It's a bit too "abstract" for me too.
- physical (abstract),
- mind (abstract),
- breathing (inhale and exhale),
- Qi medirian flow (abstract),
- force flow (abstract) , and
- momentum (basic physics p = mv).
Why not just say:
- bend and then straight your leg,
- twist your hip,
- rotate your body,
- extend your arm, and
- ...
It's not so much the quality of being "too" abstract, but rather the underlying definitions and assumptions that determine whether or not an abstracted principle is sound, useful, or has any basis in reality. Without a doubt, abstractions -- even very abstract ones, can be useful, or even vital for accomplishing certain tasks.
I am a programmer, but thank goodness I don't have to write all of my programs in binary. Thankfully, I can code using more the more abstract languages of English and Mathematics. In fact, whenever I write a program, I am utilizing abstractions of abstractions of abstractions, built upon yet more abstractions. And I use these abstracted languages to build my own abstract architecture.
I notice that you're fond of very specific lists, and so I think these examples might be interesting for you. Let's consider that I want to write a program dealing with a number of animals. I have, perhaps, a cow, horse, chicken, bird, dog, cat, fish... and who knows what other animals I might like to add. Now, I could write code defining every single one of these animals, and every single function and characteristic they have, but imagine how much work that would be? And what if I have to compare them, or place them in the same list? It's comparing apples and oranges, and I would have to treat each and every "animal" individually.
So instead, what I can do is create an abstract class of "animal." Now, this isn't a thing that can exist in the real world (-- I mean, what would a generic, abstract animal look like anyway?). So in fact, I can't have an instance of an "animal." But I can have an "animal" that is a dog, and an "animal" that is a cat, etc., and they can all be compared in like terms. I can also save myself a ton of work by making abstract hierarchies of animals based on families that share similar characteristics and functions, so that I don't have to redefine the same characteristics of each and every new animal that I add. So, for example, I can define:
Animal -> Bird -> Sparrow
Animal -> Bird -> Seagull
Animal -> Bird -> Chicken
All birds share many of the same characteristics and functions. So this way, I only need to redefine the look and sound of each bird, and deal with any minor exceptions (for example, over-ride Chicken's "fly" function). That saves me a lot of work, and we also have a useful "Bird" class that we can also use to categorize (or compare) different kinds of animals or birds.
Now, what relation does this have to martial arts? Well, abstract principles, concepts, and ideas can be very useful here too. I believe that many martial artists, and sometimes entire arts, fall into the trap of having a specific response for every kind of specific attack that might come one's way. A "if he does this, you do that" mentality. On the surface, it sounds nice and simple, but it can create a lot of problems -- both specific, and more general. For example:
I might practice responding to a hook with a tan-sau and a punch, because that's what my teacher taught me. But will that work for every hook punch, and is that the only viable response to all hook punches, or even the best response to any specific hook punch given in any specific situation? Absolutely not. Some "hooks" might resemble wild, blunt, extended haymakers. Another hook might come more squarely from the outside. Yet another hook might come in on a tighter line. Some might be aimed high, some might be aimed low. Some might be delivered at a distance, while others might try to pass around one's guard at extremely close distance. Some might be directed at the target, while others are aimed sideways past it. Now, you could try to come up with a response for every single kind of hook punch one might encounter, or you can come up with a more generalized approach that simply recognizes the angle of the incoming attack, and intercepts it in whatever way happens to be most direct or convenient for you, using any number of tools at your disposal to accomplish your goal of deflecting or evading that punch and countering with your own. You might also consider yet broader, and more abstract goals that your art utilizes, such as keeping forward pressure on, filling in the gaps, covering one's centerline, and applying simultaneous attack and defense by utilizing every hand as a potential attacking hand, regardless of what it, or the other, is doing. That kind of big picture thinking, utilizing a more flexible approach and focusing on more general, bigger-picture goals during the course of a fight can be vital to applying your art effectively -- especially in the context of an art such as Wing Chun, which is often trained and applied too "narrowly" or "technique centric" in my opinion.
These are just some examples of how abstract thinking can be useful, and even vital to applying your art. But as with anything, abstractions can be misapplied, unnecessary, or even so poorly (or vaguely) defined as to be meaningless. In the case of Hendrick's abstractions, I find them to be the latter -- too vaguely defined -- at least, as they are presented -- to carry any meaning or provide useful insight.
Of course, he's welcomed to provide more informative definitions if he likes. He may have some good points somewhere, but most of his content is just too vaguely presented for me to judge.
