Force Flow skill transmission

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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?

 

[drop bear]

Can someone give me a break down on what force flow actually is and what it is supposed to do?

 

[guy b.]

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 see balance being controlled in a chi sau type situation.My main questions would be 1) why? 2) what does it train in terms of fighting? We don't see people being bounced around in Alan Orr team fights.

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

Impossible to tell. Where do you see the force flow idea in the kuen kuit?

 

[guy b.]

Can someone give me a break down on what force flow actually is and what it is supposed to do?

I have to say that I don't know.

Videos of Alan Orr demonstrating it appear to show that in chi sau it amounts to bouncing an opponent away and controlling balance - a type of stand up grappling really. In terms of fight team footage I don't see the same things happening, or an indirectly transferable skill.

I find video by Henrdik explaining the phenomenon to be completely incomprehensible and no help in terms f understanding.

I am in the same position that you are. Probably all of us are.

 

[drop bear]

I have to say that I don't know.

Videos of Alan Orr demonstrating it appear to show that in chi sau it amounts to bouncing an opponent away and controlling balance - a type of stand up grappling really. In terms of fight team footage I don't see the same things happening, or an indirectly transferable skill.

I find video by Henrdik explaining the phenomenon to be completely incomprehensible and no help in terms f understanding.

I am in the same position that you are. Probably all of us are.

I had a look on line. For me it seemed like he was trying to direct horizontal force into the ground. Making you very hard to push over.

If it is actually doable it would be a good trick.

We tend to slip sideways and deflect force that way.

 

[guy b.]

I had a look on line. For me it seemed like he was trying to direct horizontal force into the ground. Making you very hard to push over.

If it is actually doable it would be a good trick.

We tend to slip sideways and deflect force that way.

It is definately doable. It is what wrestlers are doing when they keep straight back, bent knees, short arms, e.g. when pushing into the opponent. It is also what most wing chun would do in terms of stance and force vector when punching.

In terms of standup grappling it is of limited use because you can't realistically root all force to ground - it just changes too fast. You need to be more flexible. Alan would talk about "delinking" when pulled, i.e. losing connection, going limp, but it is overly simplistic try and categorise grappling in this kind of way. You need a more expansive approach.

In terms of striking, such a ground path can make sense in terms of some striking platforms, e.g. VT, in terms of force application.

But I assume that force flow must be more than this? I don't know what the goal of it is.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

If you don't mind guys I would like to keep the conversation to my original question. Really want to establish that first. I think whether it works in a fight or not would make for a good discussion in another thread.

Are there old wing Chun masters out there from China or Malaysia or wherever that have this skill that Hendrik teaches?

Sergio eludes to learning internal skills off old wing Chun masters with these internal skills, but who are they?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Can someone give me a break down on what force flow actually is and what it is supposed to do?

I think force flow as they described it, is how force against a body is being managed. In Tai Chi we give with force or redirect force. We never try to go directly against force. From what Alan Orr was explaining it seems that he took Tai Chi concepts and created a different term to talk about how to apply similar concepts to Wing Chun.

For example, If you punch towards my center line, my goal would be to redirect your punch away from my center line. I have no interest in stopping it because redirecting it will allow me to counter and reduced the damage that I may take from the punch. A Wing Chun punch moves in one direction in a linear motion. That punch can only move in one direction (forward). Because of this there is no resistance to force being applied to the side of the punch so I'll be able to easily move it or redirect it with very little effort. Now take that same concept and apply it to the body. If you lean on me, I should give and flow with the force that you are using against me. Not only should I flow with it, I should help you generate more force than you are expecting to handle, by pulling on you. The pull will actually cause you to fall off balance giving me the opportunity to counter.

Sports like Judo, Shuai Jiao, wrestling, BJJ, Tai Chi, Akido and some others actually use similar concepts of dealing with force where the goal isn't to stop it but to let it flow with little resistance and in some cases increase the flow as a way to throw the person off balance. Here's a Wing Chun Example

Here's a Tai Chi Example

This is probably what influenced the concept of force flow.

take note of the similar jerky motion

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Impossible to tell. Where do you see the force flow idea in the kuen kuit?

Actually I don't know. I think I read somewhere that there is a scripture or non-yip man kuen kuit that actually details force flow, what it is and how to apply it.

Or perhaps I got that wrong. I also read somewhere that HS has made connections between Wing Chun and other arts like White Crane and found sciptures to be very closely related making him conclude where he thinks wing chun came from. Maybe force flow was detailed in this and he added it from here.

More and more I am beginning to think HS has pieced together this idea and sill set himself from his research. He hasn't actually learned it from an actual teacher. He is adding something that he believes was originally supposed to be in the art in the first place and was lost. That is how he has justified doing it.

Can anyone dispute this? Does anyone have any evidence of HS's teachers or kung fu brothers (from same school) as having this force flow skill?

 

[SaulGoodman]

If you don't mind guys I would like to keep the conversation to my original question. Really want to establish that first. I think whether it works in a fight or not would make for a good discussion in another thread.

Are there old wing Chun masters out there from China or Malaysia or wherever that have this skill that Hendrik teaches?

Sergio eludes to learning internal skills off old wing Chun masters with these internal skills, but who are they?

You're in Nz, Alan is in Nz, why not simply meet the guy? You won't find a more definitive answer to your questions and will be able to give a valuable hands on insight to how force flow works real time..,,

 

[guy b.]

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

Where did HS learn the force flow skill set?

No idea. I think you are extremely unlikely to get any answer to this question here.

 

[LFJ]

More and more I am beginning to think HS has pieced together this idea and sill set himself from his research. He hasn't actually learned it from an actual teacher. He is adding something that he believes was originally supposed to be in the art in the first place and was lost. That is how he has justified doing it.

And you're absolutely right.

On the KFM forum, he proudly stated that an Emei master was able to identify as Emei-related what he called "Wck technology I have developed".

He claims the development of this "Wck technology" and doesn't credit a Wing Chun ancestor, but nor has he studied either Emei or White Crane.

If it is identifiable to Emei and White Crane masters, that means he has grafted it onto his own Wing Chun after researching those styles online.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

You're in Nz, Alan is in Nz, why not simply meet the guy? You won't find a more definitive answer to your questions and will be able to give a valuable hands on insight to how force flow works real time..,,

No I don't think meeting Alan will help me with this. Alan would possibly teach me how to do it and show how it works in fighting. But that's not what I am after right now. At a certain point I would be interested in meeting Alan. But there's enough to learn in what I already do for now.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

And you're absolutely right.

On the KFM forum, he proudly stated that an Emei master was able to identify as Emei-related what he called "Wck technology I have developed".

He claims the development of this "Wck technology" and doesn't credit a Wing Chun ancestor, but nor has he studied either Emei or White Crane.

If it is identifiable to Emei and White Crane masters, that means he has grafted it onto his own Wing Chun after researching those styles online.

... Ok. So in one sense, maybe we could say good on him for all his research and effort. He could be absolutely right in trying to revive this concept and skill.

In another sense, there is something wrong with how he and the above mentioned situs are presenting this. I know at least several of them from exchanges and people I know who have met them, that there is this theme of "Yip Man wing Chun is not authentic and has lost this force flow and knowledge, but other non-yip man lineages haven't". Among all these Sifus there also seems to be a theme of theme knowing and learning many non-yip man wing lineages even though they started with Yip Man.

It seems as though they are promoting their wing Chun as being more authentic as well as having skills that have been lost in yip man wing chun.

In this sense, that is an awful lot to speculate based on one man's research. Also they need to be clear that even if Hendrik is right (about how it used to be in wing chun), it's not just yip man wing chun that lost it. ALL wing Chun linaneges lost it.

I think there is a bit of a marketing ploy at work here.... And it is all based in Hendriks work.

 

[JowGaWolf]

... Ok. So in one sense, maybe we could say good on him for all his research and effort. He could be absolutely right in trying to revive this concept and skill.

In another sense, there is something wrong with how he and the above mentioned situs are presenting this. I know at least several of them from exchanges and people I know who have met them, that there is this theme of "Yip Man wing Chun is not authentic and has lost this force flow and knowledge, but other non-yip man lineages haven't". Among all these Sifus there also seems to be a theme of theme knowing and learning many non-yip man wing lineages even though they started with Yip Man.

It seems as though they are promoting their wing Chun as being more authentic as well as having skills that have been lost in yip man wing chun.

In this sense, that is an awful lot to speculate based on one man's research. Also they need to be clear that even if Hendrik is right (about how it used to be in wing chun), it's not just yip man wing chun that lost it. ALL wing Chun linaneges lost it.

I think there is a bit of a marketing ploy at work here.... And it is all based in Hendriks work.

I agree. If I had to take a wild guess, I would compare the mindset of students today and assume that students in the past behaved the same way. Very few students have the patience to learn how to control their energy and how to create force without muscling it. Most students just want to hit the pads, spar, or get straight to the application. We even see it in Martial Talk where people don't do forms or kata practice simply because they think it's a waste of time. If this is true today then it's probably an issue that has existed for as long as martial arts have been taught. This issue causes techniques and understanding to be "peeled" off with each generation as the student is likely to take the same mindset of this teacher. I think Kung Fu in general has taken this path in different areas such as grappling and the ability to generate force correctly.

As a person that doesn't study WC, I have to say WC there is definitely more internal conflict between the different WC schools and I don't know if that's because some people are teaching WC as Sifus even though they haven't been appointed or recognized as a Sifu by their teacher. For Jow Ga it's really easy to find out if someone is a self-proclaimed Sifu. It's even easier to find out if someone has been officially appointed Sifu. In Jow Ga (because it's the only reference I have) there's a student like Alan Orr who went out and did well with winning, but he was never made a Sifu by his teacher. He's won many competitions and fights and has more out there in terms of Jow Ga DVDs than official Jow Ga Sifu's. His name is Ron Wheeler and he teaches Jow Ga from his perspective. From the conversations and the aggression I've seen on WC discussions, I think WC has a lot of "Ron Wheeler's"

Alan Orr refers to the system that he teaches as a "Modern Wing Chun" which tells me right away that there have been some changes that have been made to the original system. And such changes will most likely not have any lineage tied to it. Meaning no Sifu from the past taught the techniques that he is now teaching by combining WC with fighting concepts and techniques from other fighting systems. There is nothing wrong with what his doing but at this point he probably should not refer to his system as Wing Chun. He should probably rename it so that it accurately embodies the new stuff that has been added.

The founder of Jow Ga blended 3 different fighting systems and instead of claiming the new system he created as Hung Gar or Shaolin. He gave it a new game. Jow Ga. I think there are many WC schools out there that probably need to take a similar route if they have made new changes to the fighting system that causes the system to greatly change. Tai Chi movements in WC would be a good reason to come up with a new name for a fighting system.

 

[geezer]

...Most students just want to hit the pads, spar, or get straight to the application. We even see it in Martial Talk where people don't do forms or kata practice simply because they think it's a waste of time. If this is true today then it's probably an issue that has existed for as long as martial arts have been taught. This issue causes techniques and understanding to be "peeled" off with each generation as the student is likely to take the same mindset of this teacher.

I'd agree that this is an age-old debate. One side favoring tradition, and the other favoring practical application. Veering too far in either direction is a problem. And even most "traditional" arts have a rebel, reformer, or at least an innovator or two in their history. Imagine how a Hung Gar or Choy Ga purist would have viewed Jow Ga when it was a new art.

Sorry I can't shed light on the OP's question. From all the posts by Hendrick on this and that other forum, I gather that a lot of this comes from his own research. He feels it is old and authentic ...a restoration of stuff that has been lost. Many others would question this. If Alan Orr can apply some of these ideas practically, that would merit attention. Otherwise, I haven't been able to make heads or tails of Hendrick's many posts.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

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

 

[geezer]

Here are some more references to "force flow" in WC":

Sifu Sergio--

Jim Roselando--

Hendrick Santos--

and again here--

Personally I was very disappointed with the last clip. I was really hoping to see Hendrick demonstrate bouncing on the pogo stick.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I can only suppose Hendrik can do the stuff he is teaching because you can see the result of his teachings in his students. But it would be nice to see him do them himself.

 

[JustSomePerson]

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

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.

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. How we translate older terms into contemporary English always throws up debates but the content or the ideas they point to are pretty much accepted.

Sometimes I have seen him claim certain points to be of his own invention but it is, in my view, more the case of the way lots of existing things have been put together as a series of exercises, thoughts and meta points that are of his creation, over the individual parts constituting them.

However, even here there has been cross pollination and I can name some that have freely and openly helped him better articulate what he wanted to articulate and to refine what he wanted to get across.

Hendrik can speak for himself but from what I see of wing chun today in general it is debased and devoid of some of the basic ideas that Hendrik wants to get across in addition to the deeper level stuff and on which Hendrk is very, very knowledgeable and in my view correct.

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.