Force handling discussion

[Hendrik]

Force handling discussion

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjL-8zZAmJM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZjL-8zZAmJM

[KPM]

What you call "direct" at the end, and say one shouldn't do.....you aren't doing it right. ;) You are leaning forward like the Leaning Tower of Piza. You aren't bending your knees and redirecting the force into the ground at all. No wonder you get pushed over backwards. That's Robert Chu's very first Structure test, and you failed it in that video! :eek:

You seem to be saying one should just redirect the opponent's force by flicking it down and outward. But what's to keep the opponent from "borrowing your force" and whipping his strike back around to pop you in the head?

Force handling? One should be able to accept force directly into the structure of their stance and then turn the opponent away from them when needed. You don't turn away from them, you turn them away from you! If you start to be pushed over backwards the minute someone starts loading some force into your structure, then you aren't handling force very well IMHO! "Receive what comes....." The Kuit doesn't say "deflect what comes...."

Sorry Hendrik. That's just what I see in that short video.

[kung fu fighter]

What you call "direct" at the end, and say one shouldn't do.....you aren't doing it right. ;) You are leaning forward like the Leaning Tower of Piza. You aren't bending your knees and redirecting the force into the ground at all. No wonder you get pushed over backwards. That's Robert Chu's very first Structure test, and you failed it in that video! :eek:

You seem to be saying one should just redirect the opponent's force by flicking it down and outward. But what's to keep the opponent from "borrowing your force" and whipping his strike back around to pop you in the head?

Force handling? One should be able to accept force directly into the structure of their stance and then turn the opponent away from them when needed. You don't turn away from them, you turn them away from you! If you start to be pushed over backwards the minute someone starts loading some force into your structure, then you aren't handling force very well IMHO! "Receive what comes....." The Kuit doesn't say "deflect what comes...."

Sorry Hendrik. That's just what I see in that short video.

Keith what you seem to be discribing above is what Hendrik refers to as sustain, not force line snake engine type power generation. two completely different things.

What Hendrik is doing is beyond all of the above! you have to directly feel what he is doing to really appreciate it. The snake engine is dynamic, not static structure.

[Hendrik]

Look at 2.10 TST , does he lean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wDsaMsypk&feature=youtube_gdata

[Hendrik]

Navin,

Richard in the clip is double my body weight. I ask for his help purposely because that is where the fun start. Can the engine handle a double weight force or momentum?

Why in above including TST lean? Yes, that is sustain.

That is better the loading any joints because it get force down into ground. Otherwise, trying to get joints loaded similar in the kneeling stance by a two time weight momentum or force is crazy. The joint has a physical limits. You don't want to resist a tank with a water tower.

The game is to not has the min min momentum loading ones body. But be able to issue force vector as needed.

[Hendrik]

The snake engine is dynamic, not static structure.


That is what Robert calls the structure of no structure. Beyond structure.

[KPM]

Look at 2.10 TST , does he lean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wDsaMsypk&feature=youtube_gdata

He leaned just enough. His knees were bent and he was redirecting force into the ground. Both Jim Fung and TST did a good job of maintaining structure and directing force into the ground. They didn't get pushed over backwards like you did. That video clip was a good example of "force handling." Your video wasn't.

[KPM]

Keith what you seem to be discribing above is what Hendrik refers to as sustain, not force line snake engine type power generation. two completely different things.

---Good on you Navin! You can now do the "Hendrik-speak." ;) But does it actually mean anything?

What Hendrik is doing is beyond all of the above! you have to directly feel what he is doing to really appreciate it. The snake engine is dynamic, not static structure.

---Yeah right! I'll tell you what. If Hendrik posts a video of himself doing what Jim Fung or TST was doing on that video clip, or even a video of himself easily passing Robert Chu's structure test, THEN I will start to believe that what he can do is "beyond all of the above." The old "you have to directly feel it to really get it" adage just doesn't work. He posted a VIDEO. What I saw was Hendrik miserably failing Robert's most basic structure test and saying "this is what one shouldn't do." You have to HAVE structure before you can go BEYOND structure.

[KPM]

The joint has a physical limits. You don't want to resist a tank with a water tower.

The game is to not has the min min momentum loading ones body. But be able to issue force vector as needed.

That's why I said this before: One should be able to accept force directly into the structure of their stance and then turn the opponent away from them when needed. You don't turn away from them, you turn them away from you! If you start to be pushed over backwards the minute someone starts loading some force into your structure, then you aren't handling force very well IMHO!

You have to have the ability to accept force into your structure and then redirect it before it can overwhelm you, or send it back to off-balance him. You have to disrupt the opponent's balance. If you just bounce off of his force, how are you off-balancing him and controlling him? How are you going to issue force into the opponent if when you do so you just bounce away from him because your structure won't support it?

Again, that's what I'm seeing in that video. You didn't affect that big man's balance or structure at all. You didn't send any force into him. When he sent force into you you either slapped it away (which is risky), or let it push you backwards. How is that a good example of "handling force"?

[GlennR]

Look at 2.10 TST , does he lean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wDsaMsypk&feature=youtube_gdata

I thought you said that TST does it all wrong and doesnt know what he is talking about???

[GlennR]

He leaned just enough. His knees were bent and he was redirecting force into the ground. Both Jim Fung and TST did a good job of maintaining structure and directing force into the ground. They didn't get pushed over backwards like you did. That video clip was a good example of "force handling." Your video wasn't.

Having been 1st hand with TST, Jim Fung and seniors they DO NOT lean like Hendrik does in his clip

[YouKnowWho]

... maintaining structure and directing force into the ground.

I think this kind of thinking is too "conservative".

Whether you can use force to against force, or redirect your opponent's force, it's not good enough. You should borrow your opponent's force, add your own force to against him.

[Hendrik]

Navin,

Hahaha, what can you say. Hahaha.



btw. Navin has visited me and know exactly what it is, he also has developed to some level , so he is able to used it .





Keith what you seem to be discribing above is what Hendrik refers to as sustain, not force line snake engine type power generation. two completely different things.

---Good on you Navin! You can now do the "Hendrik-speak." ;) But does it actually mean anything?

What Hendrik is doing is beyond all of the above! you have to directly feel what he is doing to really appreciate it. The snake engine is dynamic, not static structure.

---Yeah right! I'll tell you what. If Hendrik posts a video of himself doing what Jim Fung or TST was doing on that video clip, or even a video of himself easily passing Robert Chu's structure test, THEN I will start to believe that what he can do is "beyond all of the above." The old "you have to directly feel it to really get it" adage just doesn't work. He posted a VIDEO. What I saw was Hendrik miserably failing Robert's most basic structure test and saying "this is what one shouldn't do." You have to HAVE structure before you can go BEYOND structure.

[Hendrik]

Again, that's what I'm seeing in that video. You didn't affect that big man's balance or structure at all. You didn't send any force into him. When he sent force into you you either slapped it away (which is risky), or let it push you backwards. How is that a good example of "handling force"?


Is that true? Hahaha

Seriously,

1. I really suggest you listen carefully what I say in the video and read carefully the title of this thread.

2. Do I slapped it away? You might want to watch it carefully what happen.





The joint has a physical limits. You don't want to resist a tank with a water tower.

The game is to not has the min min momentum loading ones body. But be able to issue force vector as needed.

That's why I said this before: One should be able to accept force directly into the structure of their stance and then turn the opponent away from them when needed. You don't turn away from them, you turn them away from you! If you start to be pushed over backwards the minute someone starts loading some force into your structure, then you aren't handling force very well IMHO!

You have to have the ability to accept force into your structure and then redirect it before it can overwhelm you, or send it back to off-balance him. You have to disrupt the opponent's balance. If you just bounce off of his force, how are you off-balancing him and controlling him? How are you going to issue force into the opponent if when you do so you just bounce away from him because your structure won't support it?

Again, that's what I'm seeing in that video. You didn't affect that big man's balance or structure at all. You didn't send any force into him. When he sent force into you you either slapped it away (which is risky), or let it push you backwards. How is that a good example of "handling force"?

[GlennR]

Again, that's what I'm seeing in that video. You didn't affect that big man's balance or structure at all. You didn't send any force into him. When he sent force into you you either slapped it away (which is risky), or let it push you backwards. How is that a good example of "handling force"?


Is that true? Hahaha

Seriously,

1. I really suggest you listen carefully what I say in the video and read carefully the title of this thread.

2. Do I slapped it away? You might want to watch it carefully what happen.

Still don't answer my objections though?
Seriously, you pick and choose comments on your clip as you can't reply to many.

[KPM]

Again, that's what I'm seeing in that video. You didn't affect that big man's balance or structure at all. You didn't send any force into him. When he sent force into you you either slapped it away (which is risky), or let it push you backwards. How is that a good example of "handling force"?


Is that true? Hahaha

Seriously,

1. I really suggest you listen carefully what I say in the video and read carefully the title of this thread.

2. Do I slapped it away? You might want to watch it carefully what happen.


Ok. I rewatched the video. In all fairness, the first 10 seconds wasn't bad. You moved him pretty well. And maybe you were having a Forcing Handling discussion with the people that were actually present that doesn't show up on the video, and so we don't know what it was you were actually trying to demonstrate or what you were explaining to them. All we have to go on is the video itself. So my apologies if my assessment is off base. You did affect the big man's balance near the end of the clip, but he wasn't even trying to put up a minimum of resistance and wasn't in any kind of good structure himself.

But I still think that if you are going to talk about how what you are doing is "beyond" the basic structure guidelines, you need to show how you have/use basic structure first, and THEN show the next step beyond that. Otherwise, what you are showing isn't too impressive and doesn't mean much to someone just watching a video clip and not part of the "discussion" going on in the background. The clip you posted of Jim Fung and TST was a lot more impressive. It was easy to see how they were using their structure and how they were handling force. Not so with your clip. That's just my 2 cents. ;)