# Maintaining Stability While Moving



## MJS (May 25, 2006)

In this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33725

we were discussing the neutral bow. The thread was centered on stability while in a static position, but started to shift towards adding in some movement. It was suggested that a new thread be started to further discuss having a stable stance while moving.

So...here it is folks. I'm interested in hearing ways to still have that solid stance but at the same time, being able to move functionally.

Mike


----------



## monkey (May 25, 2006)

Here is the best I can offer Call Vic LaRuox at karate Connection714-229-0372.He was under Parker & Chuck Sullivan.The old ways!!!!


----------



## MJS (May 25, 2006)

monkey said:
			
		

> Here is the best I can offer Call Vic LaRuox at karate Connection714-229-0372.He was under Parker & Chuck Sullivan.The old ways!!!!


 
Well....thanks for taking the time to post this info.  I'm quite aware of who Vic and Chuck are.  However, I'm a bit more interested in hearing on how to use the principles that Doc was talking about in the other thread, while using them with movement.  

Personally, I feel like I'm quite stable while I'm moving, although the stance I'm using is slightly different from what the theme is here.

BTW, Doc has spent his share of time with Mr. Parker, and has a rather interesting take on things, so I'm interested in hearing his POV.

Mike


----------



## Doc (May 25, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well....thanks for taking the time to post this info.  I'm quite aware of who Vic and Chuck are.  However, I'm a bit more interested in hearing on how to use the principles that Doc was talking about in the other thread, while using them with movement.
> 
> Personally, I feel like I'm quite stable while I'm moving, although the stance I'm using is slightly different from what the theme is here.
> 
> ...


Well Mike you and I have been here before on a variety of topics, and this is no different. As difficult as it is to discuss these things in writing, I think I've done a decent job in the past by reminding readers there are such things a BAM's or Body Alignment Mechanisms. I've given examples and experiments as well that allows who follow the protocol of the test, to feel the difference for themselves and you have always participated.

What you are asking is akin to what I've said about posture previously to you, and how important it is. Than once the proper posture is established, than you must also move properly and specifically to maintain or re-establsh structure. This allows you to move MORE fluid and explosive utilizing correct posture, the mechanisms of transition, and back to a stable solid posture again. 

Remarkably, no one else had a question on the information I gave about the bodies ability to 'disassociate' its many parts and the information in that post, other than my 'marketing' motives for using the term "Martial Science" which was actually already defeined in the post. To assemble, write, and disseminate such information is extremely time consuming, and such a lack of intelligent responses is discouraging. Remakable. Anyway, understanding that type of information in many ways is the key as you and I have discussed before.

I might add any person interested in meaningfully participating or contributing their knowledge to these discussions on this forum are always welcomed by its moderators and owners. That way what they have to say can be scrutinzied and discussed in public much as I have chosen to do on a regular basis. In this manner, it reaches the maximum number of people and serves those interested more efficiently. I invite those seniors to make a home here and share their vast experience in the arts.


----------



## JamesB (May 25, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Remarkably, no one else had a question on the information I gave about the bodies ability to 'disassociate' its many parts and the information in that post, other than my 'marketing' motives for using the term "Martial Science" which was actually already defeined in the post. To assemble, write, and disseminate such information is extremely time consuming, and such a lack of intelligent responses is discouraging. Remakable.


 
It actually took me a while to digest what you'd written in your recent posting but I do have a question which I hope you can answer. I've quoted the relevant part from the other thread as I think my question is more relavant to the topic of this thread..



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Other good examples can be found in various forms of footwork taught in most traditional and non-traditional arts alike. Lateral and forward movements where feet move toward one another create similar results of instability and structural disassociation as stepping back. Although all of these activities are a staple of most arts, anatomically speaking, such maneuvers lack structural stability, absent a necessary compensating mechanism.


 
I not totally clear about what you are saying about 'feet moving towards each other'. Is this basically the action of shortening one's stance? i.e. would an example of a lateral movement where the feet are brought together be the first step of a 'drag-step' foot manouver? Or put another way: standing in a horse-stance, one foot is lifted from the floor and brought towards the other, then planted down next to it? Just want to be clear on the terminology...

Anyway I'm now thinking of the various 'shuffling' footwork in kenpo (from a neutral-bow). We've got:

Drag Step
Step Drag
Push Drag

I think these would be classed as 'lateral' movements? I understood from your post however that these movements introduce instability (and therefore a disconnected, less efficient form of moving), because these movements are not the natural way for the body to move. This conflicts my understanding that these foot-manouvers provide a way to generate explosive movement.. or maybe they do, but they just need to be 'done right'?

My next question. I'm assuming that the 'drag-step' and 'step-drag' contain two specific foot movements - the lifting from the floor, and subsequent placement back down, of each foot in turn. At what point during the foot-manouver is the optimal moment to 'strike'?

example: A lead-hand backfist (with slap-check  ), with a step-drag. Should the back-fist be executed when the front leg is extended with the first step, or should it wait until the rear leg has 'dragged' (or rather been placed) behind you? Same goes for the drag-step - what are the stable positions within these movements that allow the execution of a basic strike?

thanks,
James


----------



## Carol (May 25, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Remarkably, no one else had a question on the information I gave about the bodies ability to 'disassociate' its many parts and the information in that post, other than my 'marketing' motives for using the term "Martial Science" which was actually already defeined in the post. To assemble, write, and disseminate such information is extremely time consuming, and such a lack of intelligent responses is discouraging. Remakable. Anyway, understanding that type of information in many ways is the key as you and I have discussed before.


 
It doesn't mean that your responses aren't appreciated, aren't read, or that their aren't questions sir. :asian:

Doc, when you really get writing you really pile a lot of information in to your posts.  It's like reading a college textbook, I can't just read it and react..I have to think before I actually come up with something anywhere intelligent to say.

A question that is a little more of a higher level.  Sir not being an SL4 student...I won't be graded the how mechanically correct my tech. is...I will be graded on whether I meet my motion kenpo's instructor's expectations...which are not always the same as what you describe.

How can your ideas be implemented in to a form of Kenpo that is not as mechancially correct?


----------



## Doc (May 25, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> It doesn't mean that your responses aren't appreciated, aren't read, or that their aren't questions sir. :asian:
> 
> Doc, when you really get writing you really pile a lot of information in to your posts.  It's like reading a college textbook, I can't just read it and react..I have to think before I actually come up with something anywhere intelligent to say.
> 
> ...


I know that Ma'am, and I also know the majority of those who read my posts are not posters because I hear from them all the time in PM's and emails with additional questions. I also know sometimes it take a bit to respond, as I do the same myself to insure my answers are well researched, written, and provide useful information. My displeasure comes from those who attribute these efforts to some type of 'sales job' to promote a particular point of view. I dispense information from my experience and education that some find useful, others could care less. Either way, positive discussions are best held when posters are positive and supportive as opposed to argumentive and negative just for the sake of same. I like you probably have better things to do than argue with those not interested in 'getting it' as much as validating their own point of view, at the sake of acquiring knowledge and a little common sense.

And you're right regarding your teachers expectations, and certainly that is what you should strive to fulfill. My job is to make you think. As far as implimetation of some of these ideas into 'motion' kenpo, most of the time it contradicts the overall 'idea' of a technique, and the injection of sound body mechanics can have a 'stunting effect' on poor mechanics much like becoming a beginner again. Slowind down, and learning 'how' to do certain things as opposed to just moving 'fast.' Being expeditious in execution takes time based on sound learned skills that transcend abstract 'ideas.'

PS.  I'll get back to you James.


----------



## Carol (May 25, 2006)

It's only the opinion of one person sir.  

For me your post was kind of an aha moment that pulled everything together....your insight, the info on your website...what you are trying to show and do and teach makes a lot more sense.

Thanks again sir :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (May 25, 2006)

OK, I am not good at dragging bits from one thread to another, so I just copied it over, deleted the parts I didn't want to discuss, and then Italicized and bolded the parts I did want to comment on or get clarification on.  The bold and italic portions are Doc's original comments from the other thread.


*The relative position of the feet to each other, and their movement, also significantly determines whether structural integrity is created or maintained.* 

Full agreement.

_*How you move your body in its entirety, the arms, feet, and even the head in particular, in martial science affects the stability of the complete body for a variety of reasons.*_ 

I can understand this.

_*However, what is probably new information to most is that some of the basic things taught in most martial arts fall quite comfortably into the negative and inefficient category.*_ 

_*Most modern martial arts place a heavy emphasis on immediate satisfactory results, and therefore usually are conceptually driven, allowing practitioners flexibility to achieve immediate short-term goals of questionable or elementary effectiveness.*_ 

How do you define "*conceptually driven*", and why is this inferior?  What is wrong with "*immediate satisfactory results*"?  If someone is attacked and successfully defends against that attack, this would, in my opinion, be immediate satisfactory results, so why is that "*questionable or elementary effectiveness*"? I think everything, at its base level, is conceptually driven, based on what the term means to me.  You have an idea (concept) of something for which a solution is needed, and you work to create a solution to that issue.  If this is not what you mean, then I am asking for clarification.  At any rate, the solution probably won't work exactly as predicted due to countless unpredictable variables, but it is at least an idea to work with.  The more versed and skilled with these ideas, the better your reaction to the unpredictable will become, because you are not heavily attached to any particular idea as a whole, which are simply tools in a toolbox.  You choose the best tool for the job, and sometimes need to be creative with it.  My main point is that any encounter, as part of life, is highly unpredictable.  We may practice with the intent to make our delivery as perfect as possible, but I believe reality will dictate that true perfection in an encounter is tremendously unlikely.

*Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an inefficient methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose disassociated mode to achieve the objective*. 

*As an example, when you walk backwards your arms do not swing naturally and balance is more difficult as a result. Additionally, moving forward aggressively without the ability to move your arms creates the same disassociated condition*. 

*However the converse of stepping backwards to meet resistance moving in the same direction as youre stepping, is stepping forward when you are being pulled forward. Both of these movements are inefficient and must have correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity*.

Stepping backwards to meet a force already moveing in that direction (i.e. someone pushing or attempting to push you backwards, from the front) can cause that force to dissipate by moving with it instead of resisting it, as well as create distance between yourself and the attacking force.  Moving forward if someone is pulling you in that direction can do the same, with the exception of creating distance.  The point is that moving with an attacking force to neutralize it makes more sense than fighting against it.  Also, what are "*correcting mechanisms*" by your definition, and what would be some examples?

_*Stepping rearward without the mechanism makes alignment impossible. Stepping forward however because the body functions to locomote forward naturally may create alignment, but only predicated on either how far or how many times you step, or if an additional correcting mechanism is involved*_.

Similar thoughts here to the prior section.  What are the correcting mechanisms?

_*Therefore to teach any execution that by necessity requires inefficient movement forward backward or laterally, first there must be recognition of these absolute anatomical facts, and second a mechanism must be designed to compensate, re-connect, or re-associate the body unit into singular structural integrity for efficient transference of power, or to resist body mass driven assaults*_. 

I'm not quite clear on this previous paragraph: do you consider lateral movements by definition, to be unstable like stepping backwards?

*Other good examples can be found in various forms of footwork taught in most traditional and non-traditional arts alike. Lateral and forward movements where feet move toward one another create similar results of instability and structural disassociation as stepping back. Although all of these activities are a staple of most arts, anatomically speaking, such maneuvers lack structural stability, absent a necessary compensating mechanism.*

You cannot step without the feet moving toward one another in some way, at some point.  Standard walking does this.  Shuffling does this.  Step-drag does this.  Again, what is the compensating mechanism that seems to be the mystery X-Factor?  Otherwise, you are frozen and cannot move due to fear of becoming unstable.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 25, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> It actually took me a while to digest what you'd written in your recent posting but I do have a question which I hope you can answer. I've quoted the relevant part from the other thread as I think my question is more relavant to the topic of this thread..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I know Doc said he'd get back to you; hopefully he won't get mad at me for steppin on his thread a bit with a tiny answer; I got time to kill just yet. 

The 'drag" part in the foot maneuvers you mentioned is pretty much always a bad idea, mechanically. It's how I learned foot-maneuvers, and drilled them accross football fields to engrain them into muscle memory, so it's been a hard one for me to shake, and I still drop back to it patternistically when visiting Doc's mat (for which I get a hollerin').  Dragging one leg towards the other fires the adductor muscles against the friction resistance of the floor...more recruitment than if you just pick the leg up and step with it (the step, alone, is also highly important, due to the feedback the rest of the body gets "neuro-anatomically" as a result of foot-strike, but we'll get back to that). The adductors are attached (mostly) to the pubic rami of the ischium, and share collateral innervation with other muscles coordinating the hip. Firing them against resistance sends all sorts of counter-productive messages to the body about hip alignment with the spine, resulting in an incongruent state of stability. Drags are replaced with steps..."step-steps".  We still use the names "drag-step" and "step-drag" to denote which foot moves first (each covers different distances), but the defeating mechanism of dragging the foot along the floor is replaced with a stepping maneuver.

Also available from the NB is step-through forward or reverse (short or long 1). Many teach (as have I) a "C" step...this is one of the things Doc is referring to about the lower extremities approximating each other, causing incorrect body mechanics. On other threads, he's posited the experiment of having someone push into you, from front to back, after you have done a step-thru forward. If you C-step, you will be easily pushed out of your NB. If you strike a transitional forward bow, and step straight forward (like your feet are following railroad ties) to an opposite side transitional forward bow, then pivot into your NB while using the necessary corrective mechanisms, your stance will be much stronger. So will your forward movement. This matters greatly if the guy is tyrying to crash you while you're in transition, or if you are applying any contact-manipulative force in moving or directing him (you can't fire a cannon out of a canoe). The more stable you are in motion...

Now, let's assume a reverse step-thru, retreating from the attack with an upward block against a descending/overhead attack or straight punch. Why do we care about what the feet are doing, if the attack is coming at the head? "It's all connected". If your foundation is weak, so will be the rest of your tech. Any pressure downward on the upward block contact surface in the angle of incidence will reveal that the block crumbles against a descending force; if you aren't lucky enough to nullify the downward momentum of the strike with the strike impact of your block in motion, then the blow will plough right on through your shields and thump you on the head. I see this in sparring all the time; one guy decides he's going to launch an attack, and really "sell" his strikes, while the defender is positioned athletically, but out of alignment. Blocks put out by the defender end up acting merely as interference that eventually comes down like a house of cards...maybe I didn't actually hit you with my own hand, but your own mitts bopped you in the head because the blocks were weak.

Taking the time to move differently, and de-program old habits, starts you off moving much slower than you may initially be accustomed to. But, with only a couple months of "remedial" corrrective training, it ain't long before you're right back to where you were before speed-wise, but without the instability.

As for the martial science being an advertising thing...people who have met Doc, and visited his school, "get" why that's kind of a silly accusation. He selects for a certain type of student, and not everyone is welcome as such (in fact, few are...he screens out lotsa folks before they even make it to "tourist" [try to find his location in the phone book...go ahead], and runs background checks on applicants prior to letting them come on board). He has a small but intense group of dedicated kenpo geeks who show up for 4-6 hour sessions that can last well past midnight depending on what Doc has them working on. Each technique has components that involve knocking or pulling or bumping some poor slob out of alignment before working over the rest of the technique; being the uke for this means that you're getting bounced around for half the night in the tender state of being "misaligned"...meaning, in short, that everything hurts more. None of this...the hours, the unpleasant after-effects (total-body joint and muscle soreness) of the training...appeals to the masses, and as such you will not see a "masses" class being held at Doc's bat-cave. Advertising means you WANT the masses to come, and conduct yourself accordingly once they have arrived to ensure their continuation. Ain't none of that at Doc's.

Hope this helps a small bit, at least.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane (May 25, 2006)

Dave,

Your posts in explaining things are some of the most clear and understandable.  thanks.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 25, 2006)

Flying Crane:

Step back into a left neutral bow. The body ain't designed to step backwards like this; goes against lots of neurological mechanisms. It IS designed to step forward. So, to "trick" the body into re-associating, after you have stepped back, pick the left foot up off the ground about 4 to 6 inches, then stamp it back down.

Try this with and without the stamp. Have someone push you backwards (from your 12:00 towards your 6:00) without the stamp, then with. This is ONE corrective mech. Each positional transition has multiple mechanisms, but this is one you can play with for experimentations sake.

Try this: Step back into a Lt. NB, then launch forward with some simple combination (i.e., front burst). Next, do it 10 times in a row using the stamp first to establish integrity before going into the burst. After that, go back and do it once or twice without the stamp/corrective mechanism. You should notice that, although the stamp takes a moment to do, the entire combination (starting from stepping back from a standing position) is both faster and stronger with the stamp, then without. 

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane (May 25, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Flying Crane:
> 
> Step back into a left neutral bow. The body ain't designed to step backwards like this; goes against lots of neurological mechanisms. It IS designed to step forward. So, to "trick" the body into re-associating, after you have stepped back, pick the left foot up off the ground about 4 to 6 inches, then stamp it back down.
> 
> ...


 
I'll give it a try. thx.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 25, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I'll give it a try. thx.


 
Your welcome. I wish I could take credit for any of it, but it's Doc's willingness to earn the ire of the kenpo community by being a mad scientist that yields this approach. It takes stones to modify big chunks of material, and toss out whole parts of others, because it lacks being anatomically sound...particularly while other seniors are swearing by it. Cool part is, if you corner Doc and ask him "why?", he can show you to-the-finest-point the rationale behind the decisions.

Let me know how the experiment works out; we got a ton more where those came from.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## JamesB (May 26, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Dragging one leg towards the other fires the adductor muscles against the friction resistance of the floor...more recruitment than if you just pick the leg up and step with it (the step, alone, is also highly important, due to the feedback the rest of the body gets "neuro-anatomically" as a result of foot-strike, but we'll get back to that). The adductors are attached (mostly) to the pubic rami of the ischium, and share collateral innervation with other muscles coordinating the hip. Firing them against resistance sends all sorts of counter-productive messages to the body about hip alignment with the spine, resulting in an incongruent state of stability. Drags are replaced with steps..."step-steps". We still use the names "drag-step" and "step-drag" to denote which foot moves first (each covers different distances), but the defeating mechanism of dragging the foot along the floor is replaced with a stepping maneuver.


 
Thanks, that makes alot of sense - it's good to see a clear explanation as to what is actually happening when the feet 'drag' like this - I'd been unable to picture it until now. For the record we've been doing 'step-steps' for quite a while now, and boy what a difference that makes  

To Doc: my original query regarding step-drag was based around 'step-step' manouvers but I think you probably guessed


----------



## Doc (May 26, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> It's only the opinion of one person sir.
> 
> For me your post was kind of an aha moment that pulled everything together....your insight, the info on your website...what you are trying to show and do and teach makes a lot more sense.
> 
> Thanks again sir :asian:


No, thank you Ma'am. It points the finger at the 'how' more than the 'what.' Learning what to do is relatively easy compared to finding someone who knows how to do it properly.


----------



## Doc (May 26, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I know Doc said he'd get back to you; hopefully he won't get mad at me for steppin on his thread a bit with a tiny answer; I got time to kill just yet.
> 
> The 'drag" part in the foot maneuvers you mentioned is pretty much always a bad idea, mechanically. It's how I learned foot-maneuvers, and drilled them accross football fields to engrain them into muscle memory, so it's been a hard one for me to shake, and I still drop back to it patternistically when visiting Doc's mat (for which I get a hollerin').  Dragging one leg towards the other fires the adductor muscles against the friction resistance of the floor...more recruitment than if you just pick the leg up and step with it (the step, alone, is also highly important, due to the feedback the rest of the body gets "neuro-anatomically" as a result of foot-strike, but we'll get back to that). The adductors are attached (mostly) to the pubic rami of the ischium, and share collateral innervation with other muscles coordinating the hip. Firing them against resistance sends all sorts of counter-productive messages to the body about hip alignment with the spine, resulting in an incongruent state of stability. Drags are replaced with steps..."step-steps".  We still use the names "drag-step" and "step-drag" to denote which foot moves first (each covers different distances), but the defeating mechanism of dragging the foot along the floor is replaced with a stepping maneuver.
> 
> ...


And they bump my head because I get too technical. As some begin to see, being technical is where the knowledge is. It's the 300 pound gorilla gap in what you think you know, and what you need to know.

P.S. - I have no idea why people call me at home, when they know I'm teaching, and then don't answer their own phone.


----------



## Doc (May 26, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I not totally clear about what you are saying about 'feet moving towards each other'. Is this basically the action of shortening one's stance? i.e. would an example of a lateral movement where the feet are brought together be the first step of a 'drag-step' foot manouver?


James when I say feet moving toward each other, I mean anatomically as your body reads and understands it. This is always predicated on the stance/posture assumed and where you want to take it. From a properly Indexed neutral bow, when you 'drag-step' properly forward or reverse, your feet do not move toward each other but instead operate and move on their own plane that does not violate the heel/toe width line. Therefore, the stance may shorten, but technically the feet are occupying their own plane, and are not moving directly toward each other. When the feet move parallel to the pelvic bone, the body senses this as a lateral movement and breaks down front to back alignment and stability which is no longer supported.


> Or put another way: standing in a horse-stance, one foot is lifted from the floor and brought towards the other, then planted down next to it? Just want to be clear on the terminology...


That is a different scenario, and from a proper Indexed horse stance, movement can only be lateral because the stance lacks depth, however the stance is not designed to support that action and will break down as well. For the record, the "Drag-Step" derives its name not from the physical 'dragging' of the foot on the ground. From a neutral bow relative to the direction of travel, the foot is behind the movement of the stance and is described as 'dragged' behind the rest of the stance, but not frictionally in contact with the ground.


> My next question. I'm assuming that the 'drag-step' and 'step-drag' contain two specific foot movements - the lifting from the floor, and subsequent placement back down, of each foot in turn. At what point during the foot-manouver is the optimal moment to 'strike'?


From a proper neutral bow stance, anywhere in the sequence of proper footwork will yield substantial effect. However, optimum energy is derived when either foot is at the end of its movement cycle, with a BAM (not Slap-check)
The very real Dr. Dave, will name all the muscle groups for you cause him smarter them me. But wait til I get him back in class. I must really be good cause I got him fooled into thinking this stuff actually works, and him have much edumacation.


----------



## MJS (May 26, 2006)

First, I'd like to take the time to Thank both Dave and Doc for their replies!  They've been very well thought out replies.  I do plan on giving the experiment that Dave talked about, a try.

I do have a question.  This is in regard to something Dave said, so I'd be happy to hear replies from Dave or Doc.  

You mention stepping back and then doing the stomp to get a more stable stance.  Is this same idea applied during self defense techniques?  

Mike


----------



## kenposikh (May 26, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> You mention stepping back and then doing the stomp to get a more stable stance. Is this same idea applied during self defense techniques?
> 
> Mike


 
Pardon me for jumping in, the simple answer is yes. Now Doc and Dave don't be mad at me I know theres more but hey I thought I could answer that one.


Amrik running for cover


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 26, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> P.S. - I have no idea why people call me at home, when they know I'm teaching, and then don't answer their own phone.


 
Well I woulda called you on the school line, but you were teaching. And the problem is...from the time you leave the house for the bat-cave to battle LA traffic, to the time you are actually available to take a call is like...8 friggin hours.

So, now I gots 2 questions for you on the table, and the answer is?....(chirp...chirp). 

Regards,

D.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 26, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Pardon me for jumping in, the simple answer is yes. Now Doc and Dave don't be mad at me I know theres more but hey I thought I could answer that one.
> 
> 
> Amrik running for cover


 
No need for running.  Michael: Yes. The stance sets, short forms, SD techs, have all been revisited to include these mechanisms. So when you hit your stance for Delayed Sword or Attacking Mace, you include the BAM's & PAM's necessary to maximize your own alignment, while messing with the bad guys. Each move to the next piece of each technique has multiple corrective pieces in it to re-establish alignment, in the event it's been compromised during transition.

Takes longer to learn the techniques, but the basics are way more solid once grasped.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Doc (May 26, 2006)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Pardon me for jumping in, the simple answer is yes. Now Doc and Dave don't be mad at me I know theres more but hey I thought I could answer that one.
> 
> 
> Amrik running for cover


----------



## Doc (May 26, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> First, I'd like to take the time to Thank both Dave and Doc for their replies!  They've been very well thought out replies.  I do plan on giving the experiment that Dave talked about, a try.
> 
> I do have a question.  This is in regard to something Dave said, so I'd be happy to hear replies from Dave or Doc.
> 
> ...


Yes sir, this is not an isolated mechanism. Its part of basic footwork that must be done at the appropriate time and circumstance to create the proper relationship between the upper and lower platforms of the body to create a solid cohesive connection between the two. 

There is nothing more basic than proper footwork, yet few know its intracacies, or when and how to impliment it for maximum anatomical effect to support the action at hand. Our basic Stance Set One teaches these mechanisms and proper transitions, that include the Foot and Head Indexes, and the proper Outside Cover mecanisms at the 101 (yellow) level.


----------



## Doc (May 26, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> No need for running.  Michael: Yes. The stance sets, short forms, SD techs, have all been revisited to include these mechanisms. So when you hit your stance for Delayed Sword or Attacking Mace, you include the BAM's & PAM's necessary to maximize your own alignment, while messing with the bad guys. Each move to the next piece of each technique has multiple corrective pieces in it to re-establish alignment, in the event it's been compromised during transition.
> 
> Takes longer to learn the techniques, but the basics are way more solid once grasped.
> 
> ...


I would probably take exception to the term 'revisit,' in as much as I never actually 'visited' the material in the commercial arena. However for those who learned from that perspective, it is a big time revisit and relearning of what they thought they knew.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 26, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I would probably take exception to the term 'revisit,' in as much as I never actually 'visited' the material in the commercial arena. However for those who learned from that perspective, it is a big time revisit and relearning of what they thought they knew.


 
I think I just got raspberried.


----------



## Dan G (May 26, 2006)

Edited: Accidental Double Post 

Dan:


----------



## Dan G (May 26, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> What you are asking is akin to what I've said about posture previously to you, and how important it is. Than once the proper posture is established, than you must also move properly and specifically to maintain or re-establsh structure. This allows you to move MORE fluid and explosive utilizing correct posture, the mechanisms of transition, and back to a stable solid posture again.
> 
> Remarkably, no one else had a question on the information I gave about the bodies ability to 'disassociate' its many parts and the information in that post, other than my 'marketing' motives for using the term "Martial Science" which was actually already defeined in the post. To assemble, write, and disseminate such information is extremely time consuming, and such a lack of intelligent responses is discouraging. Remakable. Anyway, understanding that type of information in many ways is the key as you and I have discussed before.


Like others have already said, plenty of thinking time needed to digest your previous post. Thanks again for taking the time to share your knowledge and experience.

Your post prompts me to ask something that I've been pondering for a bit, "what is the value of "disassociated" motion?" I have seen you and your senior students demonstrate the importance of correct body alignment, and am in no doubt whatsoever of the value of correct alignment and structure... but what about sacrificing alignment and structure... is there a use for it?

Specifically, manipulative arts like Aikido (from the little I have experienced) emphasise body mechanics heavily, but also seem to sacrifice  alignment/use disassociated motion  more readily and for longer periods in an interaction in order to achieve more sensitivity to the motion of an attacker, encourage severe misalignment in an attacker ( e.g falling over), or create openings for attack.  

The small amount of Wado karate I have seen also relied heavily on a push drag jab involving a lateral shift off the 12 o'clock line (nagashizuki), I think this forward leap and sideshift is something from the jujutsu heritage in the system... I am not sure if this is a motion that sacrifices alignment...it feels "soft", and with hindsight the movement of the rear leg seems to me to break alignment. It doesn't strike me as the most powerful way of hitting an attacker, but it seems to be a very good way of gaining or exploiting an opening, and I always liked the technique for the way it exploited timing as it was normally done as the attacker intiated a forward step or a jab.  I am not 100% sure if this is a technique that sacrifices alignment, but if so it seems to be a deliberate strategy in the system, trading maximum effectiveness for a disruptive hit ...

I am not sure if I am asking the question as well as I could, is difficult to express it well in writing... 

I am very interested to know whether disassociated movement can have intrinsic merit as a strategy,  a transitory aid to mobility,  or an aid to gaining extra sensitivity to the attacker's movement when in contact manipulation range... or is it a case of ineffective, more effective, most effective?

Yours,

Dan:asian:


----------



## Doc (May 28, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> "what is the value of "disassociated" motion?"


Please substitute the word movement over the abstract and conceptual motion. Motion can only be defined in very general terms whereas movement can be specific. 


> I have seen you and your senior students demonstrate the importance of correct body alignment, and am in no doubt whatsoever of the value of correct alignment and structure... but what about sacrificing alignment and structure... is there a use for it?


I think you missed the point of the post Dan. You see the human body has to be able to do both in order to be the living and breathing machine it is. Otherwise, you would move like a 1960s robot, stiff, inflexible, and rigid.

The secret is to command both consciously at will. We are constantly performing functions that are detrimental to the machine, but machine is also very forgiving through the disassociate mechanism. However, if consistently and repetitively abused, the machine will break down usually in the form of injury or sustained pain as a warning.


> Specifically, manipulative arts like Aikido (from the little I have experienced) emphasizes body mechanics heavily, but also seem to sacrifice alignment/use disassociated motion more readily and for longer periods in an interaction in order to achieve more sensitivity to the motion of an attacker, encourage severe misalignment in an attacker (e.g. falling over), or create openings for attack.


Your point is well taken, however they dont sacrifice alignment. It is very purposeful much as we do. We just do it, (in some cases) much different then they in an art that emphasizes form over function, much like the ballet of my daughter. 



> I am not sure if I am asking the question as well as I could, is difficult to express it well in writing...


Youre doing fine Dan, and Im sure you can appreciate the difficulty in non-hands on answering as well. 


> I am very interested to know whether disassociated movement can have intrinsic merit as a strategy, a transitory aid to mobility, or an aid to gaining extra sensitivity to the attacker's movement when in contact manipulation range... or is it a case of ineffective, more effective, most effective?


Most effective arts do it at some point, and usually as a defensive strategy. A boxers bob and weave is a good example. Russian Systema also uses it quite effectively; much like can be seen in older Chinese perspectives of study. Nevertheless, keep in mind when the body moves to this disassociated mode, it is usually to perform a specific task, and you are only disassociated from a particular direction or angle of resistance. If you were completely disassociated, the body would collapse to the floor in a heap.

You cannot sustain direction structure at all angles simultaneously under load, but you can focus your structure to compensate for load in a particular direction or manner to serve a directed purpose. You can sustain internal structure in all direction simultaneously in what we have termed the Statue Effect, as you have seen.


----------



## IWishToLearn (May 28, 2006)

I just have to say. Dr. Chapel & Dr. Dave - you two continue to amaze me.


----------



## JamesB (May 28, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> James when I say feet moving toward each other, I mean anatomically as your body reads and understands it. This is always predicated on the stance/posture assumed and where you want to take it. From a properly Indexed neutral bow, when you 'drag-step' properly forward or reverse, your feet do not move toward each other but instead operate and move on their own plane that does not violate the heel/toe width line. Therefore, the stance may shorten, but technically the feet are occupying their own plane, and are not moving directly toward each other. When the feet move parallel to the pelvic bone, the body senses this as a lateral movement and breaks down front to back alignment and stability which is no longer supported


 
This has actually helped to clarify some thoughts I've been having regarding this transition from neutral bow and the feet moving 'in their own planes' as you say. I'd not thought of it that way before (different planes) so that's an interesting perspective.

'Feet moving together' makes sense too I think - so for normal walking (i.e. a step forward / back) the body does not interpret this action as you feet moving towards each other (even though they sort of do from an external perspective), because each foot/leg is in it's own plane of travel within the natural gait.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> That is a different scenario, and from a proper Indexed horse stance, movement can only be lateral because the stance lacks depth, however the stance is not designed to support that action and will break down as well.


 
I'm not sure I understand this difference quite right so let me try and be clear that we're talking the same scenario. Comparing a neutral-bow aligned to 12 o'clock (i.e the normal toe-heel line), and a horse-stance aligned to the same direction - i.e. a 'side horse' with the body completely turned to face 9 whilst one's head still looks to 12. One foot 'in a hole' as you say 

I *think* what your saying, is that you wouldn't want to drag-step from the horse, because it has no width, and therefore the feet move within the same plane. The body interprets this as 'feet moving together' and the stance has less stability?

If I understood this correctly this is very surprising (to me). However it does explain alot about the value of attaining proper width in a neutral bow - keeping the feet either side of the 'toe-heel' line actually improves structure because of the 'plane thing'. This is something I'd never appreciated before at any rate, but then I'm not confident I'm understanding you quite right. Should I be able to test this difference? i.e. have someone drag-step from a neutral-bow, and then do the same from a horse - should there be a testable difference in the resulting structure?



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> From a proper neutral bow stance, anywhere in the sequence of proper footwork will yield substantial effect. However, optimum energy is derived when either foot is at the end of its movement cycle, with a BAM (not Slap-check)


 
BAM! got it! thanks


----------



## Doc (May 28, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> This has actually helped to clarify some thoughts I've been having regarding this transition from neutral bow and the feet moving 'in their own planes' as you say. I'd not thought of it that way before (different planes) so that's an interesting perspective.
> 
> 'Feet moving together' makes sense too I think - so for normal walking (i.e. a step forward / back) the body does not interpret this action as you feet moving towards each other (even though they sort of do from an external perspective), because each foot/leg is in it's own plane of travel within the natural gait.


Exactly. The gait causes a change of depth of the stride relative to the body, but technically each foot maintains it own plane of movement. When you understand that the physical act of walking is an 'inverted pendulum' and a controlled fall, then it is easy to visulize. 

Although some (not you) feel this is too technical, and sometime I agree, a teacher must have this knowledge of human movement to correct student activity, even if the student doesn't understand why the instructor wants it a certain way. 

So when someone asks 'why,' this is what they get. The truth is students would better serve themselves by working the physical movement in an effort to become warriors, as opposed to attempting to be complete scholars at the same time. They need to learn, the 'why' in training is information dispensed 'as needed.' And as much as some would like otherwise, you cannot learn to be a warrior and a scholar at the same time. One does not serve the other.



> I'm not sure I understand this difference quite right so let me try and be clear that we're talking the same scenario. Comparing a neutral-bow aligned to 12 o'clock (i.e the normal toe-heel line), and a horse-stance aligned to the same direction - i.e. a 'side horse' with the body completely turned to face 9 whilst one's head still looks to 12. One foot 'in a hole' as you say


Awwwwwww but you made a mistake. You said "horse stance." A "horse stance" has no depth. A "side horse stance" has no width. Two very distinctly different scenarios. My answer was for the horse stance as stated by you. Remember, in anatomical terms, you must always be specific and precise. 


> I *think* what your saying, is that you wouldn't want to drag-step from the horse, because it has no width, and therefore the feet move within the same plane. The body interprets this as 'feet moving together' and the stance has less stability?


Moving in a side horse width width is acceptable because the 'head' when properly Indexed is what determines relatively the difference between width, and depth, and determines structural direction. When the head is indexed to form a side horse, what was width now becomes your depth, and width and depth reverse roles. Training Horse - no depth but width. Side Horse - no width but depth.


> If I understood this correctly this is very surprising (to me). However it does explain alot about the value of attaining proper width in a neutral bow - keeping the feet either side of the 'toe-heel' line actually improves structure because of the 'plane thing'.


Precisely sir.


> This is something I'd never appreciated before at any rate, but then I'm not confident I'm understanding you quite right. Should I be able to test this difference? i.e. have someone drag-step from a neutral-bow, and then do the same from a horse - should there be a testable difference in the resulting structure?


When your test model is worked within the appropriate parameters, it easily testable.

The neutral bow speaks for itself, but make sure the chin is Indexed up. There is a natural tendancy in human movement when we exert concentration on a specific task, the chin drops into "contemplation position."

For a SIDE HORSE, the head is INDEXed in the direction of travel, and this will allow the now front to back movement structure with feet occupying the same plane.

Stand in a TRAINING HORSE looking properly Indexed forward, (NOT looking the direction of travel) and drag step latrally. You will feel the body breakdown. Once the head is INDEXED to the direction of travel, the directional structure will shift as indicated by the head and structure returns. Be sure to use all of the other mechnisms as you know them.

Consider for everything you do that may break your structure, there is a Compensating Mechanism. That is what makes the body unique. Really good teachers like I had will rattle this stuff off like nothing because they understand dynamic human movement. How can anyone consider themselves a teacher of human movement of any kind, let alone the kind that demands effective interaction, if they don't truly understand human movement?

That is the difference my friend between a Martial Arts Instructor, and a Martial Science Teacher.  I have never studed the arts for effectiveness, only to understand why it doesn't work relative to the 'Martial Science" I was taught and learned. This life long study has yielded significant information that allows me to pick unsound movement apart effortlessly.


----------



## JamesB (May 29, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Awwwwwww but you made a mistake. You said "horse stance." A "horse stance" has no depth. A "side horse stance" has no width. Two very distinctly different scenarios. My answer was for the horse stance as stated by you. Remember, in anatomical terms, you must always be specific and precise.


 
doh! 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Moving in a side horse width width is acceptable because the 'head' when properly Indexed is what determines relatively the difference between width, and depth, and determines structural direction. When the head is indexed to form a side horse, what was width now becomes your depth, and width and depth reverse roles. Training Horse - no depth but width. Side Horse - no width but depth.


 
got it 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> For a SIDE HORSE, the head is INDEXed in the direction of travel, and this will allow the now front to back movement structure with feet occupying the same plane.
> 
> Stand in a TRAINING HORSE looking properly Indexed forward, (NOT looking the direction of travel) and drag step latrally. You will feel the body breakdown. Once the head is INDEXED to the direction of travel, the directional structure will shift as indicated by the head and structure returns. Be sure to use all of the other mechnisms as you know them.


 
ok I understand this now, everything depends on the direction the head is looking as I've been taught. My initial confusion led me to believe that a side-horse might not be appropriate for movement because the feet occupy the same plane in the direction of travel, however the 'head indexing' compensates for this. 

I'm assuming now, that even if there may be some small difference between the neutral-bow (head indexed to 12, feet in separate planes), and a side-horse (head indexed to 12, but feet in the same plane), it is not significant enough for me to spend time any more time pondering..within this context of course.

thanks for your time 
James


----------



## Robert Lee (May 29, 2006)

If you look at a forward step you would push off your rear foot. Then slide the rear forward  rear step you push off with the lead foot and the drag the lead back.  Side step Say in a right lead you want to step to your right use the lead right foot then slide the left rear agin for the left lead you would use the left first stepping left then slide the rear over. If in a right lead and you want to step left use the rear foot  first stepover slide the lead  left lead just the opposite But then you may also want to fient with a step and it can come up natural then step back outAny stance beyond what you would use as main structure. Is mobile and fliud then back to your position. And motion is unpredictable At times you just react and recover back No thought of stance but being effective


----------

