Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
--------------------------------------------------------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.
Jan Dai lik (forward elbow intention)
- Thread starter kung fu fighter
- Start date
Apparently for those posting on You tube- after x number of hits You tube pays posters.
Commerce is alive and well.
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
Green Belt
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.
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?
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
Green Belt
Keith, check your inbox
zuti car
Blue Belt
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) .
Jake104
Black Belt
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
Black Belt
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???
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
Black Belt
I think there are multiple correct ways too!
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.
Last edited:
zuti car
Blue Belt
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
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.
Now see, there you go again. And there was nothing particularly logical in what you said. I already pointed that out. ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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
