# Basics & Techniques



## Kenpobuff (Mar 3, 2006)

Forgive me for asking this question if it has been addressed already.  I tried the search function and saw nothing related.  I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.

Since doing this exercise for numberous times, that of finding each basic movement we have listed for learning in a given belt and then highlighting it in the respective technique descriptions, I have taken a look at the techniques from a different angle.  Why it took so long to see it I don't know, anyway...

Please consider this question...Which came first, the technique or the basic movement?  Were the techniques developed to illustrate the practical use of basic movements, or were the techniques developed for true self defense purposes and then the basics were extracted from the techniques and put in a particular belt requirement because of the complexity of the the basic movements?

I hope this made some sense.  I look forward to your take on this.

Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2006)

I believe the Basic is the originating point. 

Strong Basics, Strong Techniques. 
Weak Basics, Weak Techniques. 

It would seem that the Techniques were assembled to address specific attack situations from the available Basics.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 3, 2006)

I would say the techs were all based on pre-existing concepts. For instance the Kenpo way of thinking turns a basic front take down into Tripping Arrow.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Mar 3, 2006)

I'll also have to agree that the basics came first.  The techniques are a compilation of the basics.  Without them, there would be no techniques.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 4, 2006)

I think basic motion comes from your body teaching itself to do any given task in the most effortless way possible. Differences of opinion lie in the differences in the base activities. Perhaps Martial Arts changes so readily because ultimatly the instructor can only offer their own life experiences, concerns, and beliefs.
Sean


----------



## lenatoi (Mar 26, 2006)

I think it is possible that the technique came first, and the basics came after.... So, you first come up with a technique. You work it a bit. you find out that it doessn't have the optimal effect. You adjust. The same proccess continues. After a while, you find out what works best. This is where the basics come from orrigionally. Later on, however, many new techniques can be derived from the basics discovered from the first.


----------



## stickarts (Mar 26, 2006)

I think it is difficult to know what came first but it makes sense that the basic is learned first since the rest of the learning grows off of that base. It's a natural progression.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Mar 26, 2006)

I agree it is very difficult to say what came first, I have to go with the techniques for this reason. Forget modern martial arts, when the first two cavemen got into a fight, one of them I am sure found out how painful a kick to the groin could be, or a punch to the face, for example; but I would like to think that this came through trial and error, and as fighting evolved, we developed 'basics' in order to lay the foundation for more effective techniques, yet techniques were already around, perhaps not what you and I would use today, but in a raw form.


----------



## Carol (Mar 26, 2006)

Awesome question.

I think it depends on which of the basics one is talking about.  

I can't confirm if this is right...someone (I think, one of my instructors) told me that SGM Parker took a sideways stance, moved it out one step, and created the neutral stance.   There were other moves that he developed after being inspired by other sources...including highly physical comedy of the 3 Stooges.

Other basics such as the horse stance, or the cross, existed long before SGM Parker did. 

:idunno: Not sure, really


----------



## Doc (Mar 26, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Awesome question.
> 
> I think it depends on which of the basics one is talking about.
> 
> ...


Only in Kenpo is this even a question ma'mam. Traditionally, the 'basics' of movement drive everything, and so-called techniques are nothing but the expression of those basics. 

Looking at a different vehicle, would you consider separating 'dribbling' in basketball, from a 'jump shot?" Traditionally a 'technique' could simply be one move. Modern day commercial Kenpo ushered in the '20 strikes makes a technique' thought process. When thinking is adjusted, than you realize the basics and techniques are one in the same. There is no difference between the two ideas. 

For the record, Ed Parker did not create the neutral bow. It is an old Traditional Chinese Stance.


----------



## lenatoi (Mar 28, 2006)

Your comment makes sense Doc, but I think that some of us were making our guesses based on a different deffinition of the word "technique," and "basic." 

As much as this may not make sense, I was thinking of  "technique" as a series of movements used to create a desired effect, while I was thinking of the "basics" as the peices of movement that we have ultimatly found to be the best way to execute that series of movements.
I was thinking of them in two seperate lights, instead as the same. Did that make sense? Or was I running arround in circles too much?


----------



## Sapper6 (Mar 28, 2006)

i believe the basic came first.  without an understanding of a basic move, how could you possibly understand a multitude of basics that form techniques?  take away the basics, you have no techniques.  if you have sloppy basics, you have sloppy techniques.  basics are the foundation.

i will echo Doc's statement that ideally, a technique could possess only one simple movement.  a technique is just that...a technique.

a technique is a well defined procedure used to accomplish any specific activity or task.  in fighting, your "technique" is a mixture of strikes, blocks, parries, kicks, manipulations, etc.  all of which are basics.

cheers.


----------



## KenpoDave (Apr 2, 2006)

lenatoi said:
			
		

> I think it is possible that the technique came first, and the basics came after.... So, you first come up with a technique. You work it a bit. you find out that it doessn't have the optimal effect. You adjust. The same proccess continues. After a while, you find out what works best. This is where the basics come from orrigionally. Later on, however, many new techniques can be derived from the basics discovered from the first.


 
I think you are correct.  Look at language.  People begin to talk to each other first, then later, when people sit down and actually study the language, we get an alphabet and grammar.  And then, the study of the alphabet and grammar makes one's use of the language better, more efficient, more creative, and ultimately more effective, and the language grows.

I think nowadays, many martial arts schools (and artists for that matter) tend to do one or the other.  Ultimately, I am not sure that either can be fully understood or realized without an effective study of the other.

Which brings up another question...rather than which came first, which should be taught first?  Personally, I introduce both from the very beginning, but with a lean towards the basics.  I think that if a student is going to be asked to spend hours perfecting a kick, there should be some examples of how that kick is going to be applied in techniques.  The horse stance is a great example.  I have had many people come to me from the more traditional arts where a whole lot of time was spent in that useless stance without ever being given a reason or an application for it.  They always have two things...a great sense of balance and ability to root, and a deep hatred of the horse stance.  And suddenly, when they need to root a little deeper in an application, it all makes sense.

Great thread!


----------



## Kenpobuff (Apr 4, 2006)

I think I agree with you lenatoi in that in my experience a technique in the traditional sense (parting wings for example) is made up of different basics.  Now those basics can (at least in the system I train) be stances, blocks, parries, checks, traps, sweeps and the killing shots made up of kicks, punches, strikes, and finger techs for example. On the street or in history as "Doc" points out a single strike may end a confrontation and thus be referred to as a "technique".  While I think "Doc" may be able to pull off a basic like the Neutral Bow Stance as a conflict ending maneuver thus making it a technique in of itself I know I can't so I must add strikes and kicks to my stance and block basics to make the technique complete.  Hopefully one day I can use only single movements to end a physical conflict...or not.

Steve


----------



## kenpo_disciple (Apr 5, 2006)

original 18 hand movements, then came the 72 hand movements, then 170 hand movement, etc. so, i would say that the basics came first and from that came techniques.

18 hand movements


With the right hand, strike vertically up 
Strike vertically down 
Strike above the shoulder, diagonally left 
Strike below the waist, diagonally right 
Strike horizontally in or to the left 
Strike horizontally out or to the right 
Strike below the waist diagonally left 
Strike above the shoulder diagonally right 
Execute a straight right punch 
With the left hand, strike vertically up 
Strike vertically down 
Strike above the shoulder, diagonally right 
Strike below the waist, diagonally left 
Strike horizontally in or to the right 
Strike horizontally out or to the left 
Strike below the waist diagonally right 
Strike above the shoulder diagonally left 
Execute a straight left punch 
just my opinion


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 5, 2006)

Kenpobuff said:
			
		

> Which came first, the technique or the basic movement? Were the techniques developed to illustrate the practical use of basic movements, or were the techniques developed for true self defense purposes and then the basics were extracted from the techniques and put in a particular belt requirement because of the complexity of the the basic movements?
> Steve



In the beginning....... hee hee

Basics came fist.  Self Defense techniques then came into being when situations arose and discussions on how to handle the attack became the topic of discussion either on how someone reacted during a recent encounter or on how to do it in a more efficient manner if it came about again.

:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Apr 5, 2006)

Nice to see you on the boards again; Sir.  

:asian:


----------



## Doc (Apr 5, 2006)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> In the beginning....... hee hee
> 
> Basics came fist.  Self Defense techniques then came into being when situations arose and discussions on how to handle the attack became the topic of discussion either on how someone reacted during a recent encounter or on how to do it in a more efficient manner if it came about again.
> 
> :asian:


Oh now you've got somthing to say!


----------



## Kenpobuff (Apr 7, 2006)

Doc, GD7 or anyone else:

Was Mr. Parker the first to put a name to all the basics in order to complete the "motion sentences" or did the Japanese and Chinese do the same as they developed their techniques and forms for reference sake?

Steve


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 7, 2006)

Kenpobuff said:
			
		

> Doc, GD7 or anyone else:
> 
> Was Mr. Parker the first to put a name to all the basics in order to complete the "motion sentences" or did the Japanese and Chinese do the same as they developed their techniques and forms for reference sake?
> 
> Steve


 
That is a kenpo idea, unique to the American Kenpo scene (originally, though cats do copy).

The Japanese & Chinese systems generally focus more on the tradition and legacy behind how something is done: I.E., "we do Bassai Dai this way, because that's the way it was passed from one great poo-bah to the another great poo-bah, who incidently founded our systems lineage lo, these many years ago".

Mr. Parker wanted to demystify martial arts training, and limit the hero/lineage worship of the asian schools. To this end, any system should have interchangeable parts that allow you to adapt. When Mr. Parker learned I played guitar and piano, but hated grammar, he switched (quite easily, I might add) to discussing musical references. The basics and techniques are the notes and chords; how you arrange them is the song you write. Jazz improv & classical arrangement...some interesting correlations in there. Notes become chords become riffs become songs become arrangements; basics become techniques become forms, etc.

Regards,

D.


----------



## Doc (Apr 7, 2006)

Kenpobuff said:
			
		

> Doc, GD7 or anyone else:
> Was Mr. Parker the first to put a name to all the basics in order to complete the "motion sentences" or did the Japanese and Chinese do the same as they developed their techniques and forms for reference sake?


The Chinese taught and information was passed through demonstrated and posed physical expressions, laced with flowery metaphors and substitute euphemisms. Coupled together for students, this enhanced the learning process and gave a point of reference for very sophisticated scientific physical applications. They often used animal references (real and mythical) for references, because 'how' a creature moved is something that could actually be observed and/or understood. 

Mr. Parker borrowed naming basics and techniques from the Chinese, choosing to use descriptive standard and consistent English Terminology to explain 'basics.' He did opt however to maintain the 'flowery' metaphors, etc in the naming of techniques for the same reason the Chinese did. It makes them easier to remember.

A hand position called "Eye of the Phoenix" is an example of a basic hand position. This position caused a wrinkle in the second joint of the index finger that resembled the eye of a bird as a reference. This particular reference was used and illustrated in Mr. Parkers second book, "Secrets of Chinese Karate" along with another example, "Twin Dragons after the Pearl." 

Although these specific references appear on the surface to be unnecessary or excessive, (Mr. Parker received the same ignorant criticism), these hand positions actually have significant implications as to the structure of the entire body, as do every part of the human body. The change of a single finger position can have a profound effect positive or negative on human anatomical efficiency. Move a finger incorrectly and your body can become incapable of supporting a solidified base. Move it another way, and you become 'rock solid.' Ummmmm, there we go with the metaphors again. 

For various reasons the Japanese and Okinawans did not grasp the significance of this finite method of passing scientific information, and opted instead to teach from the "tradition persepetive" which translates to "do it this way because I said so." Now there is nothing wrong with this cultural method that doesn't allow students to ask questions, as long as the teacher knows what he's talking about. But then, without the ability to ask questions, how would you know? This method is common because most teachers are unknowledgeable, and it masks their lack of knowledge by not having to entertain questions from curious students of all ages. Then there are others that feel compelled to 'always have an answer,' and instead come up with some really weird stuff. I heard a high raking instructor, (who will remain nameless) at a camp in Vegas, suggest on a strike that you must "synchronize your movement with the rotational effect of the earth." No, I'm not kidding and neither was he. .


----------



## lenatoi (Apr 7, 2006)

"synchronize your movement with the rotational effect of the earth." !?
That sounds a little over the top. *Crazy!*


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Although these specific references appear on the surface to be unnecessary or excessive, (Mr. Parker received the same ignorant criticism), these hand positions actually have significant implications as to the structure of the entire body, as do every part of the human body. The change of a single finger position can have a profound effect positive or negative on human anatomical efficiency. Move a finger incorrectly and your body can become incapable of supporting a solidified base. Move it another way, and you become 'rock solid.' Ummmmm, there we go with the metaphors again.


 
Doc, could you give us a concrete example of what you are talking about here?  I for one, and I suspect others as well, don't have an adequate understanding of anatomy and physiology to visualize this concept in action.  I certainly understand how a well-executed finger-lock can establish complete control over someone, for example, but it sounds like you are talking about something different.  Thanks.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 7, 2006)

"synchronize your movement with the rotational effect of the earth."

There you go Doc, making light of someone who has found a way to escape the drudgery of basics and use the full power of the earth in their technique.     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Jeff


----------



## KenpoDave (Apr 7, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> "synchronize your movement with the rotational effect of the earth."
> 
> There you go Doc, making light of someone who has found a way to escape the drudgery of basics and use the full power of the earth in their technique.
> 
> ...


 
LOL, talk about your backup mass!  And all along, I have just wanted to be able to use all of my weight effectively.  Now I have to learn to use the whole planet???


----------



## bujuts (Apr 7, 2006)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> Now I have to learn to use the whole planet???


 
I'm rather fond of that analogy myself.  I've explained to students that I (the person hitting) am just a popping spring between two objects in space.  One is them, the other is the earth.  One of the objects WILL move  

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Apr 8, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Doc, could you give us a concrete example of what you are talking about here?  I for one, and I suspect others as well, don't have an adequate understanding of anatomy and physiology to visualize this concept in action.  I certainly understand how a well-executed finger-lock can establish complete control over someone, for example, but it sounds like you are talking about something different.  Thanks.


Short, short version. The human body is made up of approximately 206 bones (depending on age), and various density supportive connecting tissues from gelatinous to solid, covered by a porous epidermous skin. For the body to present itself as a single solid entity creating whole body structural integrity, all of these many parts that have an infinite relationship to each other must be properly aligned. If anyone piece of the human machine is out of alignment, the whole machine can be rendered incapable of solidarity and focused function.

The ability to control someone else begins with the ability to control ones own body to maximize the whole body effect.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Short, short version. The human body is made up of approximately 206 bones (depending on age), and various density supportive connecting tissues from gelatinous to solid, covered by a porous epidermous skin. For the body to present itself as a single solid entity creating whole body structural integrity, all of these many parts that have an infinite relationship to each other must be properly aligned. If anyone piece of the human machine is out of alignment, the whole machine can be rendered incapable of solidarity and focused function.
> 
> The ability to control someone else begins with the ability to control ones own body to maximize the whole body effect.


 
OK, I understand that this is the level about which you are talking, and I certainly understand that proper and solid basics are what make everything else work, and without solid basics everything else can be worthless.  I also understand that the different parts of the body need to work together properly to achieve maximum results with minimum effort.  I guess I was wondering if you could give a specific example in action, of the kind of precision you are talking about, for example the "one finger slightly out of place" kind of example, where the entire integrity of the execution is destroyed or at least significantly weakened.  thx.


----------



## Doc (Apr 9, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> OK, I understand that this is the level about which you are talking, and I certainly understand that proper and solid basics are what make everything else work, and without solid basics everything else can be worthless.  I also understand that the different parts of the body need to work together properly to achieve maximum results with minimum effort.  I guess I was wondering if you could give a specific example in action, of the kind of precision you are talking about, for example the "one finger slightly out of place" kind of example, where the entire integrity of the execution is destroyed or at least significantly weakened.  thx.


OK but I hate to do experiments because its been my experience on forums that few will give reasonable feedback, if they are doing them. - or they alter them to their own specifications and declare "It doesn't work." Absent personal supervision, sometimes these things can be difficult to replicate for those that don't want them to. Maybe that's why they don't respond. of course I know you are not one of those.

1) Step into a horse stance, feel parallel. Have someone check from the rear. Typically most think their feet are parallel when they are not. (Its a PNF thing)

2) Extend your arms out to the side palms facing forward.

3) Swing your arms extended forward, shoulder width apart, palms facing each other.

4) Have someone push inward on your arms to force your palms together. Feel your strength. 

They should not be able to push them together without great effort over time.

*Disengage the resistence*

1) Repeat above - but now point one finger on either hand toward your opposite hand.

2) Repeat the pressure test.

BOTH arms should collaspe together unable to maintain structure. In fact the structure of your entire body has changed and you should be easily moved out of your stance, and your ability to breathe deeply is restricted because you moved the position of one finger.

Everyone sings the praises of the importance of 'basics.' No one argues their importance, but few understand the anatomical methodology that must be inherent in all efficient human movement. Few have the knowledge and "Basics" is just a word to cover what most don't know. Everything you do must be meticulously explained as to the 'how' of execution. Most teach what they 'saw,' and attempt to mimic their teacher. Mimic instruction cannot yield proper execution, because you can't do that which  you cannot recognize and have no knowledge. That's why video study is beyond ridiculous. I can perform a simple move standing in front of you, and if I don't break it down physically, AND meticulously explain its execution, AND correct you over and over again. - You'll never 'get it.' Everyone can move, few can move properly, and even fewer can teach you how to move.


----------



## Doc (Apr 9, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> "synchronize your movement with the rotational effect of the earth."
> 
> There you go Doc, making light of someone who has found a way to escape the drudgery of basics and use the full power of the earth in their technique.
> 
> ...


My apologies sir, but everytime I think of that teacher saying that, I always think of a toilet bowl flushing and watching the water flow clockwise, or is in couterclockwise, or maybe it depends upon where you live.


----------



## Doc (Apr 9, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I'm rather fond of that analogy myself.  I've explained to students that I (the person hitting) am just a popping spring between two objects in space.  One is them, the other is the earth.  One of the objects WILL move
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> OK but I hate to do experiments because its been my experience on forums that few will give reasonable feedback, if they are doing them. - or they alter them to their own specifications and declare "It doesn't work." Absent personal supervision, sometimes these things can be difficult to replicate for those that don't want them to. Maybe that's why they don't respond. of course I know you are not one of those.
> 
> 1) Step into a horse stance, feel parallel. Have someone check from the rear. Typically most think their feet are parallel when they are not. (Its a PNF thing)
> 
> ...


 
OK, I tried it out, and asked my wife to push in on my arms.  I did not tell her what I was trying to determine, just asked her to do it.  Did it several times, just to be sure, before I told her the punchline.  You are right, she definitely felt a difference in my strength with the fingers pointing at each other.  Very interesting.  I appreciate that example.

I suspect it is difficult or impossible to describe this kind of thing within actual martial context, without working together face-to-face.  Seems like the variations and subtleties would be too great to describe without actually being there, working hands-on.  But the above example does seem to show in the general sense how this can work.  

That being said, I have a thought that I think is relevant, and I would appreciate your comments on.  I have heard it said that your kicking techniques can be more powerful if you hold your hands open and relaxed (fingers together, slightly cupped for safety), instead of in a fist.  I think this is true, and my take on it is that when you hold your fist clenched, you create tension that can travel down your arms and into your torso and have a noticable affect on the kicking technique.  This tension prevents the fluid power of the body from transferring into the kick.  But if the hands are held more relaxed, the tension is absent, allowing for a more fluid and powerful kick, with less effort.  If you agree with this assessment, would you say this is related to what you are talking about with regard to structural integrity and such?  thanks again.


----------



## Doc (Apr 9, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> OK, I tried it out, and asked my wife to push in on my arms.  I did not tell her what I was trying to determine, just asked her to do it.  Did it several times, just to be sure, before I told her the punchline.  You are right, she definitely felt a difference in my strength with the fingers pointing at each other.  Very interesting.  I appreciate that example.
> 
> I suspect it is difficult or impossible to describe this kind of thing within actual martial context, without working together face-to-face.  Seems like the variations and subtleties would be too great to describe without actually being there, working hands-on.


Exactly, thus my comment about the ridulcousness of video study. Even looking at the best 'master' on video will not reveal what he is doing. Your observations are limited by your lack of knowledge, at best. To understand in martial context is to have knowledge of the physical dynamics of human interaction. No small feat.


> I have heard it said that your kicking techniques can be more powerful if you hold your hands open and relaxed (fingers together, slightly cupped for safety), instead of in a fist.


If it was only as simple as relaxing your hands.


> If you agree with this assessment, ...


I don't, and it would be too simplistic and not take into consideration the rest of the body mechanics. Even dismissing everything else, the answer is still no. 

"The key to structural integrity in human anatomy is resistence." - Ron Chap&#233;l


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Apr 10, 2006)

Doc,

Come on, you mean to tell me that you can't become a black belt from learning on a video?  I have got this friend and he worked his way up to a 4th degree black. 
HEHEHEHEHE
Just kidding. I completely agree with you.


----------



## Doc (Apr 10, 2006)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> Come on, you mean to tell me that you can't become a black belt from learning on a video?  I have got this friend and he worked his way up to a 4th degree black.
> HEHEHEHEHE
> Just kidding. I completely agree with you.


Well sir there is a great misunderstanding with regard to these money making video study courses. While you may earn your black via video correspondence, if you read the small print, it emphatically states you will only be capable of defending your self in 'video confrontations.' I have no objections to this, and find it perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Ray (Apr 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> While you may earn your black via video correspondence, if you read the small print, it emphatically states you will only be capable of defending your self in 'video confrontations.'


Crap, now I have to have Geraldo tagging along everywhere I go in case I get attacked.


----------



## Doc (Apr 10, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Crap, now I have to have Geraldo tagging along everywhere I go in case I get attacked.


Yes, and he won't help you - (But I heard he will hand your attacker a weapon to enhance the footage)


----------



## KenpoDave (Apr 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir there is a great misunderstanding with regard to these money making video study courses. While you may earn your black via video correspondence, if you read the small print, it emphatically states you will only be capable of defending your self in 'video confrontations.' I have no objections to this, and find it perfectly reasonable.


 
I am undefeated on every television show I have ever watched.


----------



## Doc (Apr 10, 2006)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> I am undefeated on every television show I have ever watched.


I got 'zapped' with some ray on the Twight Zone" once.


----------



## Kenpobuff (Apr 11, 2006)

Thanks "D" and  Doc!  Great response.  Kinda how I thought knowledge was handed down back then, thanks for confirming.

Steve


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 19, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> OK but I hate to do experiments because its been my experience on forums that few will give reasonable feedback, if they are doing them. - or they alter them to their own specifications and declare "It doesn't work." Absent personal supervision, sometimes these things can be difficult to replicate for those that don't want them to. Maybe that's why they don't respond. of course I know you are not one of those.
> 
> 1) Step into a horse stance, feel parallel. Have someone check from the rear. Typically most think their feet are parallel when they are not. (Its a PNF thing)
> 
> ...


I know this won't surprise you but it works.  

Thanks that was fun.

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 19, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Exactly, thus my comment about the ridulcousness of video study. Even looking at the best 'master' on video will not reveal what he is doing. Your observations are limited by your lack of knowledge, at best. To understand in martial context is to have knowledge of the physical dynamics of human interaction. No small feat.
> "The key to structural integrity in human anatomy is resistence." - Ron Chapél


I agree that video study can only work on the most basic of motion, but i would like to suggest that video still has a place as a memory refresher to those studying with good instructors as a memory jog.  Now when I look at the old video of Mr. Parker I can see him perform a Pam.  That doesn't teach me how and when to do one but it sure tells me I need to seek that information.

Jeff


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 19, 2006)

This discussion of basics and subtleties just now made me think of an informal Chi Na seminar I had the honor to take part in at Gil Hibben's House 4 or 5 years ago. I wasn't ready for the information but had the privilege of being manipulated as the demo dummy.  The thing that was clear to me is the instructor manipulated me with less effort and with subtle little changes in alignment.  Oddly enough when he manipulated me there was pain but it was not the chief reason I assumed the poses he chose to put me in.  I could resist much  of what the others did trying to repeat his actions because I could briefly ignore the pain.  When the Chi Na instructor made small movements I moved even before I knew I was going to.

Sorry about the brief digression,

Jeff


----------



## BallistikMike (Apr 21, 2006)

"The key to structural integrity in human anatomy is resistence." - Ron Chapél


Seems if you destroy, interupt or "Take Away" that resistance the structural integrity just might fail?


----------



## Doc (Apr 21, 2006)

> Seems if you destroy, interupt or "Take Away" that resistance the structural integrity just might fail?



Because the human body evolved under the constant weight of specific gravity, its muscles, soft connecting tissue, and skeletal structure are reliant on this resistance to create a unified, solid structure of anatomical congruency.

This why when astronauts stay in a weightless environment, or persons are bed ridden for an extended period of time, their load bearing muscles begin to atrophy from lack of active resistance.

From a dynamic human interaction perspective, the achievement of structural integrity requires an understanding of martial postures that are very specific. Additionally, the human machine is capable of creating its own internal resistance and structural integrity singularly, and/or may also draw resistance from an active and aggressive adversary or external force.

The significance here is that once established positively, it is not easily overcome. Conversely, with the knowledge of how to destabilize, neutralize, and establish a negative martial posture in another, they will be incapable of establishing structural integrity by the application of that same resistance until such time as they are capable of disengagement.

Although these methodologies are rather easily taught, their complexities go well beyond the simplistic question because, 

*In a true science, the answer is always, it depends.  Ron Chapél
*


----------

