# Jan Dai lik (forward elbow intention)



## kung fu fighter (Nov 4, 2014)

what is your definition of Jarn Dai lik (forward elbow intention)?


----------



## geezer (Nov 4, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> what is your definition of Jarn Dai lik (forward elbow intention)?



Don't have a definition. I do try to practice _forward intent..._ but I don't have a specific definition. Can you help?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 4, 2014)

geezer said:


> I do try to practice _forward intent..._



The "forward intend" in the southern CMA term is called &#20837;&#39532; (Ru Ma). Where will you put your leading foot is important. If you can advance your leading leg between your opponent's legs and take over your opponent's "center", that will be more important than just the "forward elbow intention" IMO.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 4, 2014)

Not a definition, but forward force, as I understand it, is engaging the triceps while at the same time, trying to deactivate the biceps as much as possible.


----------



## KPM (Nov 5, 2014)

geezer said:


> Don't have a definition. I do try to practice _forward intent..._ but I don't have a specific definition. Can you help?



I see them as the same thing.  In my Wing Chun, one of the key structural factors is to keep the elbow coupled with the hip for power generation as well as maintaining a strong structural support for receiving force.   Therefore "forward elbow intention" is just naturally the same thing as "forward intent."  If your elbows are flying out and not coupled with the hip, then you have lost some of this "forwardness", for lack of a better term.  So to me, "forward intent" is the constant moving towards or into the opponent's space.  This can be physical in the sense of applying pressure or movement towards his center, or even mental in the sense that you are waiting for an opportunity to do it physically.  This is in contrast to the opposite strategy of trying to bait or draw someone in or "suck them in" to do some kind of grappling application or to make them chase you in hopes they will make a mistake and leave an opening.   This idea of "forward intent" is what gives Wing Chun a somewhat aggressive or pro-active approach to fighting.


----------



## erniewong415 (May 14, 2015)

肘底力—— Tsaang = Elbow   Duyh = Bottom
Lik = Force / Strength / Power

I think different lineages have different perspectives on how to define it. Most prefer to use the idea of forward intent.

I like to think of it as keep the elbow low and put your mind and intent at the elbow instead of the hand. To each their own.

But that's the literal definition.


----------



## Danny T (May 14, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "forward intend" in the southern CMA term is called &#20837;&#39532; (Ru Ma). Where will you put your leading foot is important. If you can advance your leading leg between your opponent's legs and take over your opponent's "center", that will be more important than just the "forward elbow intention" IMO.


Forward intent is about the linking of the elbow through the hip to the ground. In my opinion has little to do with where I place my lead leg in relation to the opponent's legs but rather in relation to his force and toward his core.


----------



## Jake104 (May 14, 2015)

This is an interesting subject. This is mainly what I have been training learning and pretty much thinking about in depth for the last few years. Two of my current coaches have really opened my eyes on this subject. They are wizards with energy and have really made me rethink what I thought I knew about forward energy.

First, is forward intent different than forward energy? Does the elbow really need to be in? Chu Shoung Tin demonstrates with elbow in and out. Does a lead leg matter? I'm learning that forward intent/energy has many layers. It's not just elbow hip heel structure with forward pressure. That's just the top layer. And  is easy to track by the way. It's not just rushing in either. That's also easy to deflect jam or redirect and  so on.

What about simultaneous angles of energies delivered  at once with forward intent? Which I like to call, for lack of a better description, compound forward energy. This type of energy is very hard to read, recognize, track or counter. My previous Coach EricH once referred to it as a ghost energy or a smart energy. Which is a great description. It's a weird phoenominum . I don't have all the answers. I do know or at least have a hunch that this mystical energy can be defeated or stopped by using the same energy type in a constant manner. It always has to be on. But subtle. Easier said then done. I think it might be a who hits It first thing. So timing has something to do with it. IDK but I have felt it and I want it.


----------



## Jake104 (May 14, 2015)

By the way, my current coaches can produce this forward energy from any stance and any position. With no lead in a old man stance. This energy is also not just exclusive to Wing Chun . I think most all arts have it somewhere in there waiting to be unlocked. Grappling arts expecially.


----------



## dlcox (May 15, 2015)

KPM said:


> I see them as the same thing.  In my Wing Chun, one of the key structural factors is to keep the elbow coupled with the hip for power generation as well as maintaining a strong structural support for receiving force.   Therefore "forward elbow intention" is just naturally the same thing as "forward intent."  If your elbows are flying out and not coupled with the hip, then you have lost some of this "forwardness", for lack of a better term.


I kind of always viewed this as stronger when employed defensively or as a counter method, as a means of maintaining structure under duress. I know you stated "receiving" force, but the second half talks of forward intent. Is this in context to maintenance of structure when in close during the counter? To me that makes sense. Just looking for clarification. I don't want to be off in left field chasing butterflies while everyone else is wondering what the hell I'm talking about.  Just want to make sure we're having the same discussion.


----------



## dlcox (May 15, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Forward intent is about the linking of the elbow through the hip to the ground. In my opinion has little to do with where I place my lead leg in relation to the opponent's legs but rather in relation to his force and toward his core.


I can't see the characters on my phone, but I think what John is referring to is commonly known as "Bi Ma-Pressing Horse" which is a fundamental bridge practice using stance. With this the arm bridge receives while the leg bridge supports, as opposed to the arm bridge supporting and the legs receiving. The stepping & foot placement helps facilitate the effectiveness of the technique. Think more Chi Jiao as opposed to Chi Shou. Both require receiving force &  pressing the opponents center. In the end same results just a different route, it all still requires "Forward Intent".


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 15, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Does the elbow really need to be in?



IMHO, nope. I don't take this topic/skill as literal as some of you. My take is this: like most things in WC, everything has a seed in first form. This is the BASIC IDEA ONLY. From there, it grows and matures.
Elbows in or out, lead leg or not, facing, angled, retreating footwork, circling, etc...all irrelevant IMO....the basic idea is always go forward, always seek the core of the opponent, regardless of how you / your weapons are currently positioned or aligned _(because everyone can have a bad day or meet a more skilled opponent - hence we have three forms to show us basic ideas about this)_.
PS: the above applies to the vertical plane (i.e. standup fighting) as well as the horizontal planes (i.e. you've been taken off your feet and are lying on the ground)


----------



## Marnetmar (May 15, 2015)

The elbow drives the forearm and hand/fist, and the body follows the elbow.



Jake104 said:


> Does the elbow really need to be in?



In the sense that it shouldn't be out, yes. Your elbow (at least in our method) is used to drive the fist, and if it's not behind your fist then you won't be able to get much power in a straight punch. WC's straight punches require proper structural alignment to have any meaningful force.

Think of your elbow as a battering ram, so to speak.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 15, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can advance your leading leg between your opponent's legs and take over your opponent's "center", that will be more important than just the "forward elbow intention" IMO.



Maybe in a general MA sense, but this is not the best idea for WC usage as putting your lead foot 'between' your opponent's feet gives up in your stance which limits usage of proper WC structure, mobility to adjust, gate theories as well as leverage left-to-right.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 15, 2015)

No it doesn't.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 15, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> No it doesn't.



I'm assuming this was in reply to me. If so, thanks for sharing your objective viewpoint, it was very well thoughtout and informative...


----------



## Jake104 (May 15, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> The elbow drives the forearm and hand/fist, and the body follows the elbow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think of my body as the battering ram not my elbow. But I don't completely disagree with your post. The elbow has it's purpose in structure and energy. But energy and structure do not solely rely or exist through elbow hip alignment.

Here's an example from the first form that I have thought a lot about. The double Fak Sao section. When I throw the double faks sao's out. My elbows aren't in. Instead they are up. The power generation is a whipping/wave energy that rolls up and out from the ground. From heel, knee, hip, arm to hand. Notice I didn't include shoulder because shoulder is pinned. The elbow is aligned but not in a downward positions. It's facing up. Now in my lineage we drop the elbow after fak to a ding sao. I think that's what it's called.  Either way you can generate tremendous sideward full body power in that section. If you watch IP Man SLT video he also emphasizes a slight whipping energy when he performs that part.

What is also interesting about that section of the double Faks Sao's section is that, the energy is a splitting energy going in two different direction, but comes up from the same source.  Which is very interesting in itself.  I feel an expansion in my chest which I'm learning is a useful energy in standing arm locks and bars.  Like I said this is the secret sauce for me. It's not about technique so much anymore. Like my coach says, "it's all energy and chi sao. I only know one lock and one throw" etc. This coach doesn't do wing chun, but his chi sao is better than mine! It blows my mind when a coach shows me a different way to use forward energy.


----------



## Jake104 (May 15, 2015)

You know, now that I think about it. The fak sao whipping energy is a lot like a good boxer jab with body behind it? IDK, but thats what I like about the forms. They make you think.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 15, 2015)

KPM said:


> one of the key structural factors is to keep the elbow coupled with the hip for power generation as well as maintaining a strong structural support for receiving force.   Therefore "forward elbow intention" is just naturally the same thing as "forward intent."  If your elbows are flying out and not coupled with the hip, then you have lost some of this "forwardness", for lack of a better term.  So to me, "forward intent" is the constant moving towards or into the opponent's space.  This can be physical in the sense of applying pressure or movement towards his center, or even mental in the sense that you are waiting for an opportunity to do it physically.  This is in contrast to the opposite strategy of trying to bait or draw someone in or "suck them in" to do some kind of grappling application or to make them chase you in hopes they will make a mistake and leave an opening.   This idea of "forward intent" is what gives Wing Chun a somewhat aggressive or pro-active approach to fighting.



KPM great defintion of Jarn Dai lik (forward elbow intention)!

Jarn Dai lik (forward elbow intention) is only one component of the 6 directional force vector model necessary for whole body power. The reason i started this thread was because I found too many wing chun practioners try to unnaturally force their elbow into their centerline. I believe this to be incorrect. The 6 directional force vector serves as a great teaching aid for what the correct positioning in wck or any internal martial art should be.


----------



## Jake104 (May 15, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Maybe in a general MA sense, but this is not the best idea for WC usage as putting your lead foot 'between' your opponent's feet gives up in your stance which limits usage of proper WC structure, mobility to adjust, gate theories as well as leverage left-to-right.


I agree obviously, I hit the agree button. But can you elaborate more on this subject? I'm interested.


----------



## Jake104 (May 15, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> KPM great defintion of Jarn Dai lik (forward elbow intention)!
> 
> Jarn Dai lik (forward elbow intention) is only one component of the 6 directional force vector model necessary for whole body power. The reason i started this thread was because I found too many wing chun practioners try to unnaturally force their elbow into their centerline. I believe this to be incorrect. The 6 directional force vector serves as a great teaching aid for what the correct positioning in wck or any internal martial art should be.


What are the other 5 components? 
Edit
Nevermind I didn't see the video in your post.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 18, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> What are the other 5 components?



1.upward, 2.downward, 3.left side, 4.right side, 5.backward

When the seven bows are fully developed, and one get pressed from any direction, the bows will naturally respond by default without the need to use intent, as if pressing a spring or yoga ball exactly like Hendrik explained in the video above.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 19, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> 1.upward, 2.downward, 3.left side, 4.right side, 5.backward
> 
> When the seven bows are fully developed, and one get pressed from any direction, the bows will naturally respond by default without the need to use intent, as if pressing a spring or yoga ball exactly like Hendrik explained in the video above.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 19, 2015)

Good Ip Man wing chun  akways has had well developed concepts  of the role of the elbows, the directions and the cooordinated springs in the joints


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 19, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Good Ip Man wing chun  akways has had well developed concepts  of the role of the elbows, the directions and the cooordinated springs in the joints



True! but not at the snake engine force flow level, please don't take my word for it just ask Robert Chu or Phil Romero, they both has had experience in good Yip Man wck as well as the snake engine force flow of Yik Kam wing chun.

Good Yip Man wck only have the forward elbow intent coupled with the hip for power generation as well as maintaining a strong structural support for receiving force component that Keith already mentioned earlier in this thread. This is not the full picture of the snake engine force flow level, imagine two wheel drive vs four wheel drive.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 19, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> True! but not at the snake engine force flow level, please don't take my word for it just ask Robert Chu or Phil Romero, they both has had experience in good Yip Man wck as well as the snake engine force flow of Yik Kam wing chun.
> 
> Good Yip Man wck only have the forward elbow intent coupled with the hip for power generation as well as maintaining a strong structural support for receiving force component that Keith already mentioned earlier in this thread. This is not the full picture of the snake engine force flow level, imagine two wheel drive vs four wheel drive.


-------------------------------------------------We have had similar discussions before and our perspectives differ. Not just hip power. The entire body is linked.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 20, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Not just hip power. The entire body is linked.


linking the entire body is not the same as opening the body. different approach and cultivation process!


----------



## KPM (May 20, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> linking the entire body is not the same as opening the body. different approach and cultivation process!



Navin is right.  Linking the entire body as a unit can create a rigid structure.  That is not at all what Navin is referring to.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 20, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> linking the entire body is not the same as opening the body. different approach and cultivation process!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Linking the body properly can be just the opposite of rigidity. 
We are on different paths.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> Navin is right.  Linking the entire body as a unit can create a rigid structure.  That is not at all what Navin is referring to.


Correct! When the 7 bows are opened the body feels like it's levitating loose and light, linking the entire body generally involves sinking and feels heavy. Perhaps if Joy posted a clip of what he is referring to by "Linking the entire body" we can get a better picture of his view.


Vajramusti said:


> Linking the body properly can be just the opposite of rigidity. We are on different paths.


Joy  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you are referring to the structure demoed in this video since this guy is also from Fong's linage.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 20, 2015)

Good luck with your snake engine


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 20, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Good luck with your snake engine


Thank you! The structure demoed in the clip above is completely different compared to the Snake Engine force Flow


----------



## Vajramusti (May 20, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> Thank you! The structure demoed in the clip above is completely different compared to the Snake Engine force Flow


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what. I never  have used the gobbledegook terms of snake engine force flow. Good night folks.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 21, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> So what.


it Means we are talking about completely different things, you are using structure or frame as in the clip I posted above, I am using force flow snake engine.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 21, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> it Means we are talking about completely different things, you are using structure or frame as in the clip I posted above, I am using force flow snake engine.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 21, 2015)

Yes we are doing different things-my point from the start. Structure is not a dead fixed thing. There is very fluid dynamics involved.
Once you showed a version of your "snake engine"-I was not impressed.Can we disagree and move on?


----------



## Jake104 (May 21, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Yes we are doing different things-my point from the start. *Structure is not a dead fixed thing. There is very fluid dynamics involved*.
> Once you showed a version of your "snake engine"-I was not impressed.Can we disagree and move on?


----------



## Jake104 (May 21, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> 1.upward, 2.downward, 3.left side, 4.right side, 5.backward
> 
> When the seven bows are fully developed, and one get pressed from any direction, the bows will naturally respond by default without the need to use intent, as if pressing a spring or yoga ball exactly like Hendrik explained in the video above.


Can you do all six at once? I get the spring compression thing but what ifthe  energy you are receiving is smart and doesn't compress your spring? What if  it clamps your spring energy? 

Compressing a spring is a good example. I'm glad you used  this example. I compress springs all the time in my line of work. I'm a auto technician, fancy title for a mechanic. I use a spring compressor tool. The spring has to be perfectly aligned in the tool. Otherwise if not straight it will collapse and buckle and  then it becomes a very dangerous projectile.  So what if your opponents energy is not straight and you collapse or buckle? Also there are two ways of compressing a spring that I know of. Two different methods. You either  place spring against a fixed pad and use  leverage to compress or you clamp at both ends and use mechanical  torque to overcome the energy. So if  you take one component out of either method, the spring becomes impossible to compress.. So it sounds to me like this  compressed spring theory might work  under the right circumstances. But in a fight against a competent opponent that uses smarty energy. Probably not.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 21, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Yes we are doing different things-my point from the start. Structure is not a dead fixed thing. There is very fluid dynamics involved.


  I never said Structure was a dead fixed thing, however there are different degrees of freedom. In my opinion Structure as in the clip I posted above has more degree of freedom than rooting/Rack, but way less than the snake engine force flow. After having done Structure as in the clip above for 20 years before learning force flow I can certainly tell the difference, during this time I even had structure explained to me by HKM's final deciple Kiet Pham as well as touching hands with him. Since you only know structure it's difficult for you to have an informed opinion.


Vajramusti said:


> Once you showed a version of your "snake engine"-I was not impressed.Can we disagree and move on?


 Opinions vary, in fact my kung fu nephews was not impressed with your structure when you touched hands with them, that does not mean structure is not valid. At least I showed my version of the "snake engine", which is less than i can say for you showing your version of structure so that I can have the opportunity to be impressed. What I showed in my clip was the first level of force flow, there are 9 levels. lol


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 21, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Can you do all six at once?


 yes



Jake104 said:


> I get the spring compression thing but what ifthe  energy you are receiving is smart and doesn't compress your spring? What if  it clamps your spring energy?


 it's not a static spring, more like the suspension system of a car ( think of how the car feels when going over speed bumps)



Jake104 said:


> Compressing a spring is a good example. I'm glad you used  this example. I compress springs all the time in my line of work. I'm a auto technician, fancy title for a mechanic. I use a spring compressor tool. The spring has to be perfectly aligned in the tool. Otherwise if not straight it will collapse and buckle and  then it becomes a very dangerous projectile.  So what if your opponents energy is not straight and you collapse or buckle? Also there are two ways of compressing a spring that I know of. Two different methods. You either  place spring against a fixed pad and use  leverage to compress or you clamp at both ends and use mechanical  torque to overcome the energy. So if  you take one component out of either method, the spring becomes impossible to compress.. So it sounds to me like this  compressed spring theory might work  under the right circumstances. But in a fight against a competent opponent that uses smarty energy. Probably not.


 i have no idea what "smarty energy" is, nor "clamping your spring energy", perhaps you can explain??


----------



## Vajramusti (May 21, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> I never said Structure was a dead fixed thing, however there are different degrees of freedom. In my opinion Structure as in the clip I posted above has more degree of freedom than rooting/Rack, however the snake engine force flow has way more degrees of freedom than Structure. After having done both i can tell the difference. Since you only know structure it's difficult for you to have an informed opinion.
> At least I showed my version of the "snake engine", perhaps you can show your version of structure so that I can have the opportunity to be impressed. What I showed was the first level, there are 9 levels. lol


----------



## Vajramusti (May 21, 2015)

I am not trying to impress you.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 21, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> I am not trying to impress you.


nor am I. I made the snake engine force flow clip to give people who were curious an idea of what it is?


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Compressing a spring is a good example. I'm glad you used  this example. .



Jake, don't think of it as one big spring.  Think of it as multiple springs in parallel.  If pressed with "smart energy" as you say, one can easily adapt to redirect that pressure as needed.  One simply engages the appropriate "spring" at the appropriate angle as required.  It's not one big "all or nothing" spring!  This involves linking and de-linking various parts of the body as needed.  We also use a "spiral" energy through the body when needed.  This is all very dynamic.  You can compress all 7 bows at once, depending on the circumstance.  But you won't engage all 6 directions at once.  After all...its forward/back, left/right, rise/sink (or up/down).  How can you do all 6 at once?  ;-)


----------



## Jake104 (May 21, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> yes
> 
> it's not a static spring, more like the suspension system of a car ( think of how the car feels when going over speed bumps)
> 
> i have no idea what "smarty energy" is, nor "clamping your spring energy", perhaps you can explain??


A suspension system on a car does does not solely rely on springs to absorb energy. Plus the energies that the suspension absorbs isn't just a linear up and down enegery. It's multiple energies happening simultaneously. The suspensions articulates in multiple directions via leverage, torsion, hingeing, arcing and so on. Depending on what type of suspension system in use. Like leaf, spring coil, torsion,single arm; double arm strut etc. Point being is the spring is only one component of the system. Why? Because of multiple angles of force and energies happening at once from road conditions. So smart Kung Fu energy IS like a cars suspension. The whole suspension is dealing with these conditions not just the spring. So to put it very simple. My smart energy is not going to push your spring in only one direction. I might not even allow you to coil. Then what? 

Clamping energy is opposing forces clamping down on an object.  chokes locks etc. What I meant in terms of your spring energy is. Using the ground as half the clamp and taking your linear springy energy and manipulating it with multiple angles of my energy to keep you compressed or buckled.


----------



## Jake104 (May 21, 2015)

KPM said:


> Jake, don't think of it as one big spring.  Think of it as multiple springs in parallel.  If pressed with "smart energy" as you say, one can easily adapt to redirect that pressure as needed.  One simply engages the appropriate "spring" at the appropriate angle as required.  It's not one big "all or nothing" spring!  This involves linking and de-linking various parts of the body as needed.  We also use a "spiral" energy through the body when needed.  This is all very dynamic.  You can compress all 7 bows at once, depending on the circumstance.  But you won't engage all 6 directions at once.  After all...its forward/back, left/right, rise/sink (or up/down).  How can you do all 6 at once?  ;-)


If springs are parallel wouldn't they all be moving in the same direction? I get it if the springs are at diferent angles. That makes sense .

I can engage back with forward, down or up and right or left at the same time. So that's maybe 3-4 out of six. I have felt a back with foward, down with up, right with left all at the same time. I can't do it. But I can tell you from experience. It's a weird *** feeling and super hard to deal with.


----------



## Jake104 (May 21, 2015)

Actually isn't  a spiral, forward with left right up and down? That's 5 right there. Then ad moving back with forward intent spiraling and then you have 6? Then ad all that with downward or upward 45* angles. Seems like more than 6, and could become an endless amount of possible directional force angles?

I'm not saying I don't use spring energy. I'm just saying, I'm trying to use spring or any energy in not such a basic predictable way.


----------



## KPM (May 22, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Actually isn't  a spiral, forward with left right up and down? That's 5 right there. Then ad moving back with forward intent spiraling and then you have 6? Then ad all that with downward or upward 45* angles. Seems like more than 6, and could become an endless amount of possible directional force angles?
> 
> I'm not saying I don't use spring energy. I'm just saying, I'm trying to use spring or any energy in not such a basic predictable way.



Yeah.  I agree.  Any kind of analogy starts to break down if examined too closely.  But I have also seen/felt what you are saying.  Its all very dynamic.  Much different than a simple "bracing structure" that you see lots of WCK people doing.


----------



## PiedmontChun (May 22, 2015)

Interesting thread overall, though I did not watch the video (no way for discrete sound here at work).
My instructor introduced it to me as "Dai Jan Lik" or"low elbow force" as a sinking of the elbow, in almost everything we do. I have seen it as seperate from forward pressure though, which is a springiness and forward intent that comes naturally with time and is a big emphasis in WT.
In chi-sau, if I lose forward pressure / forward intent then my sifu gains space while I lose space; i.e. I get collapsed or jammed up. If I lose low elbow force though, then something different happens; his Bong Sau will creep underneath my fook, simple moving past me.
So to me, it seems possible to have forward pressure or intent, but it has to be combined with the low elbow force, and they are not one and the same.


----------



## Hendrik (May 22, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Actually isn't  a spiral, forward with left right up and down? That's 5 right there. Then ad moving back with forward intent spiraling and then you have 6? Then ad all that with downward or upward 45* angles. Seems like more than 6, and could become an endless amount of possible directional force angles?
> 
> I'm not saying I don't use spring energy. I'm just saying, I'm trying to use spring or any energy in not such a basic predictable way.




Six directional force cover the whole 3 dimentional planes or the coordinate x y z.

This is where I know your thinking is different to what I present.


----------



## Hendrik (May 22, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> nor am I. I made the snake engine force flow clip to give people who were curious an idea of what it is?




May be it is a time you made another video to share your experience


----------



## Hendrik (May 22, 2015)

This so called elbow power is a partial concept of internal art of sinking elbow. 

However, it doesn't not cover the soft body force flow as in this video,

 It is a hard body technique, and it is rigid. The power generation is limited to the arm, 

some lineage pair this elbow power with hip , it is a partial and rigid fixture , it is jamming force flow in order to boost Body impact.












PiedmontChun said:


> Interesting thread overall, though I did not watch the video (no way for discrete sound here at work).
> My instructor introduced it to me as "Dai Jan Lik" or"low elbow force" as a sinking of the elbow, in almost everything we do. I have seen it as seperate from forward pressure though, which is a springiness and forward intent that comes naturally with time and is a big emphasis in WT.
> In chi-sau, if I lose forward pressure / forward intent then my sifu gains space while I lose space; i.e. I get collapsed or jammed up. If I lose low elbow force though, then something different happens; his Bong Sau will creep underneath my fook, simple moving past me.
> So to me, it seems possible to have forward pressure or intent, but it has to be combined with the low elbow force, and they are not one and the same.


----------



## Hendrik (May 22, 2015)

Kmp,

This is simple stuffs, Since Navin has developed the snake engine and the force flow handling, get him to a modern technology lab, hook him up and do the monitoring and measurements, the data will show what is it clearly. One then can see what it is compare with those who do structure , spring .....etc


I don't even want to debate and it is not even neccesary for me to show it. Anyone has the process and train, ie. Navin, Sergio, Phil Romero.......etc the lab data will show the facts of their engine. There will   be variation in their level of handling but the key parameters will be consistence and converging.  It never is fuzzy or up to everyone's intepretation because it is about  physics. We do have the technology and process to do both quality and quantity mass production. Yes, Darth Vaders Cloning, not need those Jedi ego and fuzzy philosophy talk.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 22, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> it Means we are talking about completely different things, you are using structure or frame as in the clip I posted above, I am using force flow snake engine.



Good for you. But what does information from some other art have to do with WC? Why do people have to look to outside arts to talk about WC?
I've been reading the posts by you and others that talk this way and it typically comes off as condescending, rude, elitist and as if you have something to sell that no one else has (some might say it results in coming off as a bit insecure). Fact is, this stuff is not really that big of a deal IMO and has less to do with WC that some might have us believe. And, WC isn't so lacking in force & energy handling as some other people found in their WC. So what if we don't use 'snake engine'? Snake engine is snake engine, WC engine is WC engine and not animal style kung fu hybrid. Anyone that understands the WC system to a deep level will know this.

Look, we all know the story. There's a guy not tool long ago that felt his WC was incomplete.He is well documented on other forums stating such feelings. So he openly admits to investigating 'other outside arts' to find the missing pieces. He starts looking at snake and crane stuff to fill in what he feels are missing holes in_ his_ WC. He does this, not by finding actual sifus of these art and learning directly from them, but by looking at old writings, watching videos, scouring the internet, setting up groups on social media sites while grabbing info from others and then deleting said groups so the evidence of his 'borrowing of ideas' is erased, etc (yes, this happened many fimes on FB alone). He even goes as far as having some magical time machine to travel back to the 1800's to 'see' what WC was like back then lol

Yet still, after all of the internet learning, reading old material and making countless videos droning on about what is basically simple things to most people, along with thousands of post all over the internet - he still can't demonstrate any verifiable ability to use these skills in actual application - and always just points to other people for proof so the sham isn't exposed. Even his original WC family doesn't back up his new 'findings'!

Yet now somehow the tone is, if people are not using his borrowed snake engine ideas in their WC, they aren't doing WC right or have incomplete WC.. Haha, what a joke. Many people in the WC world don't see the same issues in their WC as this guy did - and thier WC just fine for them. Yet now that a few people also drank the koolaid, everyone should do so too - otherwise they are now what, sub-par in the 'new order's' opinion? It's great if mixing in outside animal snake and crane ideas has helped yours and a few others WC. But in the end, these ideas are still not WC. They are simply borrowed snake & crane ideas - which is why those terms still have to be used.


----------



## Jake104 (May 22, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> Six directional force cover the whole 3 dimentional planes or the coordinate x y z.
> 
> This is where I know your thinking is different to what I present.


I don't know how you think you know what I'm thinking? I'm still open minded. I'm just a student and have felt different WC energies. This subject is just interesting too me. Maybe you got it all figured out. I don't.

I can fight though and throw big guys around. That's all that really matters to me. I'd like to feel this six directional force. You got anybody in the Phoenix area that can show me?


----------



## Jake104 (May 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> Yeah.  I agree.  Any kind of analogy starts to break down if examined too closely.  But I have also seen/felt what you are saying.  Its all very dynamic.  Much different than a simple "bracing structure" that you see lots of WCK people doing.


Yes, for me it's humbling to get thrown around. When all along I thought I knew energy and had good structure.. There are just so many layers of learning. That's why I think trying to put it into words or videos is pretty much useless. It's something that has to be felt.


----------



## Jake104 (May 22, 2015)

Just the term snake ENGINE seems weird to me. An engine creates energy yes, but some sort of powertrain needs to distribute it. Otherwise it's just wasted energy. Plus if WC is 200 years old what engines were around back then? Steam powered? I'm not calling you a liar but it kind of sounds made up too me? Is this something you named?


----------



## Vajramusti (May 22, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Good for you. But what does information from some other art have to do with WC? Why do people have to look to outside arts to talk about WC?
> I've been reading the posts by you and others that talk this way and it typically comes off as condescending, rude, elitist and as if you have something to sell that no one else has (some might say it results in coming off as a bit insecure). Fact is, this stuff is not really that big of a deal IMO and has less to do with WC that some might have us believe. And, WC isn't so lacking in force & energy handling as some other people found in their WC. So what if we don't use 'snake engine'? Snake engine is snake engine, WC engine is WC engine and not animal style kung fu hybrid. Anyone that understands the WC system to a deep level will know this.
> 
> Look, we all know the story. There's a guy not tool long ago that felt his WC was incomplete.He is well documented on other forums stating such feelings. So he openly admits to investigating 'other outside arts' to find the missing pieces. He starts looking at snake and crane stuff to fill in what he feels are missing holes in_ his_ WC. He does this, not by finding actual sifus of these art and learning directly from them, but by looking at old writings, watching videos, scouring the internet, setting up groups on social media sites while grabbing info from others and then deleting said groups so the evidence of his 'borrowing of ideas' is erased, etc (yes, this happened many fimes on FB alone). He even goes as far as having some magical time machine to travel back to the 1800's to 'see' what WC was like back then lol
> ...





Good post


----------



## geezer (May 22, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Just the term snake ENGINE seems weird to me. An engine creates energy yes, but some sort of powertrain needs to distribute it. Otherwise it's just wasted energy. Plus if WC is 200 years old what engines were around back then? Steam powered? I'm not calling you a liar but it kind of sounds made up too me? Is this something you named?



Jake, what a silly reply. I know it sounds like Hendrick has this in mind:






But of course there really are snake engines! Just look at these:





Obviously this is not a WC snake engine. It has a definite python-like quality and I suspect it has more of a grappling, constricting application.

Now how about this one for a striking art:





Now once you learn this technique, don't bother testing it in sparring. _Just go to a lab_ and have it scientifically tested!

BTW make sure it's the same lab that has proven the existence of Qi, which as Hendrick has pointed out in the past, is a scientific fact.


----------



## Jake104 (May 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> Jake, what a silly reply. I know it sounds like Hendrick has this in mind:
> 
> View attachment 19318
> 
> ...


Lol. best post ever!


----------



## Vajramusti (May 22, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Lol. best post ever!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The little train engine that can- yes I can yes I can.

The snake engine may have escaped from Kipling's Jungle  Book.


----------



## KPM (May 23, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The little train engine that can- yes I can yes I can.
> 
> The snake engine may have escaped from Kipling's Jungle  Book.



Snarky comments aside.......I think "engine" is a valid term.  The engine is what powers the machine.  In the case of martial arts, the biomechanics you use when expressing force in techniques is what "powers" your martial art, therefore the "engine."   Engine is easier to say than "biomechanics" and has immediate connotations to people who aren't just looking to be critical and snarky.   Karate has a different "engine" than Wing Chun.  They generate power in their  strikes differently, they move differently, they have different biomechanics. In my opinion, saying they have a different "engine" sums all of that up pretty nicely.


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 23, 2015)

Had never even heard the term 'engine' till surfing some of these WC forums....


----------



## JPinAZ (May 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Karate has a different "engine" than Wing Chun.



So does snake kung fu. Very much different. WC is complete system on it's own, I can't understand why people need to borrow from other arts to make things work (or is it just 'unique'), but to each his own...


----------



## Hendrik (May 23, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Had never even heard the term 'engine' till surfing some of these WC forums....




Wick needs to move forward , we today has much much more information compare with past 6 decades. More terms needs to surface for better communication.


   We do know lots of stuffs are made in Hong Kong and even overseas in the modern era. And hold like a religion. 

In the reality , no one tell you the uprising cost 20 millions life and They lost the uprising , and for next fifteen years, those who didn't get kill go into hiding . Wck is not what the Hong Kong movie potrait, and there is Leung jan , but no king of kungfu who's name is Leung Jan in reality. So does there is Ipman but not the Ipman as in the movie


----------



## Hendrik (May 23, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> So does snake kung fu. Very much different. WC is complete system on it's own, I can't understand why people need to borrow from other arts to make things work (or is it just 'unique'), but to each his own...





Here is a brief description of Wck  1840，might not be what many thinks or believe or understand.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 23, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> Wick needs to move forward , we today has much much more information compare with past 6 decades. More terms needs to surface for better communication.
> 
> 
> We do know lots of stuffs are made in Hong Kong and even overseas in the modern era. And hold like a religion.
> ...





Hendrik said:


> Wick needs to move forward , we today has much much more information compare with past 6 decades. More terms needs to surface for better communication.
> 
> 
> We do know lots of stuffs are made in Hong Kong and even overseas in the modern era. And hold like a religion.
> ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wing chun has moved forward past Yik Kam and snake  "engine"- but some  will go on and on.


----------



## KPM (May 23, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> So does snake kung fu. Very much different. WC is complete system on it's own, I can't understand why people need to borrow from other arts to make things work (or is it just 'unique'), but to each his own...



We're not talking about snake kung fu.  We're talking about Wing Chun.  You know....the art with the legend about combining elements from seeing a Snake and a Crane fighting?  Just a legend, but legends often hide elements of truth.


----------



## KPM (May 23, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wing chun has moved forward past Yik Kam and snake  "engine"- but some  will go on and on.



I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again.  I don't know if Hendrik has come upon the "original" way of doing things from 1840, and I really don't care.  What I care is that I'm really enjoying and seeing the value of what he has been saying as it is now being expressed in the Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun I am learning.  It makes good sense from a biomechanical and application standpoint.  New?  Old?  I don't know.  But I do see it as an improvement and advancement upon all of the Wing Chun I have learned in the past.  Now, in anticipation of the response I know is coming.....l did learn good Wing Chun.  I did learn it well.  I see the Wing Chun that a lot of other people are doing and understand it perfectly.  I've been there in many instances.  But in my opinion, and for me, what I am doing now is an improvement upon what I learned in the past.  What I am doing now is my Wing Chun "moving forward."


----------



## Vajramusti (May 23, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> Wick needs to move forward , we today has much much more information compare with past 6 decades. More terms needs to surface for better communication.
> 
> 
> We do know lots of stuffs are made in Hong Kong and even overseas in the modern era. And hold like a religion.
> ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No  Leung Jan? But there is Hendrik's  1840 fantasy. Revisionist history   continues.


----------



## Jake104 (May 23, 2015)

Ok so Snake engine is a buzzword to describe a certain snake like body mechanic? Ok, I get it. It's just the way it gets thrown around here. Its giving people the impression that it's some sort of ancient mysterious missing link to Wing Chun that we are all missing? When in reality it's pretty basic like previously mentioned.. Sounds like marketing. Sorry, not trying to come off "snarky". Just being 100% real and calling it how I see it.


----------



## Jake104 (May 23, 2015)

The whole point of me participating in this thread was not to sell anyone on my idea of what I think "proper" WC energy is or should be. But rather, explore the idea of WC energy. Taking it a step further than just basic forward  sinking elbow straight line. My Wing chun forward energy is much more than just that.


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> Now, in anticipation of the response I know is coming.....l did learn good Wing Chun. I did learn it well.



Just curious but what do you mean by "good Wing Chun" and "learn it well"? I seem to recall from previous posts of yours that you've been around the block, with various WC lineages...so how do you know you learned good Wing Chun? How do you know you learned it well? Just curious. 
Some of us don't think much of this ancient wc that hendrik and his constituents praise. I for one think it (the secret kool aid) is nothing new, very basic to good WC, and nothing that needs to be "re-discovered" or "invented".



KPM said:


> I see the Wing Chun that a lot of other people are doing and understand it perfectly. I've been there in many instances.



So, are you saying here that you can simply view others' WC and understand it perfectly from viewing it via video or even in person but with no personal long-term involvement? Or, have you touched hands with "a lot of other people" (as you say) and have formed your opinions from those hands-on experiences? Again, just curious and trying to build some context to your statements.


----------



## KPM (May 24, 2015)

----I find your questions just a bit insulting.  You imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Just curious but what do you mean by "good Wing Chun" and "learn it well"?

---It means whatever you want it to mean!  I was anticipating the typical response you get in a forum....."well, if you think that, you obviously didn't learn GOOD Wing Chun!"  or "well, if you think that, then you probably had a poor teacher and just didn't learn it like you were supposed to!"   I learned perfectly acceptable and "good" Wing Chun and I was good at what I learned. Its as simple as that.  It was not second rate Wing Chun learned from the internet, and I'm not some 16 year old behind a keyboard running his mouth!


Some of us don't think much of this ancient wc that hendrik and his constituents praise. I for one think it (the secret kool aid) is nothing new, very basic to good WC, and nothing that needs to be "re-discovered" or "invented".

---So I'll turn it around on you then.  How do you know  what you learned is "good WC"??  How do you know you learned it well?  I've been involved in Wing Chun in some form for over 30 years.  I've learned 3 different lineages of Wing Chun.  How about you?  Why should anyone believe your opinion is any better than mine, given that you didn't give any more information to support it than I did? 

---I will say that none of those 3 lineages that I studied had the subtle biomechanics and power handling that I am now learning in Chu Sau Lei WCK.  Robert Chu says that it comes from Hendrik.  So I believe him.  And if you ask Robert, he will tell you that of all the Wing Chun he has studied and been exposed to (and its a lot!) he didn't find the total package in any of them until he met Hendrik and saw Yik Kam WCK.  Did Hendrik make it up himself?  Like I said, I don't know and I don't care. 



So, are you saying here that you can simply view others' WC and understand it perfectly from viewing it via video or even in person but with no personal long-term involvement? Or, have you touched hands with "a lot of other people" (as you say) and have formed your opinions from those hands-on experiences? Again, just curious and trying to build some context to your statements.

---Again, I'll turn it around on you. Have you had personal long-term involvement with Hendrik or Robert?  Have you touched hands with either of them or with any of their students? If not, just how can you say that ......" I for one think it (the secret kool aid) is nothing new, very basic to good WC, and nothing that needs to be "re-discovered" or "invented"."????

---Because the answer is "yes".  I have had personal long-term involvement in "good" Ip Man Wing Chun as well as "good" Pin Sun Wing Chun.  And "yes" I have touched hands with a fair number of people from both.

---So again, I find your tone and assumptions a bit insulting.  Maybe that's not what you intended.  But it certainly comes across that way.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No  Leung Jan? But there is Hendrik's  1840 fantasy. Revisionist history   continues.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW I have done chi sao with Hendrik in his house some years ago. He was a god host.
But I was unimpressed with his skills.This is  not based on hearsay.
His recent comments on Leung Jan , Ip Man and wing chun in Hong Kong are tiresome bits of self promotion
and pushing for his snake engine..And insulting.
And I have seen Roselando's gu lao pinsun- an incomplete (compared to Ip man's art) collection of a few key motions. And I have rolled with Hawkins Cheung, WSL, TST, Victor Kan and my sifu,  and sigung and sihings and have used my wing chun in testing  against grapplers, punchers and throwers.
The point is my comments are based on considerable experience. But when I do wing chun I do wing chun That has evolved from a good lineage and do not legitimize what I do by claiming to have learned  pin sun, gu lao, TWC etc.
Yes- years in martial arts can result in a good evolution and it can also result in doing  many arts superficially.
Without name dropping before further snake body promoting and uninformative videos, I wish Hendrik would explain in detail the fundamental mechanics and dynamics of his snake body.
Referring to emei videos is insufficient.  
In my own case, what I do is profiled in several articles in the Journal of Asian Martial arts, Inside Kung Fu, Kung Fu Taichi and is here in the article section of my web site at
Welcome to Tempe Wing Chun Kung-Fu .


----------



## Vajramusti (May 24, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> Wick needs to move forward , we today has much much more information compare with past 6 decades. More terms needs to surface for better communication.
> 
> 
> We do know lots of stuffs are made in Hong Kong and even overseas in the modern era. And hold like a religion.
> ...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"No king of kung fu who's name is Leung Jan  in reality"- an amazing statement. Please not by another video but in prose outline the details
of the claimed unique dynamics of snake body. 6 directions and x bows-joint springs are not unique.


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "No king of kung fu who's name is Leung Jan  in reality"- an amazing statement. .




There is no such king of kungfu in Chinese history in the Leung Jan era.

That is an era of the battle of hundreds of uprisers of anti Qing and Qing general, but sorry, no king of Kung fu, and There is no evidence that Leung Jan associated with anyone these  Up risers as listed in the following video in the map with names. Disregards of the claims of Leung jan as king of kungfu in the past 70 years or hk movies propaganda.

However, yik kam associate with Lee Man Mau who is listed in the map. Yik kam salutation ...etc  are solid evidence of his involve in the uprising or anti Qing battle lead by Lee Man Mau.


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Please not by another video but in prose outline the details
> of the claimed unique dynamics of snake body. 6 directions and x bows-joint springs are not unique.





Navin has visited those who you refer to as great.

If Navin willing to 
Let Navin honestly share what is the different between what I share and what he experience from others


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW I have done chi sao with Hendrik in his house some years ago. He was a god host.
> But I was unimpressed with his skills.This is  not based on hearsay.
> His recent comments on Leung Jan , Ip Man and wing chun in Hong Kong are tiresome bits of self promotion
> ...





Why don't you ask  Phil Romero, Robert Chu, Alan Orr , Sergio, Jim .... ... Navin.......... , wcners across different lineages why they study with me ?


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> His recent comments on Leung Jan , Ip Man and wing chun in Hong Kong are tiresome bits of self promotion
> and pushing for his snake engine..And insulting.
> .



1.
As in the above post,
I have post with evidence, there is no such thing as King of kungfu in the era Leung Jan live. And Leung is not even listed in the history of China within the hundreds of uprising leader. There is no evidence he has associated with these uprising.


2. Ipman in reality is not who was shown in the Ipman movie.

We all know the movie making people has to appology to YKS decendent because of they are twisting the facts to promote Ipman in the movie.

This is the proof in public domain







3.

I don't need promote anything, facts are facts. I don't make movies and I don't make a single cent.

As for insulting,  present the facts of history as above with evidence is not insult anyone.

To the contradiction, those who knowingly twisting the facts to promoting themself are misbehave


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Without name dropping before further snake body promoting and uninformative videos, I wish Hendrik would explain in detail the fundamental mechanics and dynamics of his snake body.
> Referring to emei videos is insufficient.
> In my own case, what I do is profiled in several articles in the Journal of Asian Martial arts, Inside Kung Fu, Kung Fu Taichi and is here in the article section of my web site at
> Welcome to Tempe Wing Chun Kung-Fu .



Joy, this is a two way street, your article only give bits and pieces of your view on structure, they don't explain the full detail the fundamental mechanics and dynamics involved. Hendrik has certainly gave away much more details publicly in his posts and videos concerning the snake engine force flow than you have. I've ask you to explain your view about structure more than once so that we can compare with Hendriks view in order to have a civil productive conversation all to no avail. here is a yet another opportunity!

I know Keith has spent some time studying wing chun with you in the past, so I am sure he is familar with your type of structure, perhaps he can elaborate on what the differences are between what he learnt from you in comparission to what he is currently doing?



Vajramusti said:


> And I have seen Roselando's gu lao pinsun- an incomplete (compared to Ip man's art) collection of a few key motions.


May I ask from whom you've seen KLPSWC, because there is a public and private version. so perhaps your view is based on the public version. Your view on dicipled Kulo Pin Sun wck is inaccurate, all the key principles and concepts of of yip man wck are taught in KLPSWC along with some other elements based on Leung Jan's personal evolution and experience at the end of his teaching career. The system is just organized and taught in a different format or platform than the Futshan 3 forms system and needs the details of what's going on by a qualified sifu. but make no mistake about it there is nothing missing, in fact KLPSWC gave me a more insights into some of the more intricate details of Yip Man's art.

QUOTE="Hendrik, post: 1707638, member: 32789"]Navin has visited those who you refer to as great. If Navin willing to, Let Navin honestly share what is the different between what I share and what he experience from others[/QUOTE]

To be honest, had I not met Hendrik, I would be doing KLPSWC because I feel it's an efficient platform in how the system is organized and taught, plus it was in line with my wck evolution at the time. However in my opinion their engine is more aggressive Harder Bow compared to Hendrik's subtle soft Force Flow snake engine. KLPSWC engine is similar to hakka arts such as bak mei, where as Hendrik's force flow snake engine is like emei soft snake slide qigong. in terms of power generation there is no comparission, Force Flow is way more efficient and powerful.

when doing my force Flow chi sao in San Jose 3 years ago, Sifu Michael Mcilwrath described that my bridge (forearm) felt like I had continuous fa jin energy in them was proactive completely perturbing his balance and center axis.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 24, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> Joy, this is a two way street, your article only give bits and pieces of your view on structure, they don't explain the full detail the fundamental mechanics and dynamics involved. Hendrik has certainly gave away much more details publicly in his posts and videos concerning the snake engine force flow than you have. I've ask you to explain your view about structure more than once so that we can compare with Hendriks view in order to have a civil productive conversation all to no avail. here is a yet another opportunity!
> 
> I know Keith has spent some time studying wing chun with you in the past, so I am sure he is familar with your type of structure, perhaps he can elaborate on what the differences are between what he learnt from you in comparission to what he is currently doing?
> 
> ...



To be honest, had I not met Hendrik, I would be doing KLPSWC because I feel it's an efficient platform in how the system is organized and taught, plus it was in line with my wck evolution at the time. However in my opinion their engine is more aggressive Harder Bow compared to Hendrik's subtle soft Force Flow snake engine. KLPSWC engine is similar to hakka arts such as bak mei, where as Hendrik's force flow snake engine is like emei soft snake slide qigong. in terms of power generation there is no comparission, Force Flow is way more efficient and powerful.

when doing my force Flow chi sao in San Jose 3 years ago, Sifu Michael Mcilwrath described that my bridge (forearm) felt like I had continuous fa jin energy in them was proactive completely perturbing his balance and center axis.[/QUOTE]


kung fu fighter said:


> Joy, this is a two way street, your article only give bits and pieces of your view on structure, they don't explain the full detail the fundamental mechanics and dynamics involved. Hendrik has certainly gave away much more details publicly in his posts and videos concerning the snake engine force flow than you have. I've ask you to explain your view about structure more than once so that we can compare with Hendriks view in order to have a civil productive conversation all to no avail. here is a yet another opportunity!
> 
> I know Keith has spent some time studying wing chun with you in the past, so I am sure he is familar with your type of structure, perhaps he can elaborate on what the differences are between what he learnt from you in comparission to what he is currently doing?
> 
> ...



To be honest, had I not met Hendrik, I would be doing KLPSWC because I feel it's an efficient platform in how the system is organized and taught, plus it was in line with my wck evolution at the time. However in my opinion their engine is more aggressive Harder Bow compared to Hendrik's subtle soft Force Flow snake engine. KLPSWC engine is similar to hakka arts such as bak mei, where as Hendrik's force flow snake engine is like emei soft snake slide qigong. in terms of power generation there is no comparission, Force Flow is way more efficient and powerful.

when doing my force Flow chi sao in San Jose 3 years ago, Sifu Michael Mcilwrath described that my bridge (forearm) felt like I had continuous fa jin energy in them was proactive completely perturbing his balance and center axis.[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith spent less than two years with me in Las Cruces before I left and I was disappointed with his progress from then on. I wish him well in his hopping around.

IMO you don't "continuously" feel fajing energy- as far as I can tell there is no real fajing in fut sao wing chun

Thank you for your post- I have nothing to add at this time.


----------



## KPM (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Keith spent less than two years with me in Las Cruces before I left and I was disappointed with his progress from then on. I wish him well in his hopping around.
> 
> .



Well, there it is!  I was waiting for that!  I knew it was just a matter of time before Joy got around to launching the "low blow." ;-)   Completely unfair as Joy has no idea what I was up to after he left Las Cruces.  But this is an excellent way to do the old "well, if you think that then you couldn't have learned good Wing Chun well!" argument that I predicted earlier in this thread.

For the record....after I spent a good 2 years training with Joy, I continued training with Kurt Saenz on a regular basis for another 2 years.  During that 2 years I made frequent trips to Tucson and trained directly with Augustine Fong.  So that's a solid 4 years of training 2-3x/wk with quality people.  Joy was very good and an excellent instructor.  I am sure he has improved further in his skills and depth of knowledge over these many years since them.  His comment above was uncalled for and pretty shitty, if I may say so myself.

At one point I was in Kansas City going to Chiropractic College. During that time I trained with Randy Li, a student of Ho Kam Ming.

During Medical School I got interested in Pin Sun and spent over 2 years traveling back and forth to Boston the train with Jim Roselando.  More recently I revisited my Pin Sun by traveling again several times to Boston over a year spending time training with Marc Kenney.  Both Jim and Marc are students of Henry Mui.  While studying with Marc Sifu Mui would drop in on occasion to check progress and make corrections.  He was impressed enough with what I was doing to give me an instructor's certificate.

Joy wants to call that "superficial."   Yet he turns around and states:

_FWIW I have done chi sao with Hendrik in his house some years ago. He was a god host.
But I was unimpressed with his skills.This is not based on hearsay........ And I have seen Roselando's gu lao pinsun- an incomplete (compared to Ip man's art) collection of a few key motions._

So Joy spent what....a few hours?...maybe a day?....with Hendrik at one point and Jim at another point.  Yet he thinks he understands what Hendrik is talking about and understands the Ku Lo Pin Sun system enough to say it is an "incomplete collection of a few key motions"!!! Just WHO has the "superficial" exposure here?  Just who is passing judgment based upon very little experience?

Look, I'm not too impressed with the way Hendrik has been presenting his case in the forums over time either.  I don't know whether his view of WCK history is accurate or not.  I don't know whether his "snake engine" truly derives from Emei or not.  I don't know whether Yik Kam WCK is the best and original version of WCK ever seen before or not.  What I have said is that in the Chu Sau Lei WCK I am now studying I am seeing things that I haven't seen elsewhere.  These are good things and have improved my Wing Chun.  Robert Chu and Alan Orr both give Hendrik credit, so that's good enough for me.   I have literally over a decade of education in human anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, and sports medicine.  When I say that what I am learning now is an improvement on all the Wing Chun I have encounter and studied in the past from a biomechanical standpoint, I know what I am talking about.  I am the primary investigator on several scientific research projects, the medical monitor on several others, and a member f my hospital's Scientific Review Committee.  I assure you that I don't drink anyone's "kool aide."   You can ask me insulting questions all you want.  You can make insulting comments about my Wing Chun experience all you want.  But I'm telling you don't dismiss what Hendrik has been saying lightly.


----------



## KPM (May 24, 2015)

*I know Keith has spent some time studying wing chun with you in the past, so I am sure he is familar with your type of structure, perhaps he can elaborate on what the differences are between what he learnt from you in comparission to what he is currently doing?
*
Sorry Navin.  I wouldn't even presume to attempt it because I already know exactly what response it would get!  No matter what I would write Joy would simply say that I did not learn properly and don't know what I am talking about.


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

Joy,

It dont need two years.

It need only less then 16 hours to do basic transform of six core elements handling and one no longer do what he do before. Be it a five year old or a fourty year old wcner, they all be the same, transform. Even their level might varies but they are on the same direction , It is about proper use of biomechanics, physiology, and physics.

It is like iPhone, it is about technology, not about what religion, oldest, most authentic, which Demi God one believe in. Anyone can use an IPhone. As long as one has one.


Thus, I care less on lineage, my name , olderst, most authentic, true,.....etc all those do not solving technological problem of Siu Lin Tau.

Call it yik kam, call it red boat, call in made in USA. I care less.



My interest is to solve problem, the rest, who is better then who..... I care less because those are just ego stuffs which got no relationship to technology or technical issue needs to be solved. And what we have solved is something not yet being solved by others in past sixty years.


I propose to use biofeedback and physics lab to identify and examine the result because that is an objective test. It is like neuclear weapon, one doesn't have to destroy a city to prove its power , and one cannot cheat or giving lips service to talk their way out under the modern technology monitoring.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 24, 2015)

Good luck with your nuclear power development Hendrik and good luck to KPM and Navin. Cheers. I will concentrate on other posts rather than yours.No parting Parthian shots intended.
I will stay within the circle of civility on this list.


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Good luck with your nuclear power development Hendrik and good luck to KPM and Navin. Cheers. I will concentrate on other posts rather than yours.No parting Parthian shots intended.
> I will stay within the circle of civility on this list.





Joy,

Thanks !


----------



## KPM (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Good luck with your nuclear power development Hendrik and good luck to KPM and Navin. Cheers. I will concentrate on other posts rather than yours.No parting Parthian shots intended.
> I will stay within the circle of civility on this list.



Not quite an apology for your "cheap shot."  But Ok, thanks!


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 24, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Good luck with your nuclear power development Hendrik and good luck to KPM and Navin. Cheers. I will concentrate on other posts rather than yours.No parting Parthian shots intended.
> I will stay within the circle of civility on this list.



Thanks Joy! so you know I respect you as an elder in the Yip Man wing chun clan as well as your loyalty to your linage., however we must remember that as good as Yip Man was, he didn't know it all,  in order to grow and expand our horizons,  it's good to keep an open mind towards other wCK linages to learn from one another. I wish you good luck as well in your wing chun wing chun journey.


----------



## Hendrik (May 24, 2015)

This might help to know why many don't understand


----------



## zuti car (May 24, 2015)

Now , the most important question , can you fight with that snake engine . I saw some videos of that Alan guy , he is good, simple , direct, it can be used in a fight and... it is modified boxing . So question stays , is it possible to fight with this Hendrik's art ?


----------



## Jake104 (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Now , the most important question , can you fight with that snake engine . I saw some videos of that Alan guy , he is good, simple , direct, it can be used in a fight and... it is modified boxing . So question stays , is it possible to fight with this Hendrik's art ?


 Fighting? What does that have to do with any of this? This thread like most WC threads always seem to turn into some sort of intellectual battle royal snooze fest. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz! I'd rather watch paint dry. Way more interesting!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Now , the most important question , can you fight with that snake engine?


If the "snake engine" is "power generation", it will be nice to see a clip that use "snake engine" to hit on a heavy bag.


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Now , the most important question , can you fight with that snake engine . I saw some videos of that Alan guy , he is good, simple , direct, it can be used in a fight and... it is modified boxing . So question stays , is it possible to fight with this Hendrik's art ?



Can you "race" with a car with an engine?  Of course you can!  But how well you do in the race may depend on which engine your car has!  If your car has no engine at all, it isn't going far!   Like I said before, "engine" is just a term for the core biomechanics one uses to handle force...to generate power....to receive and deal with incoming force.  Everyone has an "engine" of some kind. 

And Alan is not doing "modified boxing."   At least not modified "western" boxing, which is what I assume you mean.  When you know what to look for and really start to look for it, the mechanics he is using is not at all western boxing.  Just because he is wearing boxing gloves at times and throwing fast snappy punches does not mean it is modified western boxing.


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If the "snake engine" is "power generation", it will be nice to see a clip that use "snake engine" to hit on a heavy bag.



I believe this has been posted here before.  This is Aaron Baum, one of Alan Orr's senior students and one of his MMA fighters.  He has been trained in the "snake engine."   Can you see it?  Likely not.  Can you see the engine of the typical NASCAR?   But, if you know what to look for, you will see this is not western boxing.


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

In anticipation of the next question:  "how is this different from western boxing?".....watch for these things:

1.  Spine stays straight up and down.  He is not "hunching over."   And he is also not leaning back like you see in some Wing Chun!
2.  Shoulders stay down, even when he throws a wide punch. There are no "shrugging" and "rolling shoulders" like you see in western boxing.
4.  The rear heel may come up at times because he is pushing off from the ball of the foot, but he is not pivoting around the ball of the foot and swinging the heel around like a western boxer.  Watch his rear hip.  When his rear heel comes off the ground a bit it is because his rear hip is coming forward to generate power.  Sometimes you will even see him take a small step forward with that rear foot to get good "square" hip alignment.  The rear hip "slams in" for the punch, like slamming a car door.  A western boxer will often pivot on the front hip and "swing in" with the rear hip while pivoting on the ball of the rear foot.  This is a different biomechanic.
5.  Its hard to see, but if you watch closely you can catch at times that he is pushing forward from the Kua and not "leaning in" from the shoulders like a western boxer.
6.  Another thing that is hard to see but you start to get the "gist" of if you watch long enough....he keeps the shoulders and elbows down...not the exaggerated push the elbows into the centerline like in some Wing Chun....but the shoulders and elbows stay down and the power-line at impact goes through the hips and into the ground.  There is a force vector at a downward angle from the point of impact.   A western boxer with often lean into a punch and bend forward at the waist with his elbow up on impact.  When he does this the force vector is going straight  back and through his shoulder.  It is not going into the ground.

Is any of this Hendrik's "snake engine"?  He will have to chime in on that!  But this is good solid biomechanics, and it is not western boxing.  This is Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.  And....getting back to the OP!.....there is good forward intent here and good "elbow power."


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> I believe this has been posted here before.  This is Aaron Baum, one of Alan Orr's senior students and one of his MMA fighters.  He has been trained in the "snake engine."   Can you see it?  Likely not.  Can you see the engine of the typical NASCAR?   But, if you know what to look for, you will see this is not western boxing.


All I see is power generation from rotating hips . Now , that is boxing or snake engine has same power generation as boxing. You van keep your elbows down ( like most boxers do) and hit with "wing chun" vertical fist, but if you rotate hips it is boxing. You may see something I don't and have deeper understanding of the art but until I see something really different, this is and will stay boxing .


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> All I see is power generation from rotating hips.



Power generation via turning of the hips, and hip rotation, is in 2nd and 3rd forms of most WC...


----------



## Hendrik (May 25, 2015)

Most of you guys are keep looking for a mechanical system ignoring it is a hydraulic system.


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> All I see is power generation from rotating hips . Now , that is boxing or snake engine has same power generation as boxing. You van keep your elbows down ( like most boxers do) and hit with "wing chun" vertical fist, but if you rotate hips it is boxing. You may see something I don't and have deeper understanding of the art but until I see something really different, this is and will stay boxing .



Sorry Zuti.  I disagree.  You think Wing Chun doesn't use the hips?  I would have had the same reaction that you had not long ago.  But once you start to do it and know what it is, its easier to see and you know the differences.  That clip is absolutely not western boxing.


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Power generation via turning of the hips, and hip rotation, is in 2nd and 3rd forms of most WC...


This could lead to endless discussion . I have only one question, if first form is not necessary , if rotating hips are the best power generation method for wing chun and if the system is built around that method than why first form even exist ?


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> This could lead to endless discussion . I have only one question, if first form is not necessary , if rotating hips are the best power generation method for wing chun and if the system is built around that method than why first form even exist ?



Who said first form is not necessary???
Who said rotating hips is the best power generation method for wing chun???


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> This could lead to endless discussion . I have only one question, if first form is not necessary , if rotating hips are the best power generation method for wing chun and if the system is built around that method than why first form even exist ?



Who said the first form wasn't necessary?  You don't rotate the hips in your second form?  SNT is entirely stationary.  CK adds footwork.  One of those footwork methods is rotating.  That's WCK 101.  You can generate power driving forward, standing still, or rotating the hip.  Power comes from the ground controlled by the Kua and up the spine in all three instances. SNT teaches fundamental structure and position.  CK teaches how to make that mobile and start applying it.  And who said rotating hips were THE best power generation method for Wing Chun?  In that clip of Aaron Baum he is rotating his hip, pressing forward from the Kua, rising up, sinking.....not just rotating hips.


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> Sorry Zuti.  I disagree.  You think Wing Chun doesn't use the hips?  I would have had the same reaction that you had not long ago.  But once you start to do it and know what it is, its easier to see and you know the differences.  That clip is absolutely not western boxing.


I never said that , I use hips  for hooks and some elbow strikes not for straight line punches . This kind of thing is common among many wing chun people who start seriously to practice and to fight  and then realize that "wing chun power generation" is not efficient enough and they start with hip rotation and justify that with " we have that in 2nd and 3rd" form . Many people believe they know how to generate power and relax but when they meet heavy bag they see they cannot generate sufficient amount of power . Instead to reevaluate what they did wrong , they just abandon that and switch to hip rotation which is much easier to learn and will give enough power even if it is not done properly 100% .


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 25, 2015)

Zuti...where do you get this idea that WC doesn't / can't use hip rotation?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> In that clip of Aaron Baum he is rotating his hip, pressing forward from the Kua, rising up, sinking.....not just rotating hips.


 Like many good boxers do  , boxing is not just hip rotation but all these things you said here just without Chinese terminology


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Zuti...where do you get this idea that WC doesn't / can't use hip rotation?!?!?!?!?!


Did I said that? On the other hand , guy from the clip is  doing boxing and call it wing chun .


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 25, 2015)

IMHO, if it's in the forms...its there for us to use in whatever manner we see fit. Body turning, hip rotation, and hip torque'ing are all in the forms. Therefore, they are free game! If your form(s) have hip / waist methods that you dismiss or haven't yet seen or used, that's on you. As KPM stated, first form is all about heels/elbows, etc. Second form = time to go mobile!


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Did I said that? On the other hand , guy from the clip is using doing boxing and call it wing chun .



Well, like you said...this could lead to endless discussion... Clearly we all have differing ideas and such is life.


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Well, like you said...this could lead to endless discussion... Clearly we all have differing ideas and such is life.


Before we finish ,tell me just one thing , are you also Hendrik's follower ?


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Before we finish ,tell me just one thing , are you also Hendrik's follower ?



*Not in the slightest.*

I hope he and his guys have a fulfilling wing chun journey, but no, not a subscriber. Good Yip Man WC has what I need. Thx for asking though.


----------



## Danny T (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> ... guy from the clip is  doing boxing and call it wing chun .


He isn't doing western boxing, if he is then it is poor.
What he is doing is using a lot punching from a high guard position and not bunch of centerline cycling punching. But there is a lot of wc displayed.


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> *Not in the slightest.*
> 
> I hope he and his guys have a fulfilling wing chun journey, but no, not a subscriber. Good Yip Man WC has what I need. Thx for asking though.


Just wanted to be sure , I am not often here so I can't catch up who is who and who is doing what ( and do not care to be honest )


----------



## Hendrik (May 25, 2015)

The issue is you guys keep thinking mechanical system while the SNT set is to develop hydraulic system as the platform of Wck.

Rotate hip in a mechanical system and a hydraulic system might look similar but it is a totally different handling .


For past sixty years wcners keep thinking in a mechanical system way which lead to not be able to develop the hydraulic system of SNT.

Snake engine is a hydraulic system instead of a pure mechanical one.


----------



## Hendrik (May 25, 2015)

I care less if it is yik kam system, Ipman system, YKS system , or Hendrik system....etc

If it doesn't work according to its design to deliver full potential.  it doesn't matter who's system.


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

Before I go to sleep I have one more question regarding this video clip .Before I ask a question I have to say I have some years in Shotokan karate and I am familiar with that art . Let's say I am wrong and that is wing chun , is  , well that was called in Shotokan karate "combat Zenkutsu dachi " stance prevalent stance in wing chun system ? Or it is used only for heavy bag training ?


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> The issue is you guys keep thinking mechanical system while the SNT set is to develop hydraulic system as the platform of Wck.
> 
> Rotate hip in a mechanical system and a hydraulic system might look similar but it is a totally different handling .
> 
> ...


You like to  make videos , make one where you punching something , heavy bag for instance , so we can all see what are you talking about


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> You like to  make videos , make one where you punching something , heavy bag for instance , so we can all see what are you talking about


I have asked Herdrik on this before. By using the "snake engine" to show how to generate power on a heavy bag can be valuable. After all MA is 2 persons art, if the other person is not there, the heavy bag may be the next best thing to have (at least from the striking art point of view).


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Like many good boxers do  , boxing is not just hip rotation but all these things you said here just without Chinese terminology



No doubt!  But they do it differently and combine them differently.   You don't sink or rise or press or rotate in your Wing Chun?


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Did I said that? On the other hand , guy from the clip is  doing boxing and call it wing chun .


 
Absolutely not true Zuti!  And I described exactly what to look for to see the differences.  You can say "I can't see what you are pointing out" and that's fine.  But don't say "the guy from the clip is doing boxing and call it Wing Chun."  Because I said it is not western boxing.  It is Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.  Are you saying I don't know what I'm talking about?


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Before I go to sleep I have one more question regarding this video clip .Before I ask a question I have to say I have some years in Shotokan karate and I am familiar with that art . Let's say I am wrong and that is wing chun , is  , well that was called in Shotokan karate "combat Zenkutsu dachi " stance prevalent stance in wing chun system ? Or it is used only for heavy bag training ?



I don't know that terminology.  But if you mean the "front stance" he is using with weight distro 50/50, both feet and knees pointing forward, spine straight and centered over the pelvis....yes!  This is a common stance in Wing Chun.  Just because he doesn't have his weight shifted back over his rear leg with his Man Sau hand stuck way out in front doesn't mean it isn't a Wing Chun stance!  This is a fighting stance, not just for hitting a bag!


----------



## KPM (May 25, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> The issue is you guys keep thinking mechanical system while the SNT set is to develop hydraulic system as the platform of Wck.
> 
> .



Can you describe for us the difference between a mechanical system and a hydraulic system?


----------



## Hendrik (May 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> Can you describe for us the difference between a mechanical system and a hydraulic system?








Hope this help.

Snake engine is a type of hydraulic system type. Not a mechanical system type which most uses in general. Examine the difference in using the body or hip...etc. both of these system.


----------



## Danny T (May 25, 2015)

Forms, Drills, Application.
Form in wc chun isn't about how one presents the body but rather how on uses the body and the mind. SLT is as much about the mind (intent) as it is about using the body. CK is about coordinating the use of the tools developed in SLT with body movement. (rotating, stepping, changing the center of gravity, creating power through the connection to the ground and transmitting it into the opponent. BJ is about regaining the center when lost and using a much shorter movement for power generation. It connects everything the practitioner has learned in SLT and CK all while responding to ever changing dynamics. How you utilize or apply what you have developed may well be different to someone else. WC is a method to internalize the use of the body as well as the physical aspect.


----------



## Hendrik (May 25, 2015)

KPM,

The engine is different, the power generation characteristics will be different, the momentum ( distance, space , timing handling ) characteristics will be different, the strategy will be different.

You can learn from Robert that wcner complain Robert is tooooo close to them in chi sau ...etc. because they stucked and helpless ...etc.  well, Robert is using this type of engine and isn't it Wck is said to be close range, stick while keen in issue short Jin?

I care less if this is 1840 or made in the Silicon Valley, but this type of hydraulic snake engine do be able to delive and live up to the claim of Wck is said to be close range, stick while keen in issue short Jin. While mechanical system type always needs a distance , a triangle shape, a structure....etc


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> No doubt!  But they do it differently and combine them differently.   You don't sink or rise or press or rotate in your Wing Chun?


I do ,but not  in the way you may think  .


----------



## zuti car (May 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> I don't know that terminology.  But if you mean the "front stance" he is using with weight distro 50/50, both feet and knees pointing forward, spine straight and centered over the pelvis....yes!  This is a common stance in Wing Chun.  Just because he doesn't have his weight shifted back over his rear leg with his Man Sau hand stuck way out in front doesn't mean it isn't a Wing Chun stance!  This is a fighting stance, not just for hitting a bag!


Ok, now  guy on the clip has no structure , he puts his weight on the front leg almost every time when he does a cross , no wing chun there . Now , you may defend what he is doing and try to explain and say I don't see what you see ,but i see what I see . Now the real question is why would someone use rotating hips to generate power in wing chun? There is only one explanation and I already wrote it before , either you know how to punch with "wing chun straight puch" or you don't. If you don't then boxing is the next best thing . And with this I will finish , people can do anything they like the way they like it and that is ok  .


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 26, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> Hope this help.
> 
> Snake engine is a type of hydraulic system type. Not a mechanical system type which most uses in general. Examine the difference in using the body or hip...etc. both of these system.



Ok, not that I want to take this thread any more off topic, but...
I see what HS is saying, however he contradicts himself in this video.
Firstly, he is (generically) implying that "mechanical" is only done at long range, hence he says usage 'of the body' to hit. I get it. Obviously one must use mechanical to adjust things like range/distance. This can be done by moving your horse and/or other body mechanics to effect a strike.

However, he goes on to demonstrate his hydraulic method. He steps closer to the jong (a mechanical movement), places his hand on it (short range method), then leans forward (mechanical) in his horse (perhaps for the hydraulics, or to simply load the joints with potential energy). Then a few seconds later he actually 'hits' the jong, but not before leaning forward again, almost lunging at the jong with his upper body. 

I can appreciate HS's willingness to make a quick video to post in order to further explain things, etc but what I get from this video is this:
1) one can only use hydraulic methods if already in contact / sticking to opponent.
2) hydraulic means to lean forward and/or load the joints with potential energy.
3) he is stating that mechanical methods are not led by the mind or intent which leads chi/qi etc.

* speaking for me and my WC only, what he did is found in 2nd form. No big deal. I'm sure there is more to HS and his hydraulics than a mere 4 minute video can contain but just wanted to post my thoughts.  
Sorry to KFF for veering off topic for a bit.


----------



## Hendrik (May 26, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Ok, not that I want to take this thread any more off topic, but...
> I see what HS is saying, however he contradicts himself in this video.
> Firstly, he is (generically) implying that "mechanical" is only done at long range, hence he says usage 'of the body' to hit. I get it. Obviously one must use mechanical to adjust things like range/distance. This can be done by moving your horse and/or other body mechanics to effect a strike.
> 
> ...




This is exactly the expected comment when one only live in a mechanical system world. But  not expose to a different world.

Looks closely, do I learn my body? Or turn my hip? Or I stay in loose and soft? Do I lunging with my upper body? There are two hydraulic example strike, one is for explaination and go very slow. One is I just walk into the distance and strike.


Also, please watch and comprehend what has been said in the video. Otherwise, one think one get it but don't know what is being presented .




So, again, to repeat what I present in the videos.

the mechanical system way is intention leads physical movements directly.
The hydraulic system way is intention leads Qi ( force flow) , Qi transport the physical . Or intention leads physical in directly .

Two different type of handling


----------



## Hendrik (May 26, 2015)

For those who does not watch this yet on mechanical and hydraulic system. And thinking as those who I share my conversation with as in this video


----------



## Hendrik (May 26, 2015)

For those who did not watch this yet which related to close soft body and long range hard body art.


----------



## KPM (May 26, 2015)

Ok, now  guy on the clip has no structure ,

----"Structure" has become such a buzzword lately.  Everyone has "structure" of some sort.  Maybe its good, maybe its bad, maybe its functional, maybe its inefficient, or maybe it is just  what is needed for really fighting someone seriously trying to harm you.

 he puts his weight on the front leg almost every time when he does a cross , no wing chun there .

--Says who? Who says Wing Chun cannot put weight on the forward leg?  When putting out force in a forward direction for a strong punch, which makes the most sense from a biomechanical standpoint.....to shift the COG forward and put weight into the front leg, or to lean back in your stance so your COG remains to the rear?  And that's not a cross.  That's a straight punch from the rear hand.  A boxer's cross has the rear heel up, the body inclined forward at the waist, the shoulder raised, and the elbow out.  Exact opposite of what is going on in this video.

 Now the real question is why would someone use rotating hips to generate power in wing chun?

---No, the real question is why would someone NOT use rotating hips to generate power in Wing Chun?  Why leave out a major link in the power chain?  The Kua/Hips are the where the COG lies. Don't you rotate the hips when you pivot in Chum Kiu?  And again, this is NOT the same hip rotation for power used in western boxing.  The biomechanics are different.  I described that previously. 

There is only one explanation and I already wrote it before , either you know how to punch with "wing chun straight puch" or you don't. If you don't then boxing is the next best thing . And with this I will finish , people can do anything they like the way they like it and that is ok 

---No, there is another explanation.   It seems someone doesn't understand good biomechanics enough to understand what is happening and see differences that are there.  It seems someone may have a very limited definition of what a "wing chun straight punch" is.   But that's Ok too!  ;-)


----------



## JPinAZ (May 26, 2015)

I've been reading Henrdik's hydraulic vs. mechanical differences, where he says everyone here that doesn't agree with him must be looking at things from a 'mechanical' POV, while he is talking from a 'hydraulic' POV. Then he posts a video to differentiate the two. His demonstration of his idea on 'mechanical' has little-to-nothing to do with WC body methods at all. No decent WC operates like that - it is a straw man argument. And, it shows his ignorance of other WC lineages if he assumes this is how other WC lineages operate.
His next demonstration of his 'hydraulic' methods is really no big deal. While desperately trying to make himself unique to sell his new-flavored snake oil, IMO his 'hydraulic' demo is more in-common with the most very basic WC body methods than he would have us believe. No wonder it only takes 16 hours to learn..


----------



## JPinAZ (May 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> We're not talking about snake kung fu.  We're talking about Wing Chun.  You know....the art with the legend about combining elements from seeing a Snake and a Crane fighting?  Just a legend, but legends often hide elements of truth.



You can believe that if you want (legends included), buy yes, when it comes to Hendrik's WC, the talk is always about snake and crane animal kung fu. How quickly you've forgotten the past 10 years of all of Hendriks' talk of snake this & Emie kung fu that! Hendrik has shared countless videos, pictures, documents, etc from those other arts attempting to validate his new WC style. And not once can anything be discussed in regards to his WC without_ needing_ to draw references from those 2 arts or other outside sources. If it was only about WC (and unless someone is trying to sell us something), why do we constantly need to look at these outside sources & animal kung fu systems that have less to do with WC than the have in common?

Snakes, cranes, car engines, mechanical/hydaulic, etc - Why so much trouble to explain what for most is seen as some pretty basic ideas in and outside of WC? WC is supposed to be about simplicity and efficiency. If Henrik's WC is supposedly the source from the 1850's, why is it so difficult to talk about it without constantly having to point to so many outside sources to make sense of it?


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 26, 2015)

Sometimes he (HS) refers to his stuff as an iphone, now its hydraulics...I'm confused. Wonder what's next? Event horizons near black holes? 
I tried to give some thoughts on his video, and, as PER USUAL, he comes back with his normal response. 
Oh well. I'm done with it anyway. Think I'll go spray some WD-40 on my mechanical WC structure...after that I think I'll sit down and craft me up a WC system from oh say the late 1400's...yeah...that sounds good. Perhaps mine will be based on ocean water...yeah that's it! And it came over here on the ship with Columbus...yeah! 
Sorry...getting old and cranky I guess. Carry on Gents.


----------



## KPM (May 26, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> You can believe that if you want (legends included), buy yes, when it comes to Hendrik's WC, the talk is always about snake and crane animal kung fu. How quickly you've forgotten the past 10 years of all of Hendriks' talk of snake this & Emie kung fu that!


 
No.  I haven't forgotten anything.  I refer you to my previous comment on this very thread:

 Look, I'm not too impressed with the way Hendrik has been presenting his case in the forums over time either. I don't know whether his view of WCK history is accurate or not. I don't know whether his "snake engine" truly derives from Emei or not. I don't know whether Yik Kam WCK is the best and original version of WCK ever seen before or not. What I have said is that in the Chu Sau Lei WCK I am now studying I am seeing things that I haven't seen elsewhere. These are good things and have improved my Wing Chun. Robert Chu and Alan Orr both give Hendrik credit, so that's good enough for me. I have literally over a decade of education in human anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, and sports medicine. When I say that what I am learning now is an improvement on all the Wing Chun I have encounter and studied in the past from a biomechanical standpoint, I know what I am talking about. I am the primary investigator on several scientific research projects, the medical monitor on several others, and a member f my hospital's Scientific Review Committee. I assure you that I don't drink anyone's "kool aide." You can ask me insulting questions all you want. You can make insulting comments about my Wing Chun experience all you want. But I'm telling you don't dismiss what Hendrik has been saying lightly.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> No.  I haven't forgotten anything.  I refer you to my previous comment on this very thread:
> 
> Look, I'm not too impressed with the way Hendrik has been presenting his case in the forums over time either. I don't know whether his view of WCK history is accurate or not. I don't know whether his "snake engine" truly derives from Emei or not. I don't know whether Yik Kam WCK is the best and original version of WCK ever seen before or not. What I have said is that in the Chu Sau Lei WCK I am now studying I am seeing things that I haven't seen elsewhere. These are good things and have improved my Wing Chun. Robert Chu and Alan Orr both give Hendrik credit, so that's good enough for me.



You can't have it both ways - you can't argue that what we're talking about is all WC if you also admit you don't know, nor care, what or where it really comes from. Remember, you also said _"We're not talking about snake kung fu. We're talking about Wing Chun" _- are you sure? 

Look, it's cool you found something to help improve your previous WC experience. But just because someone takes information from outside arts into their WC and 'it works' doesn't make it WC either,  even if helps explain unanswered questions or someone finds value in it. Which is probably why you say you say haven't seen it elsewhere - because it's not originally part WC information and most likely only recently added.
And which is most likely explains why the sources are so often referenced by Hendrik and others (Emei this, snake engine that, 7 bows, etc). This information can easily be found in the borrowed-from arts in short time with google searches. Heck, even Hendrik has posted up a lot of this snake & crane information through-out his search for what he calls missing WC info himself! Again, great if it works for those that find value, but let's just call it what it is.

And there's the rub. There are many in the WC community that someone's word isn't good enough for them and they aren't going to just accept this stuff as 'the source of WC dug out of the 1800's past via time machine' as it's being sold - when it can easily be see it's just common information borrowed from other arts. So, it could come down to a question of honesty & integrity in the WC community. To many, these are still 2 very important things to have in a teacher and/or historian.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 26, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> You can believe that if you want (legends included), buy yes, when it comes to Hendrik's WC, the talk is always about snake and crane animal kung fu. How quickly you've forgotten the past 10 years of all of Hendriks' talk of snake this & Emie kung fu that! Hendrik has shared countless videos, pictures, documents, etc from those other arts attempting to validate his new WC style. And not once can anything be discussed in regards to his WC without_ needing_ to draw references from those 2 arts or other outside sources. If it was only about WC (and unless someone is trying to sell us something), why do we constantly need to look at these outside sources & animal kung fu systems that have less to do with WC than the have in common?
> 
> Snakes, cranes, car engines, mechanical/hydaulic, etc - Why so much trouble to explain what for most is seen as some pretty basic ideas in and outside of WC? WC is supposed to be about simplicity and efficiency. If Henrik's WC is supposedly the source from the 1850's, why is it so difficult to talk about it without constantly having to point to so many outside sources to make sense of it?



Taiji went through something similar not to long ago. All sorts of secret animal forms with stories that could not be confirmed. The only problem there was they did not go back far enough in years because there were (and are) still living students of the people they claimed to have learned from. Mostly it was all about money



JPinAZ said:


> You can believe that if you want (legends included), buy yes, when it comes to Hendrik's WC, the talk is always about snake and crane animal kung fu. How quickly you've forgotten the past 10 years of all of Hendriks' talk of snake this & Emie kung fu that! Hendrik has shared countless videos, pictures, documents, etc from those other arts attempting to validate his new WC style. And not once can anything be discussed in regards to his WC without_ needing_ to draw references from those 2 arts or other outside sources. If it was only about WC (and unless someone is trying to sell us something), why do we constantly need to look at these outside sources & animal kung fu systems that have less to do with WC than the have in common?
> 
> Snakes, cranes, car engines, mechanical/hydaulic, etc - Why so much trouble to explain what for most is seen as some pretty basic ideas in and outside of WC? WC is supposed to be about simplicity and efficiency. If Henrik's WC is supposedly the source from the 1850's, why is it so difficult to talk about it without constantly having to point to so many outside sources to make sense of it?



Make sure you include a cave and either a Taoist or secret writings of a daoist.


----------



## Hendrik (May 26, 2015)

I don't like to argue, and always shows facts  evidence from different t sources, from different older Wck lineages then the Hong Kong evolution or offspring lineages






the following video starts at 6.15 to 7.11 is about " hydraulic system " or the snake engine , which I am always presenting








Check out the following video start 2.22. See how the soft Wck or what I refered to as hydraulic system  to make it simple for understanding . It says in the video by the senior the art has been lost in Hong Kong .








As for Emei mother art, check out the following video
Start  18.45


 EP061 - YouTube

The fact is the fact, no one can twisting the facts. Many in the human history had tried to destroy facts with iron hand tried but fail.


It is always easy to pick and deny without evidence, that is a usual case.


The facts are , it is not me because older generation has a consistent in describing Wck similar to what I have  present. Perhaps it is the time for you to ask yourself, why is your Wck different from the older generation of Wck ?


----------



## JPinAZ (May 26, 2015)

Thank you for further proving my point - always looking to outside sources to explain your WC . Posting those videos says a whole lot about nothing.

Maybe it is time you ask yourself where it is you've misplaced your marbles...


----------



## Vajramusti (May 26, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> For those who did not watch this yet which related to close soft body and long range hard body art.


--------------------------------------------------------Still piggy backing on Ip Man like some.
Apparently for  those posting on You tube-     after x number of hits You tube  pays posters.
Commerce is alive and well.


----------



## KPM (May 26, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> You can't have it both ways - you can't argue that what we're talking about is all WC if you also admit you don't know, nor care, what or where it really comes from. Remember, you also said _"We're not talking about snake kung fu. We're talking about Wing Chun" _- are you sure?
> 
> Look, it's cool you found something to help improve your previous WC experience. But just because someone takes information from outside arts into their WC and 'it works' doesn't make it WC either,  even if helps explain unanswered questions or someone finds value in it. Which is probably why you say you say haven't seen it elsewhere - because it's not originally part WC information and most likely only recently added.
> .



Sheesh!  You haven't changed, have you JP?  Have what both ways?  Twist things around all you want, but I have said nothing that was contradictory.  What makes something Wing Chun?   Wing Chun....if you take the legends to heart....likely started as a some kind of combination of a Crane style and Snake elements.  It certainly didn't arise in a vacuum, and is based on some preexisting art!  Why do we see such diversity in the mainland styles?  Its because generations of people in China have "enriched" their Wing Chun with various things...whether it was some Choy Ga, Hung Ga, Shaolin, just their own innovations, etc.  There is no such thing as "pure" or "original" Wing Chun.  If I take findings from modern sports science and biomechanics and change the way I do some things in my Wing Chun, is it then no longer "Wing Chun"?  That's just silly.

What I was saying before is that we are not talking about "Snake Kung Fu" as a thing unto itself.  We are talking about Wing Chun...and whether it does or can have "snake elements."  That's two different things.  Was it always there?  Is it a recent innovation?  Is it a renewal of skills that were lost?  I don't know.  But things evolve and change with the times.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Its called progress.  Things that don't grow typically die.  Reviving forgotten skills at the right time can be a way of producing progress as well.  Either way, if it makes good biomechanical sense and improves what I'm doing, then I'm for it! 

Judo has certainly changed since Jigaro Kano was alive.  BJJ has certainly changed since Helio Gracie was a pup!  Same goes for many martial arts.   What if someone came along and said to modern Judo players that they have forgotten a specific biomechanical factor in the way they throw that dates back to Kano's teacher, and that by reintroducing this skill they can improve the power and amplitude of their throws?  Would they then say "but that's not Judo!"  I bet they wouldn't if it got results!

But that's the rub.  Hendrik hasn't proven that what he is saying gets results.  I like  what I'm learning from Chu Sau Lei WCK, because it does get results.  Robert Chu and Alan Orr both attribute these results to what they have learned from Hendrik.  But I admit I get frustrated with Hendrik's presentations in the forums like everyone else.


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 26, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> when it comes to Hendrik's WC, the talk is always about snake and crane animal kung fu. How quickly you've forgotten the past 10 years of all of Hendriks' talk of snake this & Emie kung fu that! Hendrik has shared countless videos, pictures, documents, etc from those other arts attempting to validate his new WC style. And not once can anything be discussed in regards to his WC without_ needing_ to draw references from those 2 arts or other outside sources. If it was only about WC (and unless someone is trying to sell us something), why do we constantly need to look at these outside sources & animal kung fu systems that have less to do with WC than the have in common?



According to the old timers such as Yuen Kay Shan, Fung Chun, Yip Man and Yik kam, wing chun is a fusion of Crane and Snake boxing, so what's your point? I see nothing wrong with Hendrik referencing the mother and father arts that was used in the creation of wing chun to point out details of the wck system which may have been overlooked or watered down over time due to secrecy.


----------



## KPM (May 26, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Thank you for further proving my point - always looking to outside sources to explain your WC . Posting those videos says a whole lot about nothing.
> 
> Maybe it is time you ask yourself where it is you've misplaced your marbles...



Proving what point JP?  Did you miss the fact that the guy in the first video is Yuen Kay San WING CHUN and the guy in the second video is Pao Fao Lin WING CHUN?


----------



## KPM (May 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Ok, now  guy on the clip has no structure , he puts his weight on the front leg almost every time when he does a cross , no wing chun there . Now , you may defend what he is doing and try to explain and say I don't see what you see ,but i see what I see . Now the real question is why would someone use rotating hips to generate power in wing chun? There is only one explanation and I already wrote it before , either you know how to punch with "wing chun straight puch" or you don't. If you don't then boxing is the next best thing . And with this I will finish , people can do anything they like the way they like it and that is ok  .



Just wanted to revisit this one more time.  Check out the guy below.  If someone is watching that clip of Aaron Baum and can't tell the difference between what he is doing and what the guy below is doing....well....there's not much more I can say about it.  ;-)


----------



## kung fu fighter (May 26, 2015)

Keith, check your inbox


----------



## zuti car (May 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---No, there is another explanation.   It seems someone doesn't understand good biomechanics enough to understand what is happening and see differences that are there.  It seems someone may have a very limited definition of what a "wing chun straight punch" is.   But that's Ok too!  ;-)


Now you started to make insulting comments on personal level. Why did you let yourself to do such a thing.? Like l said , I will not argue about this matter any more , I do understand why you have such a strong urge to defend your new discoveried art or it is maybe a fate , you certainly behave like Jehovah witness . About what i do or do not understand , you are wellcome to contact me if you ever come to Taiwan , I will treat you lunch and we can compare our arts and skills (before lunch of course) .


----------



## JPinAZ (May 26, 2015)

Jeebus KPM/KFF - you guys are a touchy bunch! I must have struck a nerve... I'll lay off with the logical talk for a bit before one of you starts crying.


----------



## Jake104 (May 26, 2015)

Really now Hydraulics? I'm going to guess next will be pneumatic energy? Air, water, hydraulic fluid all when compressed create an energy. So.......what's your point? Usually those energies when harnessed are used in the exact same way as mechanical energy. Wait, what's mechanical energy again? Gears? Gears are powertrain . Powertrain transmits energy. It's not energy by itself. Something needs to power the powertrain? Power sources like combustion, electric, solar, hydraulic, pneumatic are all just potential energy sources that by them self do nothing. I have a hydraulic ram in my garage. I can make a video of it laying on the ground moving in and out? It's not connected to anything so the video would be literally a ram going in and out. Woohoo exciting!  Energy means nothing without powertrain or some kind of delivery system.


----------



## Jake104 (May 27, 2015)

Here's another little tidbit about hydraulics. What's the energy source used to power the hydraulics? What compresses the fluid? Glad I asked. Usually some sort of pump? The pump is usually powered by electricity which turns a mechanical pump that pushes the fluid through a orrafice. Now you have hydraulics. Now you can connect your hydraulics to whatever you like. A low rider, jack, crane, dump truck, wing chun???


----------



## dlcox (May 27, 2015)

There is only Ti, Da, Shuai & Na. The mechanics involved in each process do not vary from style to style, the emphasis on aspects of utilization & approach will. This is influenced by many things such as body type, mentality, social influences, cultural influences, tradition, mentality etc. As humans our approach to Ti, Da, Shuai & Na are subjective and as humans we like to over analyze and categorize each minute aspect of polarity shifts of basic principles to create something "new". Take "Elbow Up" for example, we have Bong Shou, Zhong Bong, Da Bong, Lan Shou, Gai Zhou, Pi Zhou etc. All variations on a theme, all elbow up positions based on different angles. Yes all require different "energy" but in the grand scheme of things it is still a gross concept of elbow up. It's our preferences that gives it value, but this value is only applicable on a personal level. Why are there so many versions of elbow up? Because one way does not work for all situations and for everyone, because of the various influences that affect our approach. As humans we will always chose the path of least resistance, but in varying degrees. Some use hardness, some softness, some both. Some use lots of technique some use very little. People will use what they are comfortable with and comes easy to them, there is also instinctual and habitual response. From birth we are conditioned in various ways. Each of us has a natural inclination towards one of the aspects of Ti, Da, Shuai & Na. No one approach (Snake body, 7 Stars, 7 Bows, 6 Harmonies etc.) is all inclusive, each method has specific mechanics of human motion. There is no omnipotent principle that will maximize the potential of all the mechanics involved in each method, each requires different attributes of human movement. Different body types, strengths, flexibility, ambulation & mentality will choose different approaches in principles to maximize their efforts. No one theory addresses them all, no one theory is better than another just different. Anyone who claims to have discovered an all inclusive method to maximize human potential is a liar, there are way too many variables to consider. That is why we have different approaches to Ti, Da, Shuai & Na in the martial arts. There is no one correct way.


----------



## Jake104 (May 27, 2015)

dlcox said:


> There is only Ti, Da, Shuai & Na. The mechanics involved in each process do not vary from style to style, the emphasis on aspects of utilization & approach will. This is influenced by many things such as body type, mentality, social influences, cultural influences, tradition, mentality etc. As humans our approach to Ti, Da, Shuai & Na are subjective and as humans we like to over analyze and categorize each minute aspect of polarity shifts of basic principles to create something "new". Take "Elbow Up" for example, we have Bong Shou, Zhong Bong, Da Bong, Lan Shou, Gai Zhou, Pi Zhou etc. All variations on a theme, all elbow up positions based on different angles. Yes all require different "energy" but in the grand scheme of things it is still a gross concept of elbow up. It's our preferences that gives it value, but this value is only applicable on a personal level. Why are there so many versions of elbow up? Because one way does not work for all situations and for everyone, because of the various influences that affect our approach. As humans we will always chose the path of least resistance, but in varying degrees. Some use hardness, some softness, some both. Some use lots of technique some use very little. People will use what they are comfortable with and comes easy to them, there is also instinctual and habitual response. From birth we are conditioned in various ways. Each of us has a natural inclination towards one of the aspects of Ti, Da, Shuai & Na. No one approach (Snake body, 7 Stars, 7 Bows, 6 Harmonies etc.) is all inclusive, each method has specific mechanics of human motion. There is no omnipotent principle that will maximize the potential of all the mechanics involved in each method, each requires different attributes of human movement. Different body types, strengths, flexibility, ambulation & mentality will choose different approaches in principles to maximize their efforts. No one theory addresses them all, no one theory is better than another just different. Anyone who claims to have discovered an all inclusive method to maximize human potential is a liar, there are way too many variables to consider. That is why we have different approaches to Ti, Da, Shuai & Na in the martial arts. There is no one correct way.


I think there are multiple correct ways too!


----------



## Jake104 (May 27, 2015)

Can you demonstrate your hydraulic force flow like in this video from a sideways stance? Not a sideways fighting stance. Just perpendicular to dummy?


----------



## dlcox (May 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> Can you "race" with a car with an engine?  Of course you can!  But how well you do in the race may depend on which engine your car has!  If your car has no engine at all, it isn't going far!   Like I said before, "engine" is just a term for the core biomechanics one uses to handle force...to generate power....to receive and deal with incoming force.  Everyone has an "engine" of some kind.
> 
> And Alan is not doing "modified boxing."   At least not modified "western" boxing, which is what I assume you mean.  When you know what to look for and really start to look for it, the mechanics he is using is not at all western boxing.  Just because he is wearing boxing gloves at times and throwing fast snappy punches does not mean it is modified western boxing.


 
Interesting to hear you say that, especially considering your passionate stance on this issue not so long ago. If I remember correctly, to paraphrase, you basically said I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Now you do a complete 360. Not trying to pick a fight, just find the change in opinion interesting. What was it that changed your mind? And for the record my opinion on the subject had absolutely nothing to do with political alignment or advocacy of "Snake Body" theory, just my own understanding of the mechanics & principles. So I look to your comment & the fact that you are studying Chu's method as, at least in some form, validation of my view on the art being formless & principle driven. Principles that can be interpreted & expressed many different ways. If this is so, I beg to ask, how revolutionary is this whole snake thing when an insignificant, uneducated nobody such as myself can explain what is being expressed when I have never studied the snake method? Or is it that I'm still in the dark and what is shown by Chu, et al is more than what is understood by the general community? For the record it's not about knowledge, good teacher, bad teacher, smart student, dumb student, sharing or withholding secrets. It's about connecting dots, even when those dots seem to be invisible. Aptitude is relevant and sometimes things can only be understood when put into relatable terms that are understood. Sometimes its all about context, if this cannot be conveyed, regardless of the student or teachers ability, things will be left unanswered. Glad you feel you've found a method that appeal's  to your sense of longing. But IMO you already had the answers & means at your disposal the entire time, you were just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. There is no rubric IMO, Yong Chun is what YOU make it, not what someone else convinces you what they believe it is.

This whole "Snake" thing is simply just another expression of the art, no different than any other branch that modified the principles to express current global, cultural, local interests. Not unlike those that propagate a Western Boxing origin, Hong Men origin, White Crane origin, Shaolin origin etc. Chu & Orr are simply propagating a Yik Kam ancestral origin to validate the changes they made to the art by adding MMA methodology to it, Hendrik uses Emei to validate an "Ancestral" method. How is what they are doing any different than what Chan family did 50 years ago? Or what Pao Fa Lian style did 50 years ago? Or what Hoffman did with his "Weng Chun"? All just different examples of marketing. None of them have the "Original Recipe" they simply use available resources to justify changing the art to suit their ideals and needs. I don't have a problem with that. Things should evolve, that's how we grow. They simply express and favor different aspects of the art than others, whoopty do. Just don't try to convince me its the correct way, when in reality it's just their way. That being said , that reminds me of when you said that those who change the art in this manner are no longer doing what you would consider Yong Chun. Seems to me your doing an awful lot of waffling and band wagon hopping, just saying how it appears. Maybe it isn't that way in reality, but you're always going on about double standards. Seems to me you need to clarify a bit if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## zuti car (May 27, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Really now Hydraulics? I'm going to guess next will be pneumatic energy? Air, water, hydraulic fluid all when compressed create an energy. So.......what's your point? Usually those energies when harnessed are used in the exact same way as mechanical energy. Wait, what's mechanical energy again? Gears? Gears are powertrain . Powertrain transmits energy. It's not energy by itself. Something needs to power the powertrain? Power sources like combustion, electric, solar, hydraulic, pneumatic are all just potential energy sources that by them self do nothing. I have a hydraulic ram in my garage. I can make a video of it laying on the ground moving in and out? It's not connected to anything so the video would be literally a ram going in and out. Woohoo exciting!  Energy means nothing without powertrain or some kind of delivery system.


From time to time I manage to develop tremendous amount of pneumatic internal power , especially after beans and garlic . Not only that power is great but also possess  biohazard properties , I believe that is a next step in hendrik & co development . On the other hand , I will not reveal a secret formula from 1600's no that is not enough, let's say Tang dynasty period when pneumatic internal skill reached its peak


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Now you started to make insulting comments on personal level. Why did you let yourself to do such a thing.? Like l said , I will not argue about this matter any more , I do understand why you have such a strong urge to defend your new discoveried art or it is maybe a fate , you certainly behave like Jehovah witness . About what i do or do not understand , you are wellcome to contact me if you ever come to Taiwan , I will treat you lunch and we can compare our arts and skills (before lunch of course) .


 
Now hold on Zuti.  I said it was Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun and you denied what I said and pronounced it was just boxing, no matter what anyone else thought.  I gave a detailed description of what to look for to show it was not western boxing, but you still said it was just boxing and not Wing Chun, etc. with no consideration to what I had described. I asked if you thought I didn't know what I was talking about and you still asserted that this was just boxing.  So just who started making comments on a personal level first? I'm just pointing out what I think is pretty obvious.  No religious fervor intended. Maybe some frustration because I expected more of an open mind from you.....but heh, it is what it is.


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Jeebus KPM/KFF - you guys are a touchy bunch! I must have struck a nerve... I'll lay off with the logical talk for a bit before one of you starts crying.


 
Now see, there you go again.  And there was nothing particularly logical in what you said.  I already pointed that out.  ;-)


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Really now Hydraulics? I'm going to guess next will be pneumatic energy? Air, water, hydraulic fluid all when compressed create an energy. So.......what's your point? Usually those energies when harnessed are used in the exact same way as mechanical energy. Wait, what's mechanical energy again? Gears? Gears are powertrain . Powertrain transmits energy. It's not energy by itself. Something needs to power the powertrain? Power sources like combustion, electric, solar, hydraulic, pneumatic are all just potential energy sources that by them self do nothing. I have a hydraulic ram in my garage. I can make a video of it laying on the ground moving in and out? It's not connected to anything so the video would be literally a ram going in and out. Woohoo exciting!  Energy means nothing without powertrain or some kind of delivery system.


 
I tend to agree with Jake.  The human body does have a hydraulic system.  This is the circulatory system with various fluid pressures, valves, etc.  But this is not what moves the body or puts out force.  In the end it comes down to biomechanics.  Muscles and bones do the work.  So I find it a bit frustrating that I try and use my understanding of what I am learning and back up Hendrik's ideas with some straight-forward biomechanics, but rather take that to heart he says we are all wrong for talking about mechanics and comes up with a hydraulic analogy.


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2015)

Hi Dave!

Interesting to hear you say that, especially considering your passionate stance on this issue not so long ago. If I remember correctly, to paraphrase, you basically said I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Now you do a complete 360. Not trying to pick a fight, just find the change in opinion interesting. What was it that changed your mind?

---When I left the KFO forum I went over to the facebook Wing Chun forum.  Alan and some of his students are regulars over there, so we still interacted a lot.  At one point I put up a youtube clip showing my understanding of WCK biomechanics and power generation at the time.  Alan thought a lot of it was CSL without me giving credit to Robert and we got into it again.  But he also said a good amount was still different.  Not long after that Alan put out his on-line mentorship program where he puts up video courses of various topics in CSLWCK.  He has done courses in "body structure blueprint", SNT, CK, and "Chinese Boxing" so far.   I decided it was time to "put up or shut up."  So I "put up" and signed up for his mentorship program.  When you see him giving detailed instruction and demo'ing everything with a student, things became far more clear than can be talked about in a forum.  I try to keep an open mind about such things, and with my background in anatomy, physiology and biomechanics I was able to quickly see the value in what he was showing.  I haven't regretted signing up for his program and doing the work!  I am planning a trip later in the year to visit Robert Chu.


 So I look to your comment & the fact that you are studying Chu's method as, at least in some form, validation of my view on the art being formless & principle driven. Principles that can be interpreted & expressed many different ways.

---I agree.

 If this is so, I beg to ask, how revolutionary is this whole snake thing when an insignificant, uneducated nobody such as myself can explain what is being expressed when I have never studied the snake method? Or is it that I'm still in the dark and what is shown by Chu, et al is more than what is understood by the general community?

---Honestly, Dave I really don't know.  You'll notice on this thread I have been careful to say that what I am impressed with is what I am learning about CSLWCK.  Robert and Alan both attribute a lot of it to Hendrik's teaching.  But they never break it down and say "this is the part from Hendrik".  I posted a video of Aaron Baum working the heavy bag with good CSL mechanics and left it for Hendrik to say whether this was using his "snake engine" or not.  He never said.  I talked about the biomechanics I am learning from CSLWCK and Hendrik turned around and said we all had it wrong, that it's not mechanics its hydraulics without ever affirming what I was saying.  I've pointed out several times here that I haven't been too impressed with the way Hendrik has presented his stuff in the forums.  Like you have said, there is nothing particularly new or revolutionary here.  I think it is the combination of various elements and how they are used together that is the "new" thing. Its how they are combined, what is emphasized, and how they are developed.


 It's about connecting dots, even when those dots seem to be invisible.

---Exactly!  And I think (at least in CSLWCK,  I can't speak for Hendrik) what is unique is which dots are emphasized and exactly how they are connected to maximize function.


 Chu & Orr are simply propagating a Yik Kam ancestral origin to validate the changes they made to the art by adding MMA methodology to it,

---I've thought about that  a lot lately, of course.  I still stand by my old comments in KFO that in the clips Alan posted at the time there was more western boxing than Wing Chun. Remember  the clip in question?  Josh Kaldana?  He was a relative beginner in Wing Chun at the time!  But what I am seeing in Alan's "Chinese Boxing" course is different.  If any MMA methodology has been added, its the training methodology and not techniques necessarily.   I think the context in which we practice our art shapes it to some extent.  If you practice WCK in the context of having to deal with modern kickboxers and grapplers, your WCK is just naturally going to adapt and evolve to deal with that. 


 Hendrik uses Emei to validate an "Ancestral" method. How is what they are doing any different than what Chan family did 50 years ago? Or what Pao Fa Lian style did 50 years ago? Or what Hoffman did with his "Weng Chun"? All just different examples of marketing. None of them have the "Original Recipe" they simply use available resources to justify changing the art to suit their ideals and needs. I don't have a problem with that. Things should evolve, that's how we grow.

---I agree with you.  No one has a time machine to go back and verify the facts.

 reminds me of when you said that those who change the art in this manner are no longer doing what you would consider Yong Chun. Seems to me your doing an awful lot of waffling and band wagon hopping, just saying how it appears.

---Not sure what I said way back then or how you are remembering what I said way back then.  But I recall saying that you needed to stay within certain parameters to still be Wing Chun.  You can't just do any old thing you want and call it "Wing Chun."   I haven't seen anything in Alan Orrs courses that goes outside of those parameters.


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 27, 2015)

Call it whatever you want dude, but you are still using your hips and shoulders. Have fun in that bubble of reality you're in...population = 1


----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> I tend to agree with Jake.  The human body does have a hydraulic system.  This is the circulatory system with various fluid pressures, valves, etc.  But this is not what moves the body or puts out force.  In the end it comes down to biomechanics.  Muscles and bones do the work.  So I find it a bit frustrating that I try and use my understanding of what I am learning and back up Hendrik's ideas with some straight-forward biomechanics, but rather take that to heart he says we are all wrong for talking about mechanics and comes up with a hydraulic analogy.




Hydraulic is a simple model to contrast the differences of the different system.
It is not a real thing,  just a model .
similar to how can human is just biomechanics? It is just a model.



The reason one would not be able to grasp it because one has not yet develop the body to do what I do in the video. Navin or Robert or Phil or Jim or Sergio......etc  will tell you this is a reality for them.


In fact, you would like to read Robert future article in WCI on hydraulic system.


----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Can you demonstrate your hydraulic force flow like in this video from a sideways stance? Not a sideways fighting stance. Just perpendicular to dummy?




One can use it in any direction, otherwise, it is not for close , stick, combat


----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Call it whatever you want dude, but you are still using your hips and shoulders. Have fun in that bubble of reality you're in...population = 1




There is a different between use the hips and shoulders direct
And
Use Hips and shoulders  in direct.

That is the key which you have not expose to yet


----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)

Some One can have a better model then me, and I expect it in the future.

However, the key is , the " hydraulic " type exist , it accord with ancient Wck description from different lineages, and Chinese internal martial art practice. It is the practice of SNT

today's many wcners have developed it, from Robert to his students ,  to Sergio and his students to Navin to Jim to Phil Romero... And their students.....etc they all have this force flow type of ability and clearly know it is not what the hard body long range modern  Wck which stress structure , loading joints....etc practice.

As in this video, it is not the common kick and punch mechanical type that is for sure. Why I know? Bring it to the physics lab, and one will see the data .


It doesn't have to be me there, anyone who develop it Ie. Navin will be able to do it under the modern technology monitoring to tell the difference between the two different way.

You guys sure can keep arguing. It is normal when one faces changes to resist it.


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 27, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> You guys sure can keep arguing. It is normal when one faces changes to resist it.



Hendrik, us 'guys' are not arguing, some of us are simply stating that what you present is BASIC knowledge, that's all. I have a question for you: have you ever studied Yip Man wing chun? And if so, from whom?


----------



## Danny T (May 27, 2015)

"It is a hydraulic system". Uh, NO!
Hydraulic pertains to being operated by a liquid moving in a confined space under pressure.
What liquid is being moved for the transmission of energy? 
Force is linear: that is physics. Energy is circular. The body is but a vessel for the energy to flow through but it is not a hydraulic system for there is flow of fluid. However, I do understand and agree with the analogy of the flow within the body and the connection one creates with the opponent through the bridge.


----------



## dlcox (May 27, 2015)

Hi 





KPM said:


> Hi Dave!
> 
> Interesting to hear you say that, especially considering your passionate stance on this issue not so long ago. If I remember correctly, to paraphrase, you basically said I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Now you do a complete 360. Not trying to pick a fight, just find the change in opinion interesting. What was it that changed your mind?
> 
> ...


Hi Keith,

Thank you for your evaluation and honest reply. I'm glad you can see it for what it is and if it has value for you and adds clarity, that's awesome. Good luck with your training. In time you will see others in various branches that have a similar approach and methodology, but they will call it something else. Yong Chun in its many variations is a vast pool, sometimes it takes a while to find the right method that addresses all your needs.


----------



## zuti car (May 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> Now hold on Zuti.  I said it was Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun and you denied what I said and pronounced it was just boxing, no matter what anyone else thought.  I gave a detailed description of what to look for to show it was not western boxing, but you still said it was just boxing and not Wing Chun, etc. with no consideration to what I had described. I asked if you thought I didn't know what I was talking about and you still asserted that this was just boxing.  So just who started making comments on a personal level first? I'm just pointing out what I think is pretty obvious.  No religious fervor intended. Maybe some frustration because I expected more of an open mind from you.....but heh, it is what it is.


Did ever crossed your mind that you see what you want to see and not what is really there ? You don't have to answer , just think about it


----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)




----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Hendrik, us 'guys' are not arguing, some of us are simply stating that what you present is BASIC knowledge, that's all. I have a question for you: have you ever studied Yip Man wing chun? And if so, from whom?




May be you need to ask Robert Chu, Phil Romero, Sergio ... Jim .. Navin ....etc who study direct with me on this hydraulic or force flow handling , and  Also who has decades of Ipman wck practice and meet all the Ipman lineage elderly to see if it is anything Ipman Wck has or basic knowledge before making your assumption.

Or you like to make a video put it in the YouTube to share it with us how you do it


----------



## JPinAZ (May 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> Now see, there you go again.  And there was nothing particularly logical in what you said.  I already pointed that out.  ;-)



Uh, what? 

I'll give you this - you sure like to carry on an argument and 'win' those arguments at all costs. I'm not even sure what you're talking about (no, please, don't explain) or if you're here to actual have a discussion or to only to win and be 'right'.
Since that is what you seem to need, I'll help you out: you're right, you pointed out everything and you're the Most Right Forum Argument Champion of the Day lol
Hopefully we can go back to the conversation now 



KPM said:


> .... Like you have said, there is nothing particularly new or revolutionary here.  I think it is the combination of various elements and how they are used together that is the "new" thing. Its how they are combined, what is emphasized, and how they are developed.



If I may comment on this, I tend to agree with you here and  I think that is what many people are saying. Well, except for Henrik and a few others that are trying so desperately to stand out and be unique. Hendrik will _always _insist what he is talking about is different to the very end. Otherwise, he would have no voice here and his ego couldn't survive that.
I would say though, that from watching his clips, he is doing things _very _differently - but I think that's just a result of his low skill level in what he's trying to demonstrate vs. anything new.



KPM said:


> If you practice WCK in the context of having to deal with modern kickboxers and grapplers, your WCK is just naturally going to adapt and evolve to deal with that.



I completely disagree. If you are talking about entering a sporting comp then maybe it will have to adapt some to fit the constraints or the given event. But WC being a principle-based system, it shouldn't matter who you're facing. Yes, strategies & tactics may vary, things like centerline, gate theories, WC body structure, loi lau hoi sung energy concepts, chi sau contact point/position/leverage control, etc, remain the same whether it's a kickboxer, wrestler, grappler, TKD guy or anything else - 'modern' or otherwise.
TBH, I'm not even sure what a 'modern' kickboxer or grappler even is. There are only so many ways you can kick, punch, grab, lock, throw etc. WC principles & concepts apply regardless - so no need to evolve.

Now, if you're talking about 'modern' training methods or 'modern' sport training methods, that's different. But that's really more about conditioning than anything else, and not really specific to any given art or style.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 27, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Hendrik, us 'guys' are not arguing, some of us are simply stating that what you present is BASIC knowledge, that's all. I have a question for you: have you ever studied Yip Man wing chun? And if so, from whom?



Agreed. 
A lot of the force flow stuff being 'shared' here is covered already in most WC's basic level loi lau hoi sung concepts. The only difference is he's slapped some fancy terms to them borrowed from other arts to either help himself understand things, or to make himself feel unique and different.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 27, 2015)

Hendrik said:


>



There is nothing new or different there, power comes from the root...... that is all


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 27, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> May be you need to ask Robert Chu, Phil Romero, Sergio ... Jim .. Navin ....



I'm asking you...     (what is it with you and diverting to others!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)



Hendrik said:


> ...before making your assumption.



I wasn't assuming.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 27, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> I'm asking you...     (what is it with you and diverting to others!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't assuming.



Don't waste your time, he will not answer questions directly, he will only answer with redirection, insults and condescension


----------



## Hendrik (May 27, 2015)

my final answer to everyone


----------



## Kwan Sau (May 27, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> my final answer to everyone



Ok, for once, I agree with you on the stance part. My WC has never/does not do that clamping-a-goat thing. I agree it is limiting and closed-off. 
I also agree with the pogo-stick example. That example helped me to understand what you have been trying to convey. What you have been discussing is what, to me, is known as pressure. Not hydraulics. It is one of the major things that I personally don't see in A LOT of other WC / WT / VT around the internet/videos, etc.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 27, 2015)

This isn't even the question people are asking. One big question to this guy was "What WC experience does he have outside his own small Yik Kam lineage?" This video answers it clearly - none what-so-ever.

Of course people will agree, because what he's talking about here is just basic WC knowledge IMO that all good WC has already. His assumptions of how 'other people' do SLT or YJKYM is low level and totally clueless of how most good practitioners in the WC community do things. While I agree there are some that surely do this locking-up YJKYM, it's far from the norm for any good WC lineage out there.

*************Edit **********

Further proof of this is here:


Hendrik said:


> However, the key is , the " hydraulic " type exist ,...... they all have this force flow type of ability and clearly know it is not what the hard body long range modern  Wck which stress structure , loading joints....etc practice.



Again, a total clueless assessment of what real, good WC is. But he's also showing his lack of WC knowledge, experience & application training if he really thinks things like structure & proper alignment of the skeleton, joint (and tendon) loading/power, etc aren't just as important as a proper alive & dynamic root. You need _all_ of these things to make WC work most efficiently in combat.


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Did ever crossed your mind that you see what you want to see and not what is really there ? You don't have to answer , just think about it


 
Zuti, can you honestly watch that clip of the boxer's cross that I posted and tell me you still see no difference between that and what Aaron is doing in the other video clip?  To imply that I am seeing something that isn't there is a bit insulting.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 27, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> This isn't even the question people are asking. One big question to this guy was "What WC experience does he have outside his own small Yik Kam lineage?" This video answers it clearly - none what-so-ever.
> Of course people will agree, because what he's talking about here is just basic WC knowledge IMO that all good WC has already. His assumptions of how 'other people' do SLT or YJKYM is low level and totally clueless of how most good practitioners in the WC community do things. While I agree there are some that surely do this locking-up YJKYM, it's far from the norm for any good WC lineage out there.



Yup, its called "*misdirection";* It iis a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 27, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> my final answer to everyone



Based on your history here, that is doubtful... how many times have you left or left forever so far?


----------



## dlcox (May 27, 2015)

Hendrik said:


> Hope this help.
> 
> Snake engine is a type of hydraulic system type. Not a mechanical system type which most uses in general. Examine the difference in using the body or hip...etc. both of these system.


 
I don't really want to be invested in this whole argument, but in fairness to what Hendrik is trying to say I thought I would reply as I believe I understand what he is trying to express. From what I see in the video is what in White Crane we call the "Wheel Body". Now obviously in Hendrik's video the movement is smaller. generally in practice the movement would be large and in application it would be small. IMO I think the confusion comes from the terminology used "Mechanical" vs. "Hydraulic". I personally have always just classified it as Horizontal and Vertical Wheel Body. Horizontal Wheel Body emanates from the feet to waist to the back before being expressed through the hands, with the_ waist_ being the primary area of generation. Vertical Wheel Body emanates from the feet to waist to back before being expressed through the hands, with the _back_ being the primary area of generation.

Horizontal Wheel Body has force that is parallel to the ground, like a stone for grinding grain. Vertical Wheel Body has force that is perpendicular to the ground, like a water wheel. Both are best utilized with a rolling and whipping motion, but horizontal is generally used more defensively and at long range while vertical is more offensive and used at short range. That is what I see, don't know if Hendrik will agree and to be honest don't care, without further breakdown it is impossible to determine the mechanics involved to compare similarity, but outwardly it appears the same to me and is a valid method of generation. I don't know if it commonly practiced in Yong Chun, but it is predominant in White Crane and is an integral aspect of "Trembling".

Lastly I wanted to add that Horizontal Wheel Body is about torque and leverage, Vertical Wheel Body is about compress and release.


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2015)

Here is the video that I made awhile back that I mentioned to Dave.  This was even before I started studying CSL WCK through Alan Orr's online mentorship program.  If you don't have the patience to watch the whole thing (and I wouldn't blame you for that!), at least check out the 12:45 mark.  See if it doesn't look like I'm showing the same thing that Hendrik has been talking about on his recent videos.


----------



## dlcox (May 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> Here is the video that I made awhile back that I mentioned to Dave.  This was even before I started studying CSL WCK through Alan Orr's online mentorship program.  If you don't have the patience to watch the whole thing (and I wouldn't blame you for that!), at least check out the 12:45 mark.  See if it doesn't look like I'm showing the same thing that Hendrik has been talking about on his recent videos.


 
 Appears the same to me.


----------



## Jake104 (May 27, 2015)

dlcox said:


> IMO I think the confusion comes from the terminology used "Mechanical" vs. "Hydraulic". I personally have always just classified it as Horizontal and Vertical Wheel Body..


Yes! It's just basic Wing Chun body mechanics. Now I can say, I tried showing this to a fellow student who doesn't do WC  in our mixed group. It was extremely hard for him to get the body mechanics right or in sync. So it's something that is harder than it looks for a beginner. But it's still a basic WC engine ). That's why I asked Hedrick if he can do it in a side position. Because to me what he is showing is the first layer of whatever we are calling it today. There are many more layers of WC energy. It becomes way more complex and interesting the deeper you go into this subject. I'm more interested in multiple energies at once. Different angles of energy or force manipulation. Non trackable energies. So on and so on.


----------



## Jake104 (May 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> Here is the video that I made awhile back that I mentioned to Dave.  This was even before I started studying CSL WCK through Alan Orr's online mentorship program.  If you don't have the patience to watch the whole thing (and I wouldn't blame you for that!), at least check out the 12:45 mark.  See if it doesn't look like I'm showing the same thing that Hendrik has been talking about on his recent videos.


Looks the same to me. Have you experimented with that while stepping back? I usually use a wall or tree. Something with no give. That will return the energy back. But I practice from a neutral shoulder width front facing stance and step back and use same hand as foot. So right foot goes back right hand delivers forward  energy. I play with it to were there is no gap in forward energy. Trying to maintain constant forward while generating power without rebound from wall or tree. Another way I use the wall or tree is press or bow my stance into it while moving in any direction while constantly maintain forward. No gaps or forward energy pauses. This to me is important cause it makes me conscious of forward energy and teaches me how to recognize gaps or pauses. So when training with a partner I can track there forward and exploit any gaps or pauses and then take the opponents balance at that moment.


----------



## mograph (May 31, 2015)

I've checked out this thread, and while I have nothing to say on what is old, what is new, what is WC, what is not, I do have an opinion on the understanding of terms in a cross-discipline way.

To my mind, "hydraulic" vs. "mechanical" is simply a metaphor: it's the practitioner's mental representation of the way he _organizes_ the physical effort, not a description of the bio-mechanical components involved. Yes, the effort is still organized through electrical impulses, muscles, tendons and bones -- there's no way around that. But the speed, the relative simultaneity or sequence in which those components are _engaged_ by the practitioner can be affected by his mental representation of the organization (or sequence) of that engagement. For example, a common mental representation is that of a whip, with the engagement moving from ground to hand. Some use animal movements to create mental representations, as we've seen. The mental representation is a tool to organize our effort. I think you guys know that. In my opinion, a "hydraulic" mental representation may lead to creating a shorter time lag between the engagement of each component. 

Hey, whatever works. I just think that a lot of the irritation on this thread is due to misunderstandings, possibly cross-cultural.

Carry on, gents. Thanks for reading.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (May 31, 2015)

Good video.

I am really against the elbows in idea for many reasons. Not least of which is all the unnecessary tension it brings.

As far as elbows with forward intent goes, I used to train to always aim the hands and elbows at the partners center. The problem with thinking the elbows forward is that it kind of encourages you to push your shoulder forward. You have to think about the actual path your elbow takes in all movements. It arcs. It's circular. If you think in those terms more, then your shoulder joint is just rotating and you are not trying to put something extra into it. By something extra, I mean that desire to push the whole shoulder forward and add extra unnecessary tension.


----------

