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!
Jan Dai lik (forward elbow intention)
- Thread starter kung fu fighter
- Start date
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!
Can you describe for us the difference between a mechanical system and a hydraulic system?
Danny T
Senior Master
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.
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.
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
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
Blue Belt
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
Purple Belt
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.
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
Last edited:
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! ;-)
----"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! ;-)
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..
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..
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?
Last edited:
Kwan Sau
Purple Belt
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
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
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.
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 ?
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 ?
Last edited:
