# Four Elements of Leverage



## sumdumguy

Ok, I keep reading these posts with people calling this a fulcrum and that a fulcrum in different techniques and self-defense scenarios. I realize that these are not taught as part of the "traditional" AK curriculum. I am really just curious to see what the general concensous is about the different elements of leverage. 

So,  Please share with me, and the rest of the MT people what you believe the elements of leverage are and or any additional information you care to share about your working knowledge of leverage?

   (disclaimer) This is not meant as a slight, slam, slander, or insult to anyone or organization, just a simple honest question.
 :asian:  :asian:


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/simple.html

DarK LorD


----------



## jfarnsworth

When we discuss leveraging are we discussing how to take an opponent out, or to control or both? My thoughts and yours are probably 2 different things. You have had much more time in the art and teaching than I do. If I were to discuss one point of leveraging that comes to mind is the tech. Circling Destruction. The point in which the left hand palms the attackers chin as the right hand checks at the left scapulae. If done properly my left elbow should be in the middle of his spine and the attacker back on their heels leaning backward. This I would consider a leverage from behind in zone 1. This was the first thing that came to mind hopefully this is what you were looking for. :asian:


----------



## sumdumguy

Dark Kenpo ????, If I wanted someone elses interpretation of this I would have asked for links to websites. At the risk of loosing the great priviledge of participating in this forum I will keep the other comments to myself.Thanks for playing.    :boing2: 

     I am simply looking for individual's interpretations and insights into levers and leverage to see what the general populace's understanding of this tool/mechanism is..... I already have all the crap on the link you posted thanks!
artyon:


----------



## Mekugi

Hmmm....that is a tough question. I am not sure I can answer that accurately within the context you are giving (I'm an outsider to these things), but perhaps I can contribute something as a starting point.

IMHO leverage can simply mean advantage by assistance, or something that gives you that extra help in accomplishing a task. In this sense it is a metaphor. For example, you can tie a rope to an object to pull it up an incline, and while it is not a "lever" technically, it is "leverage in accomplishing a task". 
This is in contrast to a *LEVER,* which is an actual tool or crude mechanism that uses a fulcrum. When last I checked there were three different types of levers out there, each defined by their fulcrum and the input of force on them. To the best of my memory these were: the "seesaw" type, the "wheelbarrow" type and the "tongs" type. Regardless of their differences, they all use the principle of a lever; the basic mathematic formula of M=F*D or a variation of it. 

Now, when you are talking about kinetics and kinesiology, these general principles can be a little complicated, from what I understand. The same principles apply in terms of mathematics and measures, however there is a completely different discipline based on the study of the physics of the human body because of the variables that do not pop up when dealing with inanimate objects.

Hope that made sense,

always,


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> So, Please share with me, and the rest of the MT people what you believe the elements of leverage are and or any additional information you care to share about your working knowledge of leverage?
> 
> :asian: :asian:


These are your EXACT words.     If you would use the TOOL instead of acting like one we might be better off.

DarK LorD


----------



## mj-hi-yah

I've decided to dodge the bullets  and attempt to enter this conversation...:goop: 

Since I need to teach this to others, and have limited knowledge of physics myself, I'm interested to see if this makes sense to other kenpo folks or not.  In our school we refer to using a fulcrum in some kenpo techniques and here it is as I have come to understand it in one example:

In the technique Glancing Lance, we use a fulcrum to create leverage against an opponent when we are standing directly behind him, right knee in his spine, and we place the pivot point of our wrist directly at the top of his right shoulder with our right forearm pressing on his right shoulder creating resistance at the point of contact.  Our wrist, and I think even the knee, helps to create the resistance giving us greater leverage.  We reach our fingers around the side of his face to hook his left eye and pull back on it.  The effort is the action of pulling back and increases the force of the eye hook against the resistance of the wrist pressing on the shoulder and the knee in the spine.  

Respectfully,
MJ :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/simple.html
> 
> DarK LorD


 Nice simple site for me to refer my students to for a graphic illustration not being used on their bodies.

 Thanks,
 -Michael


----------



## MisterMike

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> I've decided to dodge the bullets  and attempt to enter this conversation...:goop:
> 
> Since I need to teach this to others, and have limited knowledge of physics myself, I'm interested to see if this makes sense to other kenpo folks or not.  In our school we refer to using a fulcrum in some kenpo techniques and here it is as I have come to understand it in one example:
> 
> In the technique Glancing Lance, we use a fulcrum to create leverage against an opponent when we are standing directly behind him, right knee in his spine, and we place the pivot point of our wrist directly at the top of his right shoulder with our right forearm pressing on his right shoulder creating resistance at the point of contact.  Our wrist, and I think even the knee, helps to create the resistance giving us greater leverage.  We reach our fingers around the side of his face to hook his left eye and pull back on it.  The effort is the action of pulling back and increases the force of the eye hook against the resistance of the wrist pressing on the shoulder and the knee in the spine.
> 
> Respectfully,
> MJ :asian:




You're definitely on to something there. In fact, you'd still have the fulcrum without adding the knee in your description.


----------



## mj-hi-yah

MisterMike said:
			
		

> You're definitely on to something there. In fact, you'd still have the fulcrum without adding the knee in your description.


 Thanks MisterMike!  I agree about the knee, my instructor doesn't teach the knee as being part of the mechanism of the fulcrum, but I see it as aiding in providing leverage as the applied force to the spine adds stability for the fulcrum in the move.

Respectfully,
MJ :asian:


----------



## MisterMike

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Thanks MisterMike!  I agree about the knee, my instructor doesn't teach the knee as being part of the mechanism of the fulcrum, but I see it as aiding in providing leverage as the applied force to the spine adds stability for the fulcrum in the move.
> 
> Respectfully,
> MJ :asian:



Yes. Exactly. The knee also checks their depth, while your forearm lever helps to check width, or keep them from turning into you while you exercise their neck muscles. 

Compare this to say...I think it is Thrust into Darkness..no, Escape from Darkness?(been a while since I did Kenpo), where you use your left hand to grab the right shoulder from behind while the right hand snaps the neck.


----------



## pete

The application of a lever and fulcrum will allow you to apply force in one direction, and yield a greater amount of force in the opposite direction.  the amount of force that is gained is governed by the distance between the source and the fulcrum (or pivot point) vs the distance from the fulcrum to the point where the resulting force is applied.  in kenpo, the resulting force can be controlled by the martial artist to restrain an attacker, disturb his center, apply a take-down, or injure him (break bones, dislocate joints, etc).

in AK, this tool is introduced quite early on techniques like Mace of Aggression (by maintaining contact of the pin and trap into the reverse bow) and Grasp of Death (the take down)... heck, i'd venture to say that every technique employs this tool, either explicitly or more subtley as a potential method of control.

MJ's example of Glancing Lance is quite good   :asian: , in that she's actually identified where 2 levers are employed... one where the wrist fulcrum enhances the force of the finger in the attacker's left eye with the strength of the arm.... and another where the knee fulcrum is leveraging the attackers spine as the lever...  


*For sumdumguy... * why do feel this topic is not taught within American Kenpo, and how can this in any way be construed as insulting to any group?  my experience and exposure, limited as it may be, holds this concept as integral to kenpo... pm me if you feel a response would create disharmony on a public board...


*as a follow-up question*, some chinese styles use turning, or coiling, to increase the distance on one side of the fulcrum to magnify the resulting force... similar to gear works.  Is anyone familiar with the use of coiling energies in kenpo?

pete.


----------



## sumdumguy

pete said:
			
		

> The application of a lever and fulcrum will allow you to apply force in one direction, and yield a greater amount of force in the opposite direction.  the amount of force that is gained is governed by the distance between the source and the fulcrum (or pivot point) vs the distance from the fulcrum to the point where the resulting force is applied.  in kenpo, the resulting force can be controlled by the martial artist to restrain an attacker, disturb his center, apply a take-down, or injure him (break bones, dislocate joints, etc).


    This is a description(a good one) of how Leverage works or is applied, not the *elements* of leverage. I thought it was a fairly simple question? What are the elements of leverage? 

    Clyde: Whatever, I was asking for personal interpretations not some article found on the web. allthough, Mr. Billings is correct it will help students that's not what I was looking for. This is what I asked...... 


			
				sumdumguy said:
			
		

> So, Please share with me, and the rest of the MT people what you believe the elements of leverage are and or any additional information you care to share about your working knowledge of leverage?







			
				pete said:
			
		

> in AK, this tool is introduced quite early on techniques like Mace of Aggression (by maintaining contact of the pin and trap into the reverse bow) and Grasp of Death (the take down)... heck, i'd venture to say that every technique employs this tool, either explicitly or more subtley as a potential method of control.


      And my point is, by understanding the basic elements of leverage a person can learn to apply it with more proficiency.


			
				pete said:
			
		

> MJ's example of Glancing Lance is quite good   :asian: , in that she's actually identified where 2 levers are employed... one where the wrist fulcrum enhances the force of the finger in the attacker's left eye with the strength of the arm.... and another where the knee fulcrum is leveraging the attackers spine as the lever....


     Again, a great example of the way it works, allthough the elements where not used in the correct context. 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> *For sumdumguy... * why do feel this topic is not taught within American Kenpo, and how can this in any way be construed as insulting to any group?  my experience and exposure, limited as it may be, holds this concept as integral to kenpo... pm me if you feel a response would create disharmony on a public board....


     I have yet to see or hear anyone in the AK system talk about the *elements* of leverage, like I said, everyone sais lever this and fulcrum that. Those are only two elements of leverage. (hint hint)
     Because I have the inate ability to offend people with my posts, just a disclaimer to avoid that and get some participation. Other then a certain someone, so far so good.....



			
				pete said:
			
		

> *as a follow-up question*, some chinese styles use turning, or coiling, to increase the distance on one side of the fulcrum to magnify the resulting force... similar to gear works.  Is anyone familiar with the use of coiling energies in kenpo?


     Also the use of leverage, but as part of what is called a "wheel and axle". Yes it is used in the AK system.

     Mekugi: you seem to have a pretty good grasp on it. There are three basic types, referred to as "Class" of lever. Later I will give working examples of these.

     I didn't post this so I could teach you people something, that is not my intent. I am doing some simple research that will reveal itself in time. I do appreciate the participation and the posts...... 
Thank You in advance, or in the middle I guess.... 
 :asian:  :asian:


----------



## kenpo2dabone

Well, the definition of Leverage and Fulcrum as they pertain to Kenpo and anything else in physics as I understand it is that you use a *fulcrum* to gain *leverage*. The simplest example I can give is the triangular shaped wedge and a pole. place the wedge close to a heavy box and then put the pole over the wedge and under the lip of the box. Pull down on the end of pole and the box lifts up. the closer the wedge is to the box the easier it is to lift. The farther away the wedge is from the box the more difficult it is to lift. 

In Kenpo we typically use *fulcrums* to gain  *leverage* on an attacker at the attackers joints. For instance when you grab your attackers right wrist with your right hand and place your for arm or wrist against thier elbow it becomes very easy to manipulate them into a bent over postion while the try to releive the pressure that you are exerting against ther elbow. In this case their arm is the *lever* and your fore arm is the *fulcrum* and your right hand is applying the pressure. Wel a combination of your right hand and left Fore arm are applying the pressure. The end result is you have affected the attackers highth zone.   

Another example would be in Grasping Talon (left handed grap to your right wrist) when we work against the thumb. This time we sort of do the opposite. The attackers hand is now the fulcrun and our arm is the lever. As we rotate the arm and step forward wtih our right leg we free our wrist by working against the thumd with a *fulcrum* and a *lever*.

Anyway, that is my understanding of fulcrums and levers in Kenpo.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Mekugi

I think the type of lever that is being discussed was a type one lever, an "effort" based lever, used to gain mechanical advantage over an object. In this case, the fulcrum is also the stress point, and moving a "load" is not necissarily the ends to a means. Since you may not be trying to move the body itself with the lever, but stress the joint, the physics of the lever have now changed. Knowing how many pounds of pressure can it stand before breaking, the stress it can take and the proper angle from which it should be addressed to gain the mechanical advantage in the most efficient manner are now entering on the scene. 

So when you place your arm directly under an outstretched arm at the elbow, and then apply a downward force, the effect will life the body, however what is lifting the body is in fact "pain" and not mechanics.

In the case where the knee is placed into the back, the fulcrum is yet again the stress point and it is not designed to move a load put to maximize stress at the point of contact.

Hope that makes sense..


 BTW..... 
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~pe/exs190web/190kines2.htm
is an awesome resource for kinesiology.


----------



## sumdumguy

Mekugi said:
			
		

> I think the type of *lever* that is being discussed was a type one lever, an *"effort"* based lever, used to gain mechanical advantage over an object. In this case, the *fulcrum* is also the stress point, and moving a *"load"* is not necissarily the ends to a means. Since you may not be trying to move the body itself with the lever, but stress the joint, the physics of the lever have now changed. Knowing how many pounds of pressure can it stand before breaking, the stress it can take and the proper angle from which it should be addressed to gain the mechanical advantage in the most efficient manner are now entering on the scene.
> 
> So when you place your arm directly under an outstretched arm at the elbow, and then apply a downward force, the effect will life the body, however what is lifting the body is in fact "pain" and not mechanics.
> 
> In the case where the knee is placed into the back, the fulcrum is yet again the stress point and it is not designed to move a load put to maximize stress at the point of contact.
> 
> Hope that makes sense..
> 
> 
> BTW.....
> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~pe/exs190web/190kines2.htm
> is an awesome resource for kinesiology.




     We now have Three of the four elements of leverage. Fulcrum, Lever, and load. There is one more element, anyone? All of the examples are great for using leverage, which is comprised of four basic elements. That was given away in the title of the post. Whoops, in re-reading this post I noticed that you used the fourth element to define the "type" of lever. They are all effort driven, this is why they are referred to as "class" of lever. Effort is the fourth element. Yeah, now everyone can say how silly or stupid this whole post was............  artyon: 
But, before that happens, understand how they work, where they work and why they work. And let's get some real simple examples of the uses of the 3 classes of levers. AK has a few easy examples in the yellow belt cirriculum.
 :asian:


----------



## Mekugi

Actually, you use both a lever and a fulcrum to gain leverage; the fulcrum assists the lever in relation to the point of rotation in relation and to the input of weight on both ends. That is to say, the position of the lever in relation to the position of the fulcrum is the most important aspect of gaining physical advantage. So in a sense, the lever and it's length/space relationship to the fulcrum = leverage.



			
				kenpo2dabone said:
			
		

> Well, the definition of Leverage and Fulcrum as they pertain to Kenpo and anything else in physics as I understand it is that you use a *fulcrum* to gain *leverage*.
> Salute,
> Mike Miller UKF


----------



## pete

hey sumdumguy... what's your deal?  you say:



> Ok, I keep reading these posts with people calling this a fulcrum and that a fulcrum in different techniques and self-defense scenarios. I realize that these are not taught as part of the "traditional" AK curriculum.



obviously from the insightful responses, more is taught than you may realize...



> So, Please share with me, and the rest of the MT people what you believe the elements of leverage are and or any additional information you care to share about your working knowledge of leverage?



well, maybe more regarding the working knowledge as it applies to kenpo than the pedantic elements you were looking for... which makes sense in a martial arts forum (yes, _Arts_) as opposed to 7th grade science class.



> Also the use of leverage, but as part of what is called a "wheel and axle". Yes it is used in the AK system



anyone can say yes or no, but i asked if anyone was familiar with the use of coiling energies in kenpo... if yes, please describe or provide examples.



> I didn't post this so I could teach you people something



the purpose of these boards are to share information, not just collect, or whatever your intent is... and with sharing comes learning. i guess i won't hold my breath for your response.



> And let's get some real simple examples of the uses of the 3 classes of levers. AK has a few easy examples in the yellow belt cirriculum



huh, the examples were given throughout the thread... glancing lance, escape from darkness, cirlcing destruction mace of aggression, grasp of death, and grasping talon makes 6...so far...



> Yeah, now everyone can say how silly or stupid this whole post was............



although your desired response seems silly, i'll reserve judgement until you actually say something... in the meantime, the dialog with Mr Mike, MJ, JFarnsworth, and Mike Miller has been stimulating... thank you all.

pete.


----------



## Rainman

pete said:
			
		

> hey sumdumguy... what's your deal?  you say:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously from the insightful responses, more is taught than you may realize...
> 
> 
> 
> well, maybe more regarding the working knowledge as it applies to kenpo than the pedantic elements you were looking for... which makes sense in a martial arts forum (yes, _Arts_) as opposed to 7th grade science class.
> 
> 
> 
> anyone can say yes or no, but i asked if anyone was familiar with the use of coiling energies in kenpo... if yes, please describe or provide examples.
> 
> 
> 
> the purpose of these boards are to share information, not just collect, or whatever your intent is... and with sharing comes learning. i guess i won't hold my breath for your response.
> 
> 
> 
> huh, the examples were given throughout the thread... glancing lance, escape from darkness, cirlcing destruction mace of aggression, grasp of death, and grasping talon makes 6...so far...
> 
> 
> 
> although your desired response seems silly, i'll reserve judgement until you actually say something... in the meantime, the dialog with Mr Mike, MJ, JFarnsworth, and Mike Miller has been stimulating... thank you all.
> 
> pete.


 
First off- to use leverage in many ways you must understand what kinds of levers there are and how they work...   This is old hat on this forum-  

Every single technique has a lever and a fulcrum- EVERY SINGLE ONE so you are not saying anything at all with these examples...   

I am familiar with these chinese properties-  I use coiling in two man set right before the pheonix to the eye.

The desired response is something you know nothing about-  

Lastly-  I have not seen you write anything that I would condsider valuable or that I was not aware of  ten years ago-  So I could say your contributions are equal to zero right?  Personally I get nothing form anything you have ever said but that does not mean something you put forth didn't spark an idea for someone else...   This is one of my major disagreements with people on forums,  some can't follow directions...  and then ***** because they don't understand the information...  Some people here got it and when this happens you are able to move into the various progressions of the concepts and principles.


----------



## pete

whoa... somebody's a little cranky~  

first, some other guy's already said all the techniques employ lever and fulcrum...so you're a bit redundant... the examples that were given help the reader visualize the application.  

lastly, if you don't like my posts... don't read 'em!  y'aint paying for 'em...
and if you find people can't follow direction, don't blame it on the ignorance of the world... look within, and improve your writing skills... communications 101..


----------



## mj-hi-yah

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> So, Please share with me, and the rest of the MT people what you believe the elements of leverage are *and or any additional information you care to share about your working knowledge of leverage?*


Ok it was my choice to attempt to dodge the bullets  ...:snipe2: and taking a bullet here's really not so bad because there is always something to be learned - in this case the lesson is perhaps more about human nature than science. 

Sumdumguy I'm sorry for not quite getting what you were looking for. I went with the _or any additional information you care to share about your working knowledge of leverage_ ...to me the best way is through example - that's just the way I decided to answer it because of the *or *option in your post. It's funny to me because the elements of leverage you were looking for specifically are seriously part of my son's fourth grade science curriculum  ...it's nothing new, and as I'm certain we've all completed the fourth grade we are all quite capable of understanding these concepts. Kenpo2dabone and Mekugi did a great job of using the example to show the elements within it. To me this is how information should be exchanged one person's thoughts sparks another's. I agree with Pete that information exchange is the purpose of these forums. 

Rainman you make an excellent point about moving on to higher level thinking. Would it not be better to take it in that more constructive direction? :asian: 

LOL I appreciate the recognition on your part Sumdumguy and thank you for the permission to say...in light of the exchanges that took place as a result...this is all very silly:boing1: !

Respectfully,
MJ :asian:


----------



## Rainman

> Rainman you make an excellent point about moving on to higher level thinking. Would it not be better to take it in that more constructive direction?



It really depends on the questions being asked as to what direction you can take the conversation.  To say that lever classification is silly and fourth grade kills the necessary process needed for further examination or the different ways levers are used and can be used in AK.  Would it not have suited you better to delve deeper into the concepts before writing them off as beneath you and better suited for children?  

Once the elements are defined then one can move to step B.  There is a process and a particular way of learning and moving forward.   Without the process the ability to formulate  with a particular cancelleation in mind is lost.  You get people using the wrong lever in the right place and their techniqe does not quite work the way it is designed to.    With that being said all the other what if scenarios now have to be addressed because the lock or whatnot did not do what it was supposed to.   In my experience this can be avoided by simply having a working knowlede of what levers work best for a given position.  That includes your position and that of the opponent.


----------



## Rainman

> whoa... somebody's a little cranky~


  


> first, some other guy's already said all the techniques employ lever and fulcrum...so you're a bit redundant... the examples that were given help the reader visualize the application.



Redundent or re-enforcing?  Since you know so much where is the fulcrum in sword of destruction?



> lastly, if you don't like my posts... don't read 'em! y'aint paying for 'em...



what happened to the learning and sharing you were just touting?  LOL



> and if you find people can't follow direction, don't blame it on the ignorance of the world... look within, and improve your writing skills... communications 101



I didn't say all people, basically you.  You are fighting the information instead of asking questions as to how and why we use these methods.
Ask a question get an answer right?   Did you flunk communications 101 and tell everyone you passed?   

The idea is to stay on point and not meander all about- it is the difference between a structured approach which AK is and loose interpretations which give way to the enormity of what if.


----------



## mj-hi-yah

Rainman said:
			
		

> It really depends on the questions being asked as to what direction you can take the conversation. To say that lever classification is silly and fourth grade kills the necessary process needed for further examination or the different ways levers are used and can be used in AK. Would it not have suited you better to delve deeper into the concepts before writing them off as beneath you and better suited for children?


  I am really glad you asked. :asian:   Let me clear something up for you.  I definitely don't think that lever classification is silly.  In terms of Kenpo I take it very seriously and joined this conversation because I need to teach it.  _*I think all the personal attacks here are*_ *silly though* and to a lesser degree the way the information was being sought perhaps.  Sumdumguy thinks outside the box and I appreciate that about him, but as it turns out he had specific answers in mind.  I just needed to see where he wanted to go with it all, as this is his thread.   I now see the point he was trying to make.  I didn't mean to belittle the concepts just simply point out that so far what has been discussed is in fact very elementary.  I was just stating a fact.   No joke, my son learned these concepts this year as a part of a unit on simple machines.  While most of us have not revisited the fourth grade curriculum in a long time, we are all in my opinion very capable of understanding these concepts.   That's my point.  Define it and we can move on.  I guess I'd like to see the discussion evolve in the way  you prescribe below:


> Once the elements are defined then one can move to step B.


I could not agree with you more!  :asian: This is what I very much would like to see done here.




> There is a process and a particular way of learning and moving forward. Without the process the ability to formulate with a particular cancelleation in mind is lost. You get people using the wrong lever in the right place and their techniqe does not quite work the way it is designed to. With that being said all the other what if scenarios now have to be addressed because the lock or whatnot did not do what it was supposed to. In my experience this can be avoided by simply having a working knowlede of what levers work best for a given position. That includes your position and that of the opponent.


  Thank you.  Yes.  This is very good and constructive.   It's the start of what I was hoping for when I clicked onto this thread.:asian:


----------



## mj-hi-yah

One more thing Rainman...I was just about to log out when I saw that it's your birthday today.:cheers:


----------



## pete

*and now back to our show...*

thinking of mj's example of glancing lance, the use of two (or more?) levers in tandem increases the control you have on your would-be attacker.  take glancing spear, for instance, we have a lever used to apply an elbow lock and another lever used to pull back the fingertips.  this allows you to control the attacker, disturbs his balance, and open targets to complete the technique.

the use of levers in other techniques are not as explicit...  sometimes it's by applying a knee check as a fulcrum to disturb the attacker's balance when striking with a left chop to the neck (oooh, should i say _handsword_) :wavey: 

so this gives 3 different methods of using a lever: push, pull, and strike....
are there others? 

pete


----------



## sumdumguy

With a great desire to just end this freak'n thread! I will ignore all of the crap, and move forward. Let's stay on topic though?
     One of the very points that I was not trying to make is that this information is in fact learned early on in our lives, we do not often times re-visit our past to see how it pertains to the present. 
     Pete: No, my grammer is not great and my punctuation even worse, deal with it! I'm not here to win any prizes. I am here to share information, or learn something about Kenpoists in general.

      All of these elements are taught in the system, but not from a scientific/physics perspective (or whatever you feel like calling it.) The examples I am talking about are things like trapping: a 2nd class lever, "mace of aggression". Locking: this can be a 1st or third class lever, choking: again a 2nd class lever, "The grasp of death". It is obvious that you all can apply leverage, if you have any understanding of the techniques in the system and practice them at all. Can you extrapolate it from those particular techniques and use it with the full working knowledge of all the elements of leverage? :idunno: 

     Four basic elements of leverage: fulcrum, lever, effort, load.
So, now when we give examples of the use of leverage, let's put these elements in there proper places in describing the application and understanding which class of lever we are using.

That's enough for now, I eagerly await some Positive insight or answers. 
 :asian:


----------



## sumdumguy

pete said:
			
		

> *and now back to our show...*
> 
> thinking of mj's example of glancing lance, the use of two (or more?) levers in tandem increases the control you have on your would-be attacker.  take glancing spear, for instance, we have a lever used to apply an elbow lock and another lever used to pull back the fingertips.  this allows you to control the attacker, disturbs his balance, and open targets to complete the technique.
> 
> so this gives 3 different methods of using a lever: push, pull, and strike....
> are there others?
> 
> pete



     Almost, that's what i'm getting at here. They are classified as, class 1 class 2 and class 3. The relationship of the lever, fulcrum, effort and load is what changes this classification. MJ's example is actually using, (if I am right as to where she is at in the technique) a 3rd class lever. Glancing spear on the other hand uses a concept or "term" that is not currently in the system (popularly). The application is using a 3rd class lever for the arm bar portion and I'm am not sure of your application to the fingers, I know that "gripping talon" finger lock is using a 1st class lever.
 :asian:


----------



## mj-hi-yah

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> MJ's example is actually using, (if I am right as to where she is at in the technique) a 3rd class lever.


 Thanks for sticking with it.  It's a great topic! :asian:  My initial thought in the example I gave was that it was a second-class lever with the pull back motion of the fingers being the effort, the neck muscles being the resistance and the pivot point of the wrist at the base of the forearm where it presses on the shoulder being the fulcrum at the end of the lever.  This type of lever gives us a gain in force like that of a can opener. That's what I was thinking, but I'd be interested to see if, and how, anyone might see it otherwise.  

 MJ


----------



## sumdumguy

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Thanks for sticking with it.  It's a great topic! :asian:  My initial thought in the example I gave was that it was a second-class lever with the pull back motion of the fingers being the effort, the neck muscles being the resistance and the pivot point of the wrist at the base of the forearm where it presses on the shoulder being the fulcrum at the end of the lever.  This type of lever gives us a gain in force like that of a can opener. That's what I was thinking, but I'd be interested to see if, and how, anyone might see it otherwise.
> 
> MJ



     MJ, 
It really depends on which mass or part of mass you are trying to move. Let's look at "the grip of death". In the technique where you hook the chin, over the shoulder and pull the opponent backward to expose the next target, the forearm should act as the fulcrum (on the shoulder) the arm is the actual lever with the effort being at the elbow (yours) or shoulder. The load, (opponent) for this application is the head. With this fulcrum effort relationship we have a class 1 lever, like a see saw. Now, if we change the intent of the action from trying to move the head to moving the body around the head, or dropping the body straight to the floor (vertical) then we are applying a class 2 lever like that of a wheel barrow.
Does that make sense?
 :asian:


----------



## mj-hi-yah

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> MJ,
> It really depends on which mass or part of mass you are trying to move. Let's look at "the grip of death". In the technique where you hook the chin, over the shoulder and pull the opponent backward to expose the next target, the forearm should act as the fulcrum (on the shoulder) the arm is the actual lever with the effort being at the elbow (yours) or shoulder. The load, (opponent) for this application is the head. With this fulcrum effort relationship we have a class 1 lever, like a see saw. Now, if we change the intent of the action from trying to move the head to moving the body around the head, or dropping the body straight to the floor (vertical) then we are applying a class 2 lever like that of a wheel barrow.
> Does that make sense?
> :asian:


Yes...great example!  I know the technique and can see the application you describe.  I like your idea for changing intent and therefore the tool or type of lever we need to get the job done.  This would be a worthwhile exercise to work on in class! 

I look forward to seeing if anyone else has examples to share!

Respectfully,
MJ:asian:


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

Mekugi said:
			
		

> I think the type of lever that is being discussed was a type one lever, an "effort" based lever, used to gain mechanical advantage over an object. In this case, the fulcrum is also the stress point, and moving a "load" is not necissarily the ends to a means. Since you may not be trying to move the body itself with the lever, but stress the joint, the physics of the lever have now changed. Knowing how many pounds of pressure can it stand before breaking, the stress it can take and the proper angle from which it should be addressed to gain the mechanical advantage in the most efficient manner are now entering on the scene.
> 
> So when you place your arm directly under an outstretched arm at the elbow, and then apply a downward force, the effect will life the body, however what is lifting the body is in fact "pain" and not mechanics.
> 
> In the case where the knee is placed into the back, the fulcrum is yet again the stress point and it is not designed to move a load put to maximize stress at the point of contact.
> 
> Hope that makes sense..
> 
> 
> BTW.....
> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~pe/exs190web/190kines2.htm
> is an awesome resource for kinesiology.


You see, finally someone has upgraded the conversation, thank you. If a person is launching a right backnuckle at your head and you block it slightly above the elbow with a right outward, your block now becomes the fulcrum, but where is the load, and why does it work? Too many silly questions from those that suffer from paralysis of analysis. I can't figure why anyone would bother teaching what class of lever you're using when discussing Kenpo, it's irrelevant and nonsensical.

DarK LorD


----------



## Michael Billings

I disagree.  It might not be USEful for you, but not USEless for the rest of us.  I personally like the topic and the knowledge, especially since my background is in no way scientific.  But part of Kenpo is applied Kinesiology, and kowledge, however shared is useful to me .. and obviously to others.  Your detracting comment, I only have to assume, means that it is not of interest to you.  So don't participate in this thread.  You have a lot to offer in others that is helpful to lots of students, and you have helped spread your instructor's name in places never heard.  One of my Texas students was asking about Mr. Tatum tonight, in a very positive way.  

 Anyhow, back on topic.

 -Michael


----------



## Bill Lear

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> I disagree.  It might not be USEful for you, but not USEless for the rest of us.  I personally like the topic and the knowledge, especially since my background is in no way scientific.  But part of Kenpo is applied Kinesiology, and kowledge, however shared is useful to me .. and obviously to others.  Your detracting comment, I only have to assume, means that it is not of interest to you.  So don't participate in this thread.  You have a lot to offer in others that is helpful to lots of students, and you have helped spread your instructor's name in places never heard.  One of my Texas students was asking about Mr. Tatum tonight, in a very positive way.
> 
> Anyhow, back on topic.
> 
> -Michael



I agree with Clyde on this one. I think it's kinda crazy to over do it on the verbage. I don't need to know about the semi-circular paths one's blood cells take while extending their arm in a linear fashion to deliver a reverse punch. Nor do I need to know what a type I, II, or III lever is in order to get the idea of leverage accross to my students. (This kind of thing causes the Paralysis of Analysis). 

On another note... Mr. Billings... I think Clyde should be free to comment on the subject, this is a discussion board, right? I mean... Do we have to agree on everything? And, if we disagree... Do we have to politely hold our toungues without voicing our opinions?

What would Martial Talk be if we didn't have people (politely) arguing different points? I'm of the opinion that it would become nothing more than an online back scratching party. Wouldn't that be sad? What would we be learning here then?

Sorry about the rant, but I wanted to say something. :asian:


----------



## sumdumguy

Well, your right there! Billy. you are all entitled to your opinions, and opinions are like A!@holes everyone has one. Thanks for sharing! Oh, you too Clyde.


----------



## Seig

ADMIN NOTE

Keep the discussion polite and respectful.
Seig
MT Operational Admin


----------



## Rainman

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> One more thing Rainman...I was just about to log out when I saw that it's your birthday today.:cheers:



Thank you MJ


----------



## sumdumguy

Thank you all for the negative cp's. I see that some can dish it, but can not take it.... 

Paralysis of analysis happens on the mat, were not on the mat. If we were I wouldn't be discussing this I would be applying it. Big difference!!! This is the discussion of theory, concept, principle, bla bla bla. If all you can do is leave little comments that have no relativity to the post then why bother at all? It's your game not mine, I would rather be on the mat proving my theories and working principles.
      I can see now that my efforts here were in vein, simply to much "analysis" for some "motion" based kenpoists to handle I guess? Pack it up Mr. Moderator, close the thread cause I'm done!!!!!!!!!!!!
     I have nothing more to offer or detract from this place of  no information exchange.


La ti da La ti da
artyon:


----------



## Brother John

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> Dark Kenpo ????, If I wanted someone elses interpretation of this I would have asked for links to websites. At the risk of loosing the great priviledge of participating in this forum I will keep the other comments to myself.Thanks for playing.    :boing2:
> 
> I am simply looking for individual's interpretations and insights into levers and leverage to see what the general populace's understanding of this tool/mechanism is..... I already have all the crap on the link you posted thanks!
> artyon:



OK sumDumguy-
Being snide with others is rude. Really rude. You set the tone, others kept it...no great shock there huh? Now you are taking up your ball and going home because OTHERS can dish but not take it?
Not very fitting with a man of your apparent intelligence.
Ignore your detractors, state what you want to state and move on. Rise above it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman

Brother John said:
			
		

> OK sumDumguy-
> Being snide with others is rude. Really rude. You set the tone, others kept it...no great shock there huh? Now you are taking up your ball and going home because OTHERS can dish but not take it?
> Not very fitting with a man of your apparent intelligence.
> Ignore your detractors, state what you want to state and move on. Rise above it.
> 
> Your Brother
> John



He is talking about the rep points-  I got a slew of them, some neg. some pos... I just look at it if I get one person who can use the material then I have done something worth my time.   I could care less about the negative people post- they fight the information rather than following the process.  The process is just as important because it allows you to become self correcting.   There is obviously a time to analize, the time to act/reactis on the mat, this is the written word and the only real time for analyis except at the end of a physical workout unless being coached through something.   

I have been on the net since 95 looking at stuff so I will take my shots and give them right back until I get bored which is about after 2 times of each person venting then analysis begins again.    

I would suggest though that if the subject is interesting to you to ask a question rather than critique... If you gang up on people they naturally become defensive, after all is that not what part of our art teaches?

Your bro
Rainman


----------



## mj-hi-yah

Brother John said:
			
		

> OK sumDumguy-
> Being snide with others is rude. Really rude. You set the tone, others kept it...no great shock there huh? Now you are taking up your ball and going home because OTHERS can dish but not take it?
> Not very fitting with a man of your apparent intelligence.
> Ignore your detractors, state what you want to state and move on. Rise above it.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Brother John as a participant in this thread I'd like to say that I agree with you that it is best to rise above it all, but I feel that there may have been a certain frustration that lead to the extreme rudeness on Mr. Durgan's part, although inexcusable.  I agree with you that the tone was set early on.  I liked the link and had this been a thread I posted and I disagreed with it's posting in my thread, I would have sought a different approach.  However, the rest of the participants saw it through and this thread was finally moving in a more positive and productive direction when a personal insult was made to all the participants, but one, by another person posting here.  His comments affected me personally and this type of blanket negativity is the reason I am reluctant to be a part of these Kenpo threads.  

     It was my desire to come here as an intermediate student and learn about Kenpo.   My thoughts should be intermediate reflecting my experience just as an experienced high ranking Kenpo stylist's thoughts should reflect the formulation of advanced thoughts pertaining to the art.  I don't expect to be insulted for the stage of learning that I am in.

    I would like to have seen Mr. Durgan rise above it, react differently, as well, but wonder if this is more like the straw that broke the camel's back than anything else.  Also, as I stated in another thread, these reputation points and anonymous negative comments are counterproductive and unkind.  I can't see a good purpose for allowing such a thing.  This confirms it for me.  

  I find this all very unfortunate.:asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser

Now may we return to the disscussion on the Four Elements of Leverage ?


----------



## pete

well mj, et al.. its only unfortuate if it all ends here...  with so many unanswered questions and open thoughts sitting between the cyber-bs...

so, we have:
1. four elements of leverage: lever, fulcrum, effort, and load.
2. examples of how they are used in several kenpo techniques
3. the idea that levers and fulcrums are present in all kenpo techniques
4. examples of how multiple levers and fulcrums can be used together
5. 3 ways (so far) of applying the effort to the lever: push, pull, strike.
6. the idea that if one understands how the tool works, it can be used to a greater degree.
7. the position that this is all irrelevant and nonsensical

i'd like to know:
  :wink2: can 3 or more lever/fulcrums be used together effectively, and is there a kenpo technique that does this?
  :wink2: is a twist (coliling, or _rotational force_) a forth method of applying effort to a lever?  an example would be the turning of the hips during the takedowns in grasp of death, falling falcon (or _drawbridge_).. or is this the use of a different tool?
  :wink2: _how_ can the understanding of these elements be used to either increase the effectiveness of the kenpo techniques, or change the physical execution of a technique...
  :wink2: do those who feel this in _nonsense_ use leverage in their kenpo... or feel that they'd rather not get slowed down by the control aspects of the art?

and finally, rainman, let sumdumguy speak for himself... he does a better job of it.  instead, speak for yourself... if you've been at kenpo for 10 years or more, there is probably much you can add to this dialog...and probably a few things you can learn. for starter's scan back through the thread and find the use of a lever in sword of destruction, its there...


----------



## Brother John

Rainman said:
			
		

> He is talking about the rep points-  I got a slew of them, some neg. some pos... I just look at it if I get one person who can use the material then I have done something worth my time.   I could care less about the negative people post- they fight the information rather than following the process.  The process is just as important because it allows you to become self correcting.   There is obviously a time to analize, the time to act/reactis on the mat, this is the written word and the only real time for analyis except at the end of a physical workout unless being coached through something.
> 
> I have been on the net since 95 looking at stuff so I will take my shots and give them right back until I get bored which is about after 2 times of each person venting then analysis begins again.
> 
> I would suggest though that if the subject is interesting to you to ask a question rather than critique... If you gang up on people they naturally become defensive, after all is that not what part of our art teaches?
> 
> Your bro
> Rainman


Actually very well said (ok...typed). Thank you for this perspective Chad.
good look'n out bro...

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman

pete said:
			
		

> and finally, rainman, let sumdumguy speak for himself... he does a better job of it.  instead, speak for yourself... if you've been at kenpo for 10 years or more, there is probably much you can add to this dialog...and probably a few things you can learn. for starter's scan back through the thread and find the use of a lever in sword of destruction, its there...




wrong element, I asked you to identify the location of the fulcrum in SOD...  nevermind though annonymous "pete" I have nothing further for you. 

Good day sir.



> tshadowchaser Now may we return to the disscussion on the Four Elements of Leverage ?



Thank you for your gentle disposition, it is appreciated, but I think for now we are going to bow out of this thread  :asian:


----------



## sumdumguy

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> You see, finally someone has upgraded the conversation, thank you. If a person is launching a right backnuckle at your head and you block it slightly above the elbow with a right outward, your block now becomes the fulcrum, but where is the load, and why does it work? Too many silly questions from those that suffer from paralysis of analysis. I can't figure why anyone would bother teaching what class of lever you're using when discussing Kenpo, it's irrelevant and nonsensical.
> 
> DarK LorD


Why do you bother teaching torque, gravitational marriage, or the three phases, or complimentary angles, these are all just silly little adjectives used to describe actions that we could just be doing instead of talking about. Oh, how about counter torque, why bother posting a TOW about counter torque? There is some usefull stuff.... 
Because it's the culmination of these concepts understood first, and applied second, by the students that makes them (hopefully) a more effective fighter and or Martial Artist. We could go back to the way it was, when the instructor said "do this" and when you ask why he/she sais "because I said so" and "that's the way it's always been done". Or is that the way you teach now? Leverage is another concept (actually principle) to learn and understand to be a more effective Kenpoist. Not to be analyzed on the mat, but exercised. In order to do that, however... we must first understand leverage and (like it or not) the component parts of leverage. Not understanding the component parts of leverage would be like saying that you know mechanics because you can drive a car.
So, for my students... yes, I will teach these elements with the knowledge that they will be a better fighter and OH... be able to grapple and control people with confidence!
:supcool:


----------



## rmcrobertson

I agree that what's being discussed is both the nature of leverage, and the nature of mystification in kenpo. That is, you're both discussing a particular topic and the extent to which theories, concepts and languages are being proliferated that get in the way of the student's training--and, not incidentally, also reinforce the instructor's ego. 

I dunno. I don't see anything inherently wrong with teaching students about levers; I'm not sure I see anything inherently necessary in having students learn to classify levers to the extent discussed.


A couple-three possibly-useful points:

1. All explanations rest on analogy of one kind or another.

2. Some students benefit from detailed explanations and theory; some do not. The trick is figuring out which is which.

3. Freud was quite right about the danger of premature analysis and explanation. It can easily give rise to a) denial; b) fetishization of explanation; c) dead-ends in thought and action.

4. The kenpo system, if taught, can in many ways, "speak for itself:" it may not  be necessary for students to reel off long winded explanations, if they can actualize the information. Why? Because all these classes of levers/leverage are inherent in the system, and anybody who thouroughly learns that system has an understanding of them, whether or not they can go on and explain that knowledge once they get off the mat.

5. Almost always, students at black belt and beyond--and instructors--need a reasonably-sophisticated understanding of what they're doing in order to advance further, and to teach. 

6. A quick tongue and fancy language does not necessarily mean you're smart and knowledgeable, for the same reasons that having good natural speed doesn't make you a martial artist. A quick tongue and fancy language does not mean you're ignert and sneaky, either. A slow tongue and few words does not mean you're thick and ignert; they also do not mean you're full of knowledge and wisdom. Verbal ability should be separated from skill and knowledge. And it ain't the same as intellectual understanding, either.  

7. When evaluating what teachers say to students (or  the little quizzes they give on these forums), I'd suggest worrying more about: a) do the words pump up the instructor, or teach the student? b) do the words focus attention on the kenpo, or on something else? c) do the words reflect what the students need to know, or the instructor's new discoveries? d) is the instructor speaking to the student, or articulating their own boredom with, "just teaching basics?"

8. ALL kenpo gets repeatedly charged with being fancy theory at the expense of reality. Hm.


----------



## mj-hi-yah

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree that what's being discussed is both the nature of leverage, and the nature of mystification in kenpo. That is, you're both discussing a particular topic and the extent to which theories, concepts and languages are being proliferated that get in the way of the student's training--and, not incidentally, also reinforce the instructor's ego.
> 7. When evaluating what teachers say to students (or the little quizzes they give on these forums), I'd suggest worrying more about: a) do the words pump up the instructor, or teach the student? b) do the words focus attention on the kenpo, or on something else? c) do the words reflect what the students need to know, or the instructor's new discoveries? d) is the instructor speaking to the student, or articulating their own boredom with, "just teaching basics?"


 These are all interesting and important thoughts, worthy of investigation, and I'd say this may be something to discuss in another place...in another thread - perhaps in an instructors' forum.:asian: 



> I dunno. I don't see anything inherently wrong with teaching students about levers; I'm not sure I see anything inherently necessary in having students learn to classify levers to the extent discussed.
> 2. Some students benefit from detailed explanations and theory; some do not. The trick is figuring out which is which.
> 5. Almost always, students at black belt and beyond--and instructors--need a reasonably-sophisticated understanding of what they're doing in order to advance further, and to teach.


In a school you can make an informed decision, based on experience in working with a student about a students' individual ability to absorb something in greater detail. Since this is a forum, don't you think it should be left up to the participant in a thread to decide if something holds value for them or not? After all, if something doesn't interest you, or you don't understand or care to know it, you can choose to tune out. As an intermediate student I am interested in learning...period. I am ready to examine things in greater detail and should be given the opportunity to decide for myself if I find value in something. I respect that both Sumdumguy and the Dark Kenpo Lord have lots of experience and much to teach :asian: . That's what I'd most like to see them do. 

I would also like to do as tshadowchaser requests, but find it difficult to do so without Sumdumguy, because it's his thread, and his thoughts based on his experience. I'd like to see Sumdumguy, if he so desired, be able to finish what he started here. What I do with the information like anything else in these forums is up to me. :asian:


----------



## pete

"i see a lotta choppin', but no chips are flyin"... foghorn leghorn


----------



## shesulsa

If I may interject without offending any feuding parties?  I would like to go back to the original question.

 First, please let me say that I no longer study Kenpo and, though this topic has mainly been dominated by Kenpo people, I would like to see other styles weigh in also for the purposes of dicussion and education.

 In Hwarangdo, we use a lot of joint locks and, as some of our techniques are circular and we study judo, I think a basic understanding of physical science is helpful. One thing I notice with joint manipulation - which is increasingly popular and is crossing style boundaries - is that the understanding of leverage is tantamount to applying an effective technique versus applying a joint lock that really doesn't work.

 Personally, I've had a few fellow students attempt to apply a gooseneck close to the body and bend at the waist for the control/throw - we help them simply by telling them to keep 90 degree angles and see if that improves the technique - of course, it does but many don't understand why and this is where I think physics must step in. It's one thing to know that you need to keep proper angles and use a leverage application for locks and manipulations. Having a deeper, more scientific understanding of body mechanics and physical science is what makes a martial artist able to quickly evaluate scenarious and fast-coming attacks.

 Are all students going to grasp this? Probably not - but I think it's a good way to challenge the mind as well and slam another tool into the box.

   Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go crack my physics book. :boing2:

   HWARANG!


----------



## rmcrobertson

Ninety degree angles? Could you explain?

One of the points I was trying to make was that while it's nice, and may be very desirable, to have a pretty good intellectual handle on the mechanics involved, it's probably even btter to develop correct technique--stance, posture, leg and arm position, well-shaped weapons, etc.--than it is to fiddle with a first, second, or third degree lever. 

By the way, some of what was being discussed wasn't the physics or the science, but an extra layer of terminology set on top of technique and science--an additional layer of theory, so to speak. 

It's not clear to me that that's necessary--or unnecessary, for that matter. There's a lot of pseudo-science in kenpo, though, and I suspect that such terms as "first," degree leverage would  be better kept on the level of metaphors, rather than being turned into solid terms. 

Moreover, I suspect that while it would be better to develop in students a direct understanding of different sorts of leverage, starting with what a fulcrum is, this can be done pretty easily even with kids just by talking about how you move something with a lever.

Then, you can go on to talk about efficiency, and going beyond using mere upper-body muscle and weight...but that means using language that directly applies to the desired effects, rather than to a specialized (and sometimes kinda in-grouppy) language that is at a further distance from the material reality.


----------



## shesulsa

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ninety degree angles? Could you explain?


 Sure - I'm not sure if you are familiar with what a gooseneck is, so please forgive me if I explain too much.  Our gooseneck involves, coming from the outside, torquing (not leverage) the arm by locking at the wrist with your reverse hand, knifehand strike at the inside of elbow (encouraging the natural bend of the elbow), coming underneath the arm so that the offending elbow is now riding on yours with the wrist locked...thus, if you drew an imaginary line from fingertip to shoulder, you would form a square.  Many people try to keep distance so that the wrist and elbow angles are obtuse (which relies mostly on pure torque) or close the angles so that the arm is folded against the body (more effective in a take-down situation, but not in disarming or in pain compliance).  This is where we usually describe keeping 90 degree angles.  Whew, I hope I explained that well.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One of the points I was trying to make was that while it's nice, and may be very desirable, to have a pretty good intellectual handle on the mechanics involved, it's probably even better to develop correct technique--stance, posture, leg and arm position, well-shaped weapons, etc.--than it is to fiddle with a first, second, or third degree lever.


 I definately agree - there is an innate understanding that comes from the tools you mentioned.  I'm not a huge fan of throwing all kinds of physical science into it, however, I still, do think rudimentary science can be helpful.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> By the way, some of what was being discussed wasn't the physics or the science, but an extra layer of terminology set on top of technique and science--an additional layer of theory, so to speak.


 Agreed.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's not clear to me that that's necessary--or unnecessary, for that matter.


 Perhaps not necessary, but in small amounts in certain situations, my opinion is that it can be useful.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> There's a lot of pseudo-science in kenpo, though, and I suspect that such terms as "first," degree leverage would be better kept on the level of metaphors, rather than being turned into solid terms.
> 
> Moreover, I suspect that while it would be better to develop in students a direct understanding of different sorts of leverage, starting with what a fulcrum is, this can be done pretty easily even with kids just by talking about how you move something with a lever.
> 
> Then, you can go on to talk about efficiency, and going beyond using mere upper-body muscle and weight...but that means using language that directly applies to the desired effects, rather than to a specialized (and sometimes kinda in-grouppy) language that is at a further distance from the material reality.


 Again, agreed.  

 HWARANG!


----------



## sumdumguy

MCrobertson, there are no "degrees" of leverage only degrees of ________ fill in the blank. They are "classes" or a "class" of lever. This is one of the reasons that I refuse to continue with this post, you have no idea what I am talking about yet you instist on de-valueing the knowledge of such things. I am not (like I said earlier) here to teach anyone anything, I was more are less trying to see what the general knowledge base was about this subject. Science is science, the same with physics. I can't change it and nor can you. I will embrace the new and you can refute it if you like. Either way, like I said before I could care less....

La ti da La ti da


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oooh, yep, now THERE'S an important distinction. "Degrees," not "classes." Oooh baby, I am stunned. Incidentally, if we're going to get finicky about language? You meant, "reject," not, "refute." See, "refute," means that you prove something false by logical means. "Reject," means that you simply refuse to discuss, you simply throw it out. 

Of course, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd see that I pointed out that clearly there are different levels of sophistication involved in using leverage. "Degrees," if you like. I understand quite well; I don't see what the big whoops are--and more importantly, I don't believe that this stuff particularly helps students.

But then, personally, I don't really see the point in checking into forums just to scope out, "the general knowledge base," since I don't see myself as the Great Kenpo Examiner.

"The new," my ear. The jargon-filled, more like--as is suggested by your previous remarks that, "it's the culmination of these concepts understood first, and applied second, by the students that makes them (hopefully) a more effective fighter and or Martial Artist." 

Understood first and applied second? This is how you teach, say, a horse stance, first lesson? A punch? An inward block? "Hi, this is your first lesson. Today, we'll be applying marriage of gravity and directional harmony as you step out into a horse--short for horse-riding--stance with your left foot, in part because in Chinese alchemy the left side is associated with femininity, while the right side is linked to the masculine yang. Be sure to torque both hands back simultaneously, while exhaling,"...and on, and on, and on. Myself, I say something like, "So, here we go. Step out with your left foot, and pull your hands back to your hips. Good. let's do that again. Good. This time, start trying to get your foot and your fists to arrive at the same time...good, very good. So let's do that again...{Ten repetitions later} That's called a horse stance, and you need to practice stepping out a lot...."

Go all the way back to "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate: Volume 1, The Basics." Funnily enough, there's no discussion of physics. Gosh. Must be inadequate.

Then, there's the self-contradiction. " Leverage is another concept (actually principle) to learn and understand to be a more effective Kenpoist. Not to be analyzed on the mat, but exercised. In order to do that, however... we must first understand leverage and (like it or not) the component parts of leverage." 

Your vocabulary borrows a little more from elementary physics than mine. Cool; good for you, no problem at all. However, since I borrow a lot from fields like psychology--the problem we both face is that of confusing what we may need to know with what students may need to know. And the danger is always that we're waggling our knowledge around, rather than teaching the poor damn student.

if you're arguing--as I did--that advanced students and instructors need to understand a bit of physics, body mechanics, etc., why sure. But ya know, it isn't all that big a deal--why make it one?

Incidentally, good manners help. This is because the evolutionary development of the human species has left us with an oddly-structured cerebral cortex, in which unconscious impulses surface all too easily unless governed by the regimentation of social discourse. As Freud pointed out, repression and sublimation...or is it just because manners are good things? I forget.


----------



## pete

ok, this is my final attempt to rescue this thread from the dumpster.  i had posted this a few days back...



> _so, we have:
> 1. four elements of leverage: lever, fulcrum, effort, and load.
> 2. examples of how they are used in several kenpo techniques
> 3. the idea that levers and fulcrums are present in all kenpo techniques
> 4. examples of how multiple levers and fulcrums can be used together
> 5. 3 ways (so far) of applying the effort to the lever: push, pull, strike.
> 6. the idea that if one understands how the tool works, it can be used to a greater degree.
> 7. the position that this is all irrelevant and nonsensical
> 
> i'd like to know:
> ** * can 3 or more lever/fulcrums be used together effectively, and is there a kenpo technique that does this?
> ** * is a twist (coliling, or rotational force) a forth method of applying effort to a lever? an example would be the turning of the hips during the takedowns in grasp of death, falling falcon (or drawbridge).. or is this the use of a different tool?
> ** * how can the understanding of these elements be used to either increase the effectiveness of the kenpo techniques, or change the physical execution of a technique...
> ** * do those who feel this in nonsense use leverage in their kenpo... or feel that they'd rather not get slowed down by the control aspects of the art_?


*my first question * has not been addressed... is this 'cause nobody knows or nobody cares anymore?  anybody? anybody? bueller? bueller? 

my *second question * has been discussed with an example from another art... 


> Our gooseneck involves, coming from the outside, torquing (not leverage) the arm by locking at the wrist with your reverse hand, knifehand strike at the inside of elbow (encouraging the natural bend of the elbow), coming underneath the arm so that the offending elbow is now riding on yours with the wrist locked... shesulsa


i am familiar with this move, but not the term "gooseneck", from another art, and does blend well with kenpo as a "what-if" to attacking mace or returning viper, when the attacker retracts his punching arm before you can trap and fully extend it... so, yes! there is the element of twisting, but is this leverage or should it be classified as a different tool?

now, my *third question*, conceptually has been addressed by sumdumguy...


> Not understanding the component parts of leverage would be like saying that you know mechanics because you can drive a car.


but this is not addressing the how  in terms of improving your martial art...

and *the fourth*, oh yes, this has been answered in greatest detail, and has now become deader 'n sea biscuit. 


> I don't see what the big whoops are--and more importantly, I don't believe that this stuff particularly helps students - rmcrobertson





> I can't figure why anyone would bother teaching what class of lever you're using when discussing Kenpo, it's irrelevant and nonsensical. - Dark Kenpo Lord





> Nor do I need to know what a type I, II, or III lever is in order to get the idea of leverage accross to my students. - Bill Lear


we can go on all day, "tastes great, less filling"... or lay question #4 to rest...

pete.


----------



## rmcrobertson

First off, the general answers are: a) yes; b) yes; c) all of them; d) variously.

Leverage is simply a general principle applied in various ways; "using leverage," appears everywhere in kenpo. But judging by your questions, you already know that, and have a pretty-clear idea about how and where--so what's the issue?

The second question? She's essentially discussing Entangled Wing.

The third question--well, it depends. leverage being a general principle, you need to ask about a specific technique or some such.

Fourth and last: it has become common in kenpo discussion to say something like, "Well, that's just a matter of opinion, and one opinion is just as good as another." Similarly, folks often think that scientific facts and theories are, "Just matters of opinion, and nobody really knows for sure." 

Well, nonsense. Science--and kenpo claims to be a scientific martial art in a zillion different ways--is a way of screening out what's not true. Similarly, in kenpo there may be different right ways to  do things, but there are most assuredly wrong ways also. Punch without torque--and I dimly recollect that the screw, as a machine, took advantage of leverage--and no power. No settle stances, no leverage.

Drown students in theory, no learning.


----------



## shesulsa

The "leverage" comes into play on the gooseneck - or entangled wing - after the lock is applied.  For pain compliance, using the example of the second class lever, while the wrist end of the offending forearm is tweaked downward, the elbow end of the offending forearm raises, thus inducing torque on all joints and upon further application will dislocate the shoulder, arm and wrist - if applied at 90 degree angles.

 Regards


----------



## rmcrobertson

I suppose. But first and foremost, I say teach students to get the elbow over your shoulder, and hook down on the wrist as you drop your stance and your weight. For thus, the elbow pops.

Leverage, incidentally, also comes into play right away--in "Entangled Wing," it had better, or you ain't getting out of that figure-four lock.

Similarly, in "Twirling Wings" leverage initially works against the attacker's grab/choke, then against their left shoulder, then...

And after awhile, the angles are no longer pure 90 degree angles...


----------



## howardr

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...or is it just because manners are good things? I forget.



Yeah, that one.

_______________
"The way in which a thinker gets some notion of the effects of his ideas and of their transforming revolutionary power, is almost a comedy; at times it seems as if those who have felt this effect actually feel insulted and as if they could express what they consider their threatened self-reliance only bybad manners." -Nietzsche


----------



## howardr

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Fourth and last: it has become common in kenpo discussion to say something like, "Well, that's just a matter of opinion, and one opinion is just as good as another." Similarly, folks often think that scientific facts and theories are, "Just matters of opinion, and nobody really knows for sure."
> 
> Well, nonsense. Science--and kenpo claims to be a scientific martial art in a zillion different ways--is a way of screening out what's not true. Similarly, in kenpo there may be different right ways to  do things, but there are most assuredly wrong ways also. Punch without torque--and I dimly recollect that the screw, as a machine, took advantage of leverage--and no power. No settle stances, no leverage.
> 
> Drown students in theory, no learning.



Good points all 'round. One minor nitpick: is science fundamentally "a way of screening out what's not true," rather than a methodology to arrive at true theories and facts (the by-product of which is a screening out of what's not true)?

_________________
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." -Nietzsche


----------



## shesulsa

The science of simple machines doesn't always apply to human beings, I mean, come on - A thin, wiry guy who has relatively little muscle mass who is shorter than me and lighter than me shouldn't over power me.  But what if he does?  Perhaps he's a psycho or just lean and mean or has amazing ki power.  Now how is science going to screen out what works on him and what doesn't?  What about the guy who can't feel pressure points because he's just that tough?  Or the one who is so damn flexible that you could almost fold his hand against his arm and feels no discomfort until the bones actually break or the tendon or ligament gives?

 Science just won't always screen everything out.  I stand by what I said - a rudimentary understanding of physical science and body mechanics is helpful.  But I agree with one thing RMcRobertson said - practicing proper technique application should be first and foremost.  The ability to "feel out" your opponent should supercede everything.


----------



## pete

shesulsa said:
			
		

> practicing proper technique application should be first and foremost.  The ability to "feel out" your opponent should supercede everything.



yep... and in order to teach proper technique, its helpful to explain _why_ it is proper, and have the student "feel" the difference between what is proper vs. some common errors.  this way, the principles can be applied throughout the student's development, and not be compartmentalized by association with a specific technique.

pete


----------



## rmcrobertson

In the first place, science is very much a matter of trial and error--knowledgeable trail and error, not just random flailing about, of course, but trial and error just the same. If you're doing something that isn't working, well, you probably need a better understanding of what you're doing, and more-complete technique.

Moreover, it has been my experience that when things just don't work, you pretty much aren't doing them properly. "Amazing ki power," you know, is harmony of breath and proper action first of all--and those things are perfectly material, perfectly analyzable. Nothing mysterioso about them.

I don't think I've been arguing against knowledge: quite the contrary. I've been arguing against things like the instructor's ego, or against in-group jargon that's being used to conceal the real, or against theory that isn't shaped the same as the objects of theory, or against inundating students in claptrap. 

After all, leverage ain't that big a deal. I seem to recall doing mechanical advantage, inclined planes, fulcrums, etc., by about seventh grade, and so did everybody else. Why mystify it?

And again, I insist on a previous point: the theory's there in the system already; if you simply teach the system, it's articulated perfectly well, and in ways that mean something physically. 

Myself, I don't start students out with a lot of stuff about theory. I tell 'em where to put their feet, or to keep their knees bent, or to keep a hand up, or to start an upward block off like an uppercut punch...which brings me to another, related issue: for all the theorizing about leverage, nobody seems to be mentioning stances.

Personally, I think some of this--not all, but some--is another example of looking up too high for answers.


----------

