Recent Video by Alan Orr

[guy b.]

From what I've seen so far it's far from "basic", and looks like a trained skill that one has to focus on intentionally. I've studied several different lineages of wing chun and at no time were these things covered

You didn't learn to generate force in any of the wing chun you studied?

Force delivery is one of the main preoccupations of the system I don't understand how you could have missed it?

 

[geezer]

Good biomechanics are/should be present and certain elements of force flow are evident in some Wc. But as a consciously trained component part of training? That's what I meant.

I agree, I haven't seen this material systematically and consciously trained in the other WC branches I've encountered. But it may be there, at least to some degree. Just not so clearly evident looking at it from the outside.

As an example of something similar, I've noticed that in his videos Alan has pointed out a lot of "errors" or counterproductive ways of moving that are often seen in my core lineage (Leung Ting WT), and I pretty much agree with everything he says ....except that the better people in that "WT" lineage don't actually apply the movements in that "ineffective" way. It's more a matter of a way of training that has gotten misinterpreted over time. So what you see from the outside or at a lower level may not be the whole story ...especially working with a very traditional instructor.

 

[geezer]

You didn't learn to generate force in any of the wing chun you studied?

Force delivery is one of the main preoccupations of the system I don't understand how you could have missed it?

Don't assume that he did. Please don't let an antagonistic communication style get in the way of a productive discussion. Your reply above would have been so much better without the snarky comment in bolded type.

 

[SaulGoodman]

I have guy on ignore but see his comments in relation to my posts when I get thread activity alerts. This guy really does like to assume he knows everything doesn't he? Of course the Wc/wt/EBMAS that I've studied has force generation mechanics, that's a no brainer. But I was never FORMALLY or SYSTEMATICALLY taught what Alan Orr teaches. I guess Guy B is now going to now claim that Phillip Bayer/Gary Lam etc teach 7 bows/force flow and 6 core elements. Or that all of these skills are automatically attained just by doing correct "VT". How stupid is Alan Orr going through all his training and research when all he had to do was go see Guy B...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

One thing I particularly liked was when in passing (around 6:26) he referred to releasing power or fa-jing exploding, "like a sneeze". ....Except you don't spray your opponent with snot!

Wait ... we're not supposed to spray people with snot when we practice?

That would explain some of the looks I was getting from the other students in class last week.

 

[KPM]

Hi KPM! Sorry, I mean Saul

What was that LFJ?.....I mean Guy?

 

[KPM]

I didn't say it was! Why are people so confrontational on this the "friendly" forum. I mentioned force flow because that is the method Alan is using to generate striking power in the clip

I'm pretty sure Phobius was referring to LFJ's inclusion of the little "TM" mark when he spelled "Force Flow" and not your comment Saul.

 

[KPM]

Good biomechanics are/should be present and certain elements of force flow are evident in some Wc. But as a consciously trained component part of training? That's what I meant. I've read his book and it seems that just the fundamental way a lot of Wc practitioners hold and lock their basic horse precludes correct flow. Maybe he or Kpm canhelp on this one?

Good biomechanics are not a given in Wing Chun. Some have really poor biomechanics. There is no way anyone is using good transmission of force if they are leaning back in their stance all hunched over in the "Wing Chun slouch" that we see too often. Absolutely, tilting the hips forward and "locking them in" as some people do is going to impede good use of force. Especially when you look from the side and their shoulders are on a vertical line behind their hips because they are pushing their hips forward and leaning back so much! Use of the Kwa is important in handling force. Purposefully "locking up" the Kwa is counter-productive. You cannot use "whole body" power if you do this. People should go back and watch that clip of Ip Chun doing Chi Sau again. Nothing against Ip Chun. He is very good at what he does. But you can clearly see in that clip that it is all arms and no body power. I do not think these simple things that are good biomechanics are a conscious part of training in a lot of Wing Chun. Notice I have avoided using the word "forceflow." That is not what I'm talking about. When Hendrik talks about forceflow, he is referring to something very specific. I've tried to equate it to good biomechanics in the past and he just responded that that wasn't it! I've never trained his forceflow methods and still am not real clear on what he is talking about. Everyone says it is more easily felt than seen or talked about.

Terminology is a funny thing. No one talked about "structure" until Robert Chu made a point of it. Now everyone thinks they have structure. No one talked about "forceflow" until Hendrik made a point of it. Now everyone thinks they have "forceflow." Both terms obviously mean different things to different people.

 

[mograph]

That would explain some of the looks I was getting from the other students in class last week.

I bow to your superior snot-fu!

 

[guy b.]

guess Guy B is now going to now claim that Phillip Bayer/Gary Lam etc teach 7 bows/force flow and 6 core elements. Or that all of these skills are automatically attained just by doing correct "VT".

The standard method in VT is not to teach force generation and body usage by lots of explanation and theory. Direct physical methods are instead used which provide a fully structured and progressive method for development of VT structure, power chain and force delivery. This is a large part of what the system is, and a lot of time is spend on it.

 

[SaulGoodman]

What was that LFJ?.....I mean Guy?

Guy B really is narcissistic isn't he? He doesn't actually believe you'd go to the trouble of creating 2 profiles just for him? It might be hard for him to accept but Kpm isn't the only person who isn't impressed with guy b's particular brand of "balanced discussion".

 

[geezer]

Good biomechanics are/should be present and certain elements of force flow are evident in some Wc. But as a consciously trained component part of training? That's what I meant. I've read his book and it seems that just the fundamental way a lot of Wc practitioners hold and lock their basic horse precludes correct flow. Maybe he or Kpm can help on this one?

I haven't read the book you are referring to. Based on your experience in WT and EBMAS, do you feel the "WT" stance is "locked" in the counterproductive way described? Because, although it may have seemed that way to me back when all I knew was SNT, these days I try to make my waist and torso elastic so that our "springy" energy comes from the whole body. LT always stressed being elastic and springy from your feet al the way up to the tips of your fingers.

 

[JustSomePerson]

I haven't read the book you are referring to. Based on your experience in WT and EBMAS, do you feel the "WT" stance is "locked" in the counterproductive way described? Because, although it may have seemed that way to me back when all I knew was SNT, these days I try to make my waist and torso elastic so that our "springy" energy comes from the whole body. LT always stressed being elastic and springy from your feet al the way up to the tips of your fingers.

I had a thought prompted by reading your above reply and another elsewhere with respects to teachings successively becoming corrupted and incorrect in some lineages.

If we accept for a moment that wing chun developed out of a need to train people quickly and that the method of training was tailored towards achieving this end, then why do we see so many folk taking so long to learn? To what extent does wing chun's commercialisation engender a sifu:student dependency for monetary reasons and where progress is so slow?

Perhaps this monetary need and commercialisation plays a very large part in needlessly 'stretching out' the development of a given student? Yes, the qualities of a given student are always factors here but perhaps when we see those methods change or become incorrectly used and taught, the issue of commercialisation in its exploitative sense rears its ugly head?

For the record and given other's comments I think Alan is a very good teacher and does not exploit and that progress is fast attained with his students.

 

[SaulGoodman]

Interesting, well too much emphasis on fast hands and Lat Sao drills. I didn't like the chi Sao "sections" either.., a sort of Spring is evident in some of the higher ranked guys but I found once I started training submission wrestling when we sparred they couldn't hold their positions at all when I worked the clinch and were often reduced to saying "yeah you got me but in the street I could have poked you in the eyes/elbowed you" etc. So in short, fast hands, poor base. I reached biu tze level and left wt soon after.

 

[geezer]

To what extent does wing chun's commercialisation engender a sifu:student dependency for monetary reasons and where progress is so slow?

Perhaps this monetary need and commercialisation plays a very large part in needlessly 'stretching out' the development of a given student?

There can be no doubt that this is true. And I don't think it's a problem exclusive to "modern" or "westernized" culture. I've heard that plenty of old-time, traditional Chinese sifus dragged out the training of their students for years and avoided giving out knowledge too freely for monetary reasons and fear of "breaking their rice bowl".

On the other hand, my old Chinese sifu told us frankly that the WC necessary to fight well could be taught fairly quickly, but real skill and finesse in WC, like anything else worthwhile, took a very long time to develop.

 

[drop bear]

There can be no doubt that this is true. And I don't think it's a problem exclusive to "modern" or "westernized" culture. I've heard that plenty of old-time, traditional Chinese sifus dragged out the training of their students for years and avoided giving out knowledge too freely for monetary reasons and fear of "breaking their rice bowl".

On the other hand, my old Chinese sifu told us frankly that the WC necessary to fight well could be taught fairly quickly, but real skill and finesse in WC, like anything else worthwhile, took a very long time to develop.

What knowledge are they keeping though?

I mean if you have hidden away some advanced move then you are not really hiding anything useful. You can towel people up with basics done well.

(Thank you Connor McGregor rear naked choke)

If you are hiding away important pieces of fundamental basics then you are worthless as an instructor anyway.

 

[drop bear]

Interesting, well too much emphasis on fast hands and Lat Sao drills. I didn't like the chi Sao "sections" either.., a sort of Spring is evident in some of the higher ranked guys but I found once I started training submission wrestling when we sparred they couldn't hold their positions at all when I worked the clinch and were often reduced to saying "yeah you got me but in the street I could have poked you in the eyes/elbowed you" etc. So in short, fast hands, poor base. I reached biu tze level and left wt soon after.

Yeah. But regardless of how you get there. (and i still don't get this force flow stuff) being good at submission wrestling is all about good structure.

Clinch work is one of the best tests for the style of functional strength being discussed here.

 

[SaulGoodman]

I spend as much time (sometimes more time) these days hand fighting/pummeling as chi Sao.

 

[drop bear]

I had a thought prompted by reading your above reply and another elsewhere with respects to teachings successively becoming corrupted and incorrect in some lineages.

If we accept for a moment that wing chun developed out of a need to train people quickly and that the method of training was tailored towards achieving this end, then why do we see so many folk taking so long to learn? To what extent does wing chun's commercialisation engender a sifu:student dependency for monetary reasons and where progress is so slow?

Perhaps this monetary need and commercialisation plays a very large part in needlessly 'stretching out' the development of a given student? Yes, the qualities of a given student are always factors here but perhaps when we see those methods change or become incorrectly used and taught, the issue of commercialisation in its exploitative sense rears its ugly head?

For the record and given other's comments I think Alan is a very good teacher and does not exploit and that progress is fast attained with his students.

Modern martial arts is catered towards lazyness and short attention spans.

Coming from a mma perspective we have a whole room full of guys who are legitimately scared they will get bashed by a guy because they are putting more effort into training than we are.

And they get good fast.

 

[drop bear]

I spend as much time (sometimes more time) these days hand fighting/pummeling as chi Sao.

It is almost the same thing isnt it?

Conceptually.

Edit.

The more i think about it. The more i think clinch work should be a fundimental part of chun.