when you spar or roll with someone who has this)

It will be doing all the same things as a regular fighter, but with a more solid base and foundation of balance and power behind it.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Mar 25, 2016)

As far as clinch control against the cage goes, there is an excellent video of one of his female fighters, absolutely dominating her opponent in the cage. So this there is a real science of body control here. To keep someone pressed up against the cage like that and be able to hit her without getting many hits returned means she is pressing her weight into the opponent in a specific way probably using the ground as support. I would imagine she would also be using much less energy to do that. This is a real application of wing chun in motion cause the opponent is tied up and can't hit back effectively.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> As far as clinch control against the cage goes, there is an excellent video of one of his female fighters, absolutely dominating her opponent in the cage. So this there is a real science of body control here. To keep someone pressed up against the cage like that and be able to hit her without getting many hits returned means she is pressing her weight into the opponent in a specific way probably using the ground as support. I would imagine she would also be using much less energy to do that. This is a real application of wing chun in motion cause the opponent is tied up and can't hit back effectively.



There is a physical position that does that.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 31, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> As far as clinch control against the cage goes, there is an excellent video of one of his female fighters, absolutely dominating her opponent in the cage. So this there is a real science of body control here. To keep someone pressed up against the cage like that and be able to hit her without getting many hits returned means she is pressing her weight into the opponent in a specific way probably using the ground as support. I would imagine she would also be using much less energy to do that. This is a real application of wing chun in motion cause the opponent is tied up and can't hit back effectively.



Do you have a link to the video?


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Do you have a link to the video?








That is her first Amateur MMA fight.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I am interested in where this 'force flow' comes from.
> 
> First, let me just say that I think the skill itself is valid as evidenced by Alan Orr's and Sergio's demos of being able to effectively control people's balance. As an internal martial art enthusiast, I think this is an important and fascinating skill.
> 
> ...


 
B.


----------

