snake engine dymistify

[Vajramusti]

True.
However, the five basic elements needs very different dynamic structure which in general not brought up and clearly define.

Ie. jammingm wedging redirecting might be still within the domain of blocking. Instead of blocking, splitting, leading, which required three types of dynamic structures.

A structure which is based on big limbs movement, and a structure which play with change of force directly via minute joints aligment or springy force handling are different structures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh- you are over generalizing about what everyone else does-perhaps over depending on what videos you look at.
There are folks who do know quite a bit about dynamic structures. perhaps you should get out more.

That poor Malaysian guy did not have the slightest idea about wing chun...

[Hendrik]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh- you are over generalizing about what everyone else does-perhaps over depending on what videos you look at.
There are folks who do know quite a bit about dynamic structures. perhaps you should get out more.

That poor Malaysian guy did not have the slightest idea about wing chun...

Joy,

I am actually being very specific.

Please explain what is dynamic structure for you.

[GlennR]

Joy,

I am actually being very specific.

Please explain what is dynamic structure for you.

No, you are being absolutely unrealistic.

Can you do what you say???

Can you make this stuff work in a self defense situation?

[Ali. R]

Great!
Then you know what I am talking about. Using physical lab experiment will be solid for everyone experience or not. Since the intention is to explore what is it. Instead of how good who can do what.

To me, and I’m sure I speak for many who wish to see it firsthand and do not care how well you could execute your intention of dynamics, but would love to entertain the thought of just seeing what is, and I’m not saying that you can’t execute what you speak of.

True.
However, the five basic elements needs very different dynamic structure which in general not brought up and clearly define.

Lord have mercy, LMAO.

Ie. jammingm wedging redirecting might be still within the domain of blocking. Instead of blocking, splitting, leading, which required three types of dynamic structures.

A structure which is based on big limbs movement, and a structure which play with change of force directly via minute joints aligment or springy force handling are different structures.

When it comes to "structures force directly via minute joints alignment or springy force handling", they are the shapes that one gets when dealing with transitions which are developed through the sensibility of the primary structural intent. Therefore the energies become intuitive and not prolixious.

Look at the application begining with mark 0:24, where I’d jam the line of intent (mon sao), while at the same time I’m dissolving one’s momentum using springy energy and rerouting his fighting line with a small structure within that transition of application (lun sao), which is clearly intuitive.

In most cases the small structures in which you speak of can already be found within most wing chun forms, and would not be hidden if one pay attention to ones structures and applications within the transition of intent.

[Hendrik]

To me, and I’m sure I speak for many who wish to see it firsthand and do not care how well you could execute your intention of dynamics, but would love to entertain the thought of just seeing what is, ------Ali

Understood,

Actually, this YouTube is a brief summary of all my snake body series utubes. Details presentation have been shared in the prio utubes.

Ie:
Start 14.00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAkvhj06Fw4
Also, start 2.3 for the stationary holding type structure for push back and sustain, or what is called external handling.
And dynamic structure for recieving and issuing playing in the force change domain. Or what it called internal handling

Start 29.00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHArXoVMkzA



When it comes to structures force directly via minute joints alignment or springy force handling, they are the shapes that one gets when dealing with transitions which are developed through the sensibility of the primary structural intent. Therefore the energies become intuitive and not prolixious.

Look at the application begining with mark 0:24, where I’d jam the line of intent (mon sao), while at the same time I’m dissolving one’s momentum using springy energy and rerouting his fighting line with a small structure within that transition of application (lun sao), which is clearly intuitive. -----Ali


Thank you for sharing!



In most cases the small structures in which you speak of can already be found within most wing chun forms, and would not be hidden if one pay attention to ones structures and applications within the transition of intent. -----Ali

Certainly!

[YouKnowWho]

It is expected that some might interest and some doesn't . And it is ok.

Just one more suggestion from the bottom of my heart.

If someone asked you a question, you did your best to answer it. Instead of for him to appreciate your time and effort to respond to his 1st question, he just asked you a 2nd question right way and totally ignore your answer for his 1st question. Not only you should not respond to his 2nd question, you may just make yourself a fool by answering to his 1st question. You should really ignore his questions after that.

[Hendrik]

John,

Thank you and appreciate!!!

Just one more suggestion from the bottom of my heart.

If someone asked you a question, you did your best to answer it. Instead of for him to appreciate your time and effort to respond to his 1st question, he just asked you a 2nd question right way and totally ignore your answer for his 1st question. Not only you should not respond to his 2nd question, you may just make yourself a fool by answering to his 1st question. You should really ignore his questions after that.

[anerlich]

However, the five basic elements needs very different dynamic structure which in general not brought up and clearly define.

You did not clearly define them in the video by any stretch of the imagination. Rough idea ... perhaps.

You may have that somewhere in your other vids ... but if they're all as repetitive and information-sparse as this, you can't expect really expect anyone with a reasonable amount of healthy scepticism to trawl through them.

I see these as, being generous, a record of your version of your style's history and principles. If you claim them to be core info to WC in general that has been lost over the last 150-odd years, and that WC is lost without it, you are seriously over-gilding the lily and fooling yourself.

[Hendrik]

Lead, block, split, collide , and absorb Are just five very basic tools of any tcma which play with Jin or force change. as I mention in my previous posts and utube, they are just basic stuffs. Tools for chisau and combat applications. There is no need to stretch imagination.

WCK always has it, and I have never said WCK lost it.

The four basic function, the three types of Jin, the five types of basic tools all are in the sets. Infact that is my utube presentation is about, introduction to the basic and how the WCK basic related to modern day physics.

The WCK snake body or snake engine development support these function and operation. And snake body is also not my exclusive, from snake crane linage to Hawkins Cheung presentation of his direct learning from Gm Ipman, snake body is there.

And since these are basic stuffs of WCK, isn't it needs to be known for any wcner ?

You did not clearly define them in the video by any stretch of the imagination. Rough idea ... perhaps.

You may have that somewhere in your other vids ... but if they're all as repetitive and information-sparse as this, you can't expect really expect anyone with a reasonable amount of healthy scepticism to trawl through them.

I see these as, being generous, a record of your version of your style's history and principles. If you claim them to be core info to WC in general that has been lost over the last 150-odd years, and that WC is lost without it, you are seriously over-gilding the lily and fooling yourself.

[trubblman]

for those who is interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcxOSqx7KTQ

I find your video fascinating and thought provoking

[anerlich]

Lead, block, split, collide , and absorb Are just five very basic tools of any tcma which play with Jin or force change. as I mention in my previous posts and utube, they are just basic stuffs. Tools for chisau and combat applications. There is no need to stretch imagination.

WCK always has it, and I have never said WCK lost it.

The four basic function, the three types of Jin, the five types of basic tools all are in the sets. Infact that is my utube presentation is about, introduction to the basic and how the WCK basic related to modern day physics.

The WCK snake body or snake engine development support these function and operation. And snake body is also not my exclusive, from snake crane linage to Hawkins Cheung presentation of his direct learning from Gm Ipman, snake body is there.

And since these are basic stuffs of WCK, isn't it needs to be known for any wcner ?

Perhaps it is basic stuff.

But if, as you suggest, this stuff is not exclusively yours, this begs the question as to what your presentations add to the already available set of knowledge out there, or why anyone should pay more attention to your stuff than anybody else's.

Infact that is my utube presentation is about, introduction to the basic and how the WCK basic related to modern day physics.

You presentation explains little if any what WC has to do with modern day physics or vice versa. You mention momentum, force, acceleration, etc. but that does not a physics lecture make.
You don't really explain how these physical concepts apply to WC or the reverse. IMO others have done a better job of that, though the bar is pretty low. Your presentation is more about kinesiology than physics, though not even close to a definitive treatise on the subject, its length not withstanding.

Once again, life's too short to search through all the vids of you talking to the camera for what pearls of wisdom may be there (not much evidence for their existence if this vid is representative.).

Discussion of theory appeals to few and proves nothing, experimental demonstration is far more interesting and convincing.

You insult your audience by suggesting they inhabit a momentum-free world. I did university physics and applied math, you just make me laugh.

I'm sure you have implied before that most of us are clueless about the concepts of 1850's WC, so it's a bit cute to backpedal now and say "no, no, it's always been there and we never lost it".

You seem to want kudos as a Wing Chun scholar or the communicator of special insights ... but what really have you shown that deserves that?

[imperialtaichi]

Yep, physics is great. But at the end of the day, good Wing Chun is for dealing with human beings, not machines. It's not just about how the physics can be measured in a lab, but how it can be applied in dealing with a real person.

The process cannot be claimed to be "proven", until it is applied and tested in real life.

Plus, even if the theory is sound, it has to be tested and fine-tuned, then be tested more.

Any scientist can write a hypothesis; fair enough. But the scientist cannot claim it "proven process" until proper testing is done and data supporting the effectiveness can be reproduced.

[Hendrik]

Perhaps it is basic stuff.

But if, as you suggest, this stuff is not exclusively yours, this begs the question as to what your presentations add to the already available set of knowledge out there, or why anyone should pay more attention to your stuff than anybody else's. ----------A


I share it with those who is interested and friends. Some review it some don't know it. Some likes it some don't like it. Fine with me. I don't expect anyone to pay more attention. It is information. I give out. Take it or ignore it.





You presentation explains little if any what WC has to do with modern day physics or vice versa. You mention momentum, force, acceleration, etc. but don't really explain how they apply to WC or the reverse. ------- A

there are many utube before this one. Which goes through them.






IMO others have done a better job of that, though the bar is pretty low. Your presentation is more about kinesiology than physics, though not even close to a definitive treatise on the subject, its length not withstanding. ----a


I share what I know. The rest is upto others to take it or ignore it.






Once again, life's too short to search through all the vids of you talking to the camera for what pearls of wisdom may be there (not much evidence for their existence if this vid is representative.).

Discussion of theory appeals to few and proves nothing, experimental demonstration is far more interesting and convincing. -----a


Different people has different interest. As I always says, for those who is interested only.


Btw, all the five type of tools, colision, lead, split, block, and absorb are in the woodern dummy set. That is how basic it is.






You seem to want kudos as a Wing Chun scholar or the communicator of special insights ... but what really have you shown that deserves that? ----a

Who cares about that?
I don't.

I present only very basic of WCK. Just a simple basic guy. That is me.

[Hendrik]

Yep, physics is great. But at the end of the day, good Wing Chun is for dealing with human beings, not machines. It's not just about how the physics can be measured in a lab, but how it can be applied in dealing with a real person.

The process cannot be claimed to be "proven", until it is applied and tested in real life.

Plus, even if the theory is sound, it has to be tested and fine-tuned, then be tested more.

Any scientist can write a hypothesis; fair enough. But the scientist cannot claim it "proven process" until proper testing is done and data supporting the effectiveness can be reproduced.

Sure, just hope some one is not naive enough to live in momentum vacuum . How much data needed to proof that?

[imperialtaichi]

Sure, just hope some one is not naive enough to live in momentum vacuum . How much data needed to proof that?

Most people don't live in momentum vacuum.