Force Flow skill transmission

[JPinAZ]

Where did HS learn the force flow skill set?

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

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

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

Is it A or B?

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

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

 

[SaulGoodman]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

 

[Phobius]

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

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

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

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

 

[JustSomePerson]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LFJ]

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

When did he start conceding that?

I've always seen him responding to people who say they know what it is with "no, that's not it". He never wanted to admit that it wasn't something unique. But I haven't paid him any attention for a couple years.

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

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

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

The difference, I think, is in application.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

 

[Phobius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

What then is this idea adding?

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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

 

[Alan Orr]

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

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

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

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

Where did HS learn the force flow skill set?

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

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

Is it A or B?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

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