# Elliptical Motion



## KenpoEMT (Jul 27, 2005)

Elliptical Motion

I remember when I first learned Retreating Pendulum I was taught that the downward block was to continue it's motion into a large circular path leading to the hammer fist.

Eventually I learned to shorten the circle, and now I am pondering Eliptical Motion. If anyone hasn't played with this type of motion, I would definately suggest it. The Ellipse seemed to magnify the power that I was generating from torque, direcitonal harmony, and marriage of gravity. Certainly seemed as if I were able to better rebound off the opponent's leg, and EXPLODE through with the hammer. Something about it seemed to change the body mechanics.

Everywhere I plug this motion in I seem to get a similar response. Maybe it's just me.

Love to hear some opinions.


----------



## Bode (Jul 27, 2005)

If you know where and how to look for it, the ellipse is potentially in all movements. Even a standard punch... at least if you want to get the most power out of it. 
 Thus, I have to say it's not just you  Though I am sure Doc might have something to say about this.


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 27, 2005)

Your right arm should stay in orbit after the downward block so that it immediately leads to the hammerfist. Of course, just before that hammerfist takes place, you should aim to get your right side kick in to the back of the opponent's leg *before* his right kicking leg hits the ground. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## kenposikh (Jul 27, 2005)

The problem I see here is the idea of new termnology, basically an ellipse is simply a flattened circle. I Think you would most probably find that with correct body mechanics a circle would be more effective than chanmging the totally natural orbit of the arm.

Just my thoughts


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 27, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> If you know where and how to look for it, the ellipse is potentially in all movements. Even a standard punch... at least if you want to get the most power out of it.
> Thus, I have to say it's not just you  Though I am sure Doc might have something to say about this.


Hey, thanks for the reply. Now that you mention it, the slightly curved motion could easily be considered a portion of an ellipse between two points. I've been noticing alot of motions are becoming slightly curved in their execution.
Man, I'd love to read what the good Doc has to say.



			
				seabrook said:
			
		

> Your right arm should stay in orbit after the downward block so that it immediately leads to the hammerfist


You're saying not to rebound directly into the ellipse?



			
				kenposikh said:
			
		

> *The problem I see here is the idea of new termnology*, basically an ellipse is simply a flattened circle. I Think you would most probably find that with correct body mechanics a circle would be more effective than chanmging the totally natural orbit of the arm.


Not really sure it's a problem...The word 'ellipse' is accurate and requires less typing than the term 'flattened circle.'
An ellipse is still a part of natural movement, no? I'm not too sure that I'm correctly grasping your statement.  It's coming across like, "you don't want to do a horizontal punch because a vertical punch is more in line with totally natural body mechanics." I'm not being hostile here; I would just like a little more clarification if you have the time and inclination to do so.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 27, 2005)

American Kenpo is to "round off corners and elongate circles" not sure how many times I read that but basically it goes like this.  You don't start a motion then stop it and start a new one.  That takes too much time, you round the corner between actions to provide continuity of motion and thus use less time.  However if you only use circles while maintaining your continuity of motion you'll also take a longer time than you would using an ellipse and you would not always be able to get an "angle of incident" on your strikes or blocks.  In short, the Ellipse is absolutely to be favored in EPAK whenever possible and probable.  Take a look at the universal patch in the infinite insights books or the video by Ed Parker on "sophisticated basics"  notice that the "figure 8" used to block is two ellipses side by side not the standard two circles you usually see in a "figure 8."  

Food for thought.


----------



## Bode (Jul 27, 2005)

> Hey, thanks for the reply. Now that you mention it, the slightly curved motion could easily be considered a portion of an ellipse between two points.


 Exactly. A "Portion" of an ellipse is in all the movements I can think of. Considering that the shoulder is a ball and socket, then on a certain level there is "circular" or "elliptical" movement when we swing our arms. 

 The confusion, at least to me, between circular or elliptical arises because the term circular has been used for ages. "Kung Fu has a lot of circular movements." The term communicates the idea very well and thus, stuck... when in reality the movements are more elliptical or have a "circular component" to them. So, circular or elliptical are all the same to me. 

 Doc just demonstrated some very interesting concepts in class last night. Each one involved the circle/ellipse. 

 Now to throw one more at you. Have you ever heard the term "Circular Point of Origin?" Doc may have mentioned it before. I.E. point of origin does not have to be linear. More food for thought.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 27, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> So, circular or elliptical are all the same to me.


 
Well, that makes sense. I always think in terms of Geometry, but when you put it that way I understand where you're coming from.



> Doc just demonstrated some very interesting concepts in class last night. Each one involved the circle/ellipse.


*Geen with envy* Class with Doc, huh?



> Now to throw one more at you. Have you ever heard the term *"Circular Point of Origin?" *Doc may have mentioned it before. I.E. point of origin does not have to be linear. More food for thought.


Wha....bbbu....I.....huh? Circular Point of Origin? Let me guess; you initiate a movement from (0,1) to (0,2) using an elliptical path to magnify power and deliver via hammer or thrust. I picture hammering motion as having a greater exaggeration to the elliptical path.
Now, Mr. Miyagi (humerous movie reference only, not mocking), correct my jumping crane kick of attempted mental motion.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 27, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> American Kenpo is to "round off corners and elongate circles" not sure how many times I read that but basically it goes like this. You don't start a motion then stop it and start a new one. That takes too much time, _you round the corner between actions to provide continuity of motion and thus use less time. _*However if you only use circles while maintaining your continuity of motion you'll also take a longer time than you would using an ellipse and *you would not always be able to get an "angle of incident" on your strikes or blocks. In short, the Ellipse is absolutely to be favored in EPAK whenever possible and probable. Take a look at the universal patch in the infinite insights books or the video by Ed Parker on "sophisticated basics" notice that the "figure 8" used to block is two ellipses side by side not the standard two circles you usually see in a "figure 8."


This information I am very familiar with; however, it doesn't hurt at all to have it reiterated for clarity, particularly in this thread. I'd love to hear your take on methods of delivery via this elliptical mtion, specifically with reguard to kicking.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 27, 2005)

The true difference between snapping and thrusting kicks is in the linear quality of their delivery.  A true thrust kick chambers closer to the body and delivers it's power in as close to an elliptical path as possible.  By comparison a snap kick is thrown from it's point-of-origin as has a decided more circular path to the target.  The only reason that kicking cannot maintain it's continuity for extended tme periods is due to the nature of our legs being a base while standing.  However, watch a competent Ju Jitsu practitioner doing 'guard work' with an 'open guard' and the ellipses versus circular paths and continuity of motion become apparent. And most Ju Jitsu sweeps are nothing but kicks from the ground set up differently.  This is all taken from a Tae Kwon Do and Ju Jitsu perspective.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 27, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The true difference between snapping and thrusting kicks is in the linear quality of their delivery. A true thrust kick chambers closer to the body and delivers it's power in as close to an elliptical path as possible. By comparison a snap kick is thrown from it's point-of-origin as has a decided more circular path to the target. The only reason that kicking cannot maintain it's continuity for extended tme periods is due to the nature of our legs being a base while standing. However, watch a competent Ju Jitsu practitioner doing 'guard work' with an 'open guard' and the ellipses versus circular paths and continuity of motion become apparent. And most Ju Jitsu sweeps are nothing but kicks from the ground set up differently. This is all taken from a Tae Kwon Do and Ju Jitsu perspective.


I enjoy your perspective! I wish that I could comment on the Ju Jitsu perspective, but I have never trained in it.  

What I've found with regard to kicking is that the initial mode of learning kicks (angular) gives way to a more natural method. The kicks now resemble exaggerated stomps. This method, I believe, is faster, more powerful, more fluid, and establishes a better form of foundation recovery then the angular method of kicking . I've begun to liken the visual aspect of this method of execution as being similar to a graph of a function. This has led me to begin viewing all aspects of motion as graphs. It is kind of strange, but I enjoy it!

Thanks for the good post!


----------



## kenposikh (Jul 28, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Not really sure it's a problem...The word 'ellipse' is accurate and requires less typing than the term 'flattened circle.'
> An ellipse is still a part of natural movement, no? I'm not too sure that I'm correctly grasping your statement.  It's coming across like, "you don't want to do a horizontal punch because a vertical punch is more in line with totally natural body mechanics." I'm not being hostile here; I would just like a little more clarification if you have the time and inclination to do so.




I'm sorry sometime posts can be vague and I'nm not a terribly good writer.I do not have a problem with the use of the word ellipse etc etc or your original post, I think I was going off tangent because so many times I see Kenpoists getting bogged down in terminology for terminologies sake. I understand that this is not the case in your original post and I apologise if I came across implying that.

Anyway back to the point Mr Parker I think said it when he said to round of corners. The elliptical path occurs in many things that you do where the arm and elbow are concerned. I think that the effect you are finding is that of a change in timing of your strike take for example a swinging arm where the elbow is kept locked out and strike soehting with a hammerfist sa a pad now doing the same motion with the same speed but this time allowing the elbow to bend will produce an elliptical motion of the hammerfist but still a ciruclar motion of the shoulder.

Now take another factor into our test the pad itself if when you strike you are striking down at 90 degrees to the pad i.e. the pad is held horizontally you will have one effect of the elliptical path now get someone to hold the pad at a 45 degree angle and do the same strike you should find that more power is now available to you, I think.

Yours in Kenpo

Amrik


----------



## jonah2 (Jul 28, 2005)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> ...Anyway back to the point Mr Parker I think said it when he said to round of corners. The elliptical path occurs in many things that you do where the arm and elbow are concerned. I think that the effect you are finding is that of a change in timing of your strike take for example a swinging arm where the elbow is kept locked out and strike soehting with a hammerfist sa a pad now doing the same motion with the same speed but this time allowing the elbow to bend will produce an elliptical motion of the hammerfist but still a ciruclar motion of the shoulder...


 
Amrik,

We are probably within shouting distance of each other but converse over a global network  communication gone crazy eh!



I think a lot of this path of motion conversation gets confused some times because we tend to look at things differently to one another (people in general that is).

All paths of motion are available to the body at different parts and junctions, be it linear, circular, elliptical, orbital etc etc. I look at it as two specific motions, that I refer to in my mind as initial or primary motion and resultant or secondary motion. The initial motion could be a combination of all the above at joints and muscles etc but the resultant motion is the one we should be concentrating on - ie the path taken by the weapon of choice. 

In response to your another factor test. The path of the weapon (fist), at the point of impact is perpendicular to the target (pad) and therefore the maximum power transference can occur. The same power generation can obviously be made in both operations of the swing (pad at 90 or 45) but the transference of that power is different depending on the angle on incidence.

Kind regards,

Jonah


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 28, 2005)

Here's something I find interesting:

The Vertical Line test. If a kick can be viewed as a graph of a function (where kick is a function of motion), then we can use the vertical line test to determine wasted motion. If at any point during the execution of the kick the vertical line crosses 2 points, then the kick contains wasted motion. The kick is not a proper function of motion. I thought that was pretty kewl.


----------



## Bode (Jul 28, 2005)

> Circular Point of Origin? Let me guess; you initiate a movement from (0,1) to (0,2) using an elliptical path to magnify power and deliver via hammer or thrust. I picture hammering motion as having a greater exaggeration to the elliptical path.


 Correct. But the hammering motion does not necessarily get all of it's power from the elliptical path. The elliptical path, in regards to a hammer strike, does a number of things. One of which is adding power. The second, and most important... it increases structural integrity. Of course, one must know the mechanisms to utilize to add the structural integrity, but a major component of it, as I see it, is elliptical/circular. That's just how the body works. 

 In addition, the movement of a hammer does not necessarily have a very pronounced elliptical path. The skill of the person delivering the hammer will determine how much of an ellipse is needed to gain maximum power and structural integrity. For instance, in my movement you might see the elliptical path, but not necessarily in Doc's or some of the highest ranking black belts. 




> I've begun to liken the visual aspect of this method of execution as being similar to a graph of a function.


 Graph as a function of what? Time? Power? or Movement in a 3D space?


----------



## Blindside (Jul 28, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Here's something I find interesting:
> 
> The Vertical Line test. If a kick can be viewed as a graph of a function (where kick is a function of motion), then we can use the vertical line test to determine wasted motion. If at any point during the execution of the kick the vertical line crosses 2 points, then the kick contains wasted motion. The kick is not a proper function of motion. I thought that was pretty kewl.



Please give an example of this, I don't think I understand what you are saying.

Lamont


----------



## dubljay (Jul 28, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Please give an example of this, I don't think I understand what you are saying.
> 
> Lamont


  I think I know what he's getting at.

 If you were to take the path the kick travels and place it onto a 2d graph, the x y plane. By using a verticle line along the graph (or the path of motion of the kick) anywhere the verticle line touches the path of the kick twice, that is supposed to be wasted motion. 

 In order for me to believe this I am going to need more specific information. Is the path of the kick measured at the striking surface, or the entire leg? How do you account for the fact that no kick is ever on just one plane (i.e. being completely verticle or horizontal).

  Also if this is true for kicks, is it true for all strikes?

  :idunno:

  -Josh


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 28, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> Correct. But the hammering motion does not necessarily get all of it's power from the elliptical path. The elliptical path, in regards to a hammer strike, _does a number of things_. One of which is adding power. The second, and most important... *it increases structural integrity. *Of course, one must know the mechanisms to utilize to add the structural integrity, but a major component of it, as I see it, is elliptical/circular. That's just how the body works.
> 
> In addition, the movement of a hammer does not necessarily have a very pronounced elliptical path. The skill of the person delivering the hammer will determine how much of an ellipse is needed to gain maximum power and structural integrity. For instance, in my movement you might see the elliptical path, but not necessarily in Doc's or some of the highest ranking black belts.


Awesome post! 
I was wondering if you would be willing to expound a little about the structural integrity portion of your post.



			
				Blindside said:
			
		

> Please give an example of this, I don't think I understand what you are saying.


Sorry about that. I was in a rush to get out the door when I posted the information.

I was likening the natural movement of the human body to an Algebraic Function. I want to be clear in saying that College Algebra is by no means my strongest area of knowledge; I welcome any correction, comment, and/or clarification on this idea.

I am going to assume that you have a working knowledge of Algebra, and if you don't, then please, dear God please, do not think that I am talking down to anyone. It is just an area of Kenpo/Mathematics that intrigues me. I am by no means an expert.

The basic idea of a function is that each value of Y [f(x)] can have only one value of X [(x)]. Think of Motion as being the X-axis, and think of any human movement as being the Y-axis. In a function, you can check the formula by substituting any value into f(x) to determine if it is a function. 
[This is where things become a little difficult. Relating real motion to actual functions.]
The formula I picture graphs as a parabola. In our Motion, from point to point [say points (-5,0), (-3,3), (0,4), (3,3), (5,0)] we can have no duplicate motion. If you graph this, it will form a portion of an ellipse. Point of Orgin remember. The Vertical Line Test comes into play now. If during our movement we have caused f(x) to have more than one value of (x), then we discover the point(s) that contains wasted motion. 

Each new motion is a new Function. Each new motion/purpose can be exaluated on these terms.

Hope I didn't sound too 'egg-headish'.  This really is fascinating stuff, and a good instructor with years of experience intuitively knows the applications of what I am talking about without needing this kind of comparison.

Love to hear some opinions.


----------



## dubljay (Jul 28, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Awesome post!
> 1)  I was wondering if you would be willing to expound a little about the structural integrity portion of your post.
> 
> Sorry about that. I was in a rush to get out the door when I posted the information.
> ...


 1) You can find out a lot of this stuff by searching for Sub Level 4. Also read the lineage section for Mr. Chapel ('Doc') on Kenpo Talk.

 2) The statement of "motion on the x axis and any human motion on the y axis" doenst make sense. Are you actually assigning equations to motion and human motion? What is the difference between the two? I understand the vertical line test (after being in Calc II I have a basic idea of algebra ).  


 If you are talking about the path the kick takes and putting it on a graph (as in x represents inches on the horizontal plane from the point of origin, and y represents inches on the vertical) then I don't think the vertical line test is valid what so ever, unless you are stopping the graph when the kick reaches the target, discounting the path back to the ground (either back to initial position or planting into a new stance). 


  :idunno:  I don't really follow

  -Josh


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 28, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> If you were to take the path the kick travels and place it onto a 2d graph, the x y plane. By using a verticle line along the graph (or the path of motion of the kick) anywhere the verticle line touches the path of the kick twice, that is supposed to be wasted motion.


Ah, you must've posted while I was writing my response :ultracool .
Well, I think you explained what I meant a little better than I did.



> In order for me to believe this I am going to need more specific information.* Is the path of the kick measured at the striking surface*, or the entire leg? *How do you account for the fact that no kick is ever on just one plane *(i.e. being completely verticle or horizontal).
> 
> Also if this is true for kicks, *is it true for all strikes*?


 
I was talking about how the actual striking surface itself moves through space.
As far as accounting for the fact that we are multi-dimensional beings whose movements are being compared to 2-dimensional graphs...Well, I think we can adjust our perspective of any motion in order to evaluate it in this manner. The ground does not have to be considered the X-axis for the purposes of evaluating kicks that originate from the middle of a step/rebound/whatever-else.

I am absolutely certain that all strikes can be evaluated in this manner. Again, merely establish a constant plane to evaluate a given movement.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 28, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> 1) You can find out a lot of this stuff by searching for Sub Level 4. Also read the lineage section for Mr. Chapel ('Doc') on Kenpo Talk.


Doc (and many others) knows a heck of alot more about this than I ever will.



> 2) The statement of "motion on the x axis and any human motion on the y axis" doenst make sense. Are you actually assigning equations to motion and human motion? What is the difference between the two? I understand the vertical line test (after being in Calc II I have a basic idea of algebra ).


I knew I was going to get called onto the carpet for "motion" and "Human motion" .
Human motion was referring to a specific kick/punch/headbut whatever.  Hmm...I sense the sharks are circling...




> If you are talking about the path the kick takes and putting it on a graph (as in x represents inches on the horizontal plane from the point of origin, and y represents inches on the vertical) then I don't think the vertical line test is valid what so ever, unless you are stopping the graph when the kick reaches the target, discounting the path back to the ground (either back to initial position or planting into a new stance).
> 
> 
> :idunno: I don't really follow
> ...


No problem really. I just wanted to share something that I thought was interesting. It could be something that just makes sense to me. I found it valuable when considering wasted motion and point of origin.


----------



## dubljay (Jul 28, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I knew I was going to get called onto the carpet for "motion" and "Human motion" .
> Human motion was referring to a specific kick/punch/headbut whatever.  Hmm...I sense the sharks are circling...
> 
> 
> No problem really. I just wanted to share something that I thought was interesting. It could be something that just makes sense to me. I found it valuable when considering wasted motion and point of origin.


 
 Well your definition of motion was a bit vague, don't think of me trying to pick at your logic.  I see value in looking at human motion in a physics and mathematical sense.  I'm just trying to get that eratic, misfiring hunk of junk i refer to as a brain, to understand what you are trying to present.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 28, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> Well *your definition of motion was a bit vague*, don't think of me trying to pick at your logic.


You are absolutely correct. Perhaps the idea was not as clear in my mind as I thought it was. Both Mathematics and Movement require precision when attempting to explain or evaluate, and I don't think that I was as precise as I should have been. 



> *I see value in looking at human motion in a physics and mathematical sense.* I'm just trying to get that eratic, misfiring hunk of junk i refer to as a brain, to *understand what you are trying to present*.


I am enrolled for Physics next semester and look forward to trying to apply what I will learn to the better understanding of Kenpo. Until I complete the series, perhaps I should ease off of trying to evaluate motion .
I am certain that there is nothing wrong with your brain; I am not certain that I can fully explain what I am thinking yet. 
I would absolutely love to get something more beneficial from our exchange, and I think that may be possible. Have you ever considered this area of Kenpo (Wasted Motion and Point of Orgin) from a Mathematical/Physics perspective? Sounds like you have a higher level of education than I have yet attained, and I would enjoy hearing what you have to say on this issue.
What I was saying before about functions really made sense to me. I am not to sure how to clarify further at this point.

Thank you very much for your responses! I enjoyed your posts, Sir!


----------



## dubljay (Jul 28, 2005)

I'll be starting my 4th year of college in the fall... 

 I have tried applying some physics and mathematical stuff to Kenpo, but I lack enough education in both Kenpo and the academic stuff to have it be of any use.

 In physics you will find the rotational motion and torque sections to be insightful when it comes to Kenpo, at least I did.  


 However this thread has gone off on a tangent and should return to the original topic of elliptical motion.



 One thing I see that I do that is very elliptical is the way I punch.  My jab has an upward curve to it; most of that curve is generated when I twist my hips into the jab.  The rotation of my hips tends to make my lead leg straighten out a bit, causing that whole side of my body to rise up.  The same with my 'straight' punch (or reverse punch).  This punch has a downward curve to it, which again is partially generated by the pivot in my hips.  The rotation in this strike generally makes my lead leg drop some, causing my punch to arc downward.  I have noticed that when I strike someone with this downward arc it generally makes them 'sink' with the strike, this not only effects their depth (as a purely horizontal traveling punch would knock them back changing their depth) but it effects their height to a greater degree as well.  The more I can do to alter their height, width, and depth the greater advantage to me.


 I don't know if this is idiosyncratic just to me, if it's normal for everyone, or if it's even correct. 



 -Josh



 ps: please don't address me as sir    no need for formalities with me.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 28, 2005)

sorry that I didn't answer right away. Had to head out again.


			
				dubljay said:
			
		

> I'll be starting my 4th year of college in the fall...


Congratulations!! 



> I have tried applying some physics and mathematical stuff to Kenpo, but I lack enough education in both Kenpo and the academic stuff to have it be of any use.


That seems to be the barrier that I keep ramming my thick skull into as well. Master Parker was a true genius. 



> In physics you will find the rotational motion and torque sections to be insightful when it comes to Kenpo, at least I did.


Thank you very much for the info. I will definately keep an eye out for these sections. 


> One thing I see that I do that is very elliptical is the way I punch. My jab has an upward curve to it; most of that curve is generated when I *twist my hips *into the jab. The rotation of my hips tends to make my *lead leg straighten* out a bit, causing that *whole side of my body to rise* up. The same with my 'straight' punch (or reverse punch). This punch *has a downward curve* to it, which again is partially* generated by the pivot in my hips*. The rotation in this strike generally makes my lead leg drop some, causing my punch to arc downward. I have noticed that when I strike someone with this downward arc it generally *makes them 'sink' with the strike*, this not only effects their depth (as a purely horizontal traveling punch would knock them back changing their depth) but *it effects their height to a greater degree* as well. The more I can do to alter their height, width, and depth the greater advantage to me.


Yes! One thing I've started to notice is a general tendency to strike on the downward angle while using the curve. I find the effects to be absolutely tremendous. Of course, I mean after the appex of the portion of elliptical motion into the slight downward curve. The effect does seem to drive the opponent back and down. Perhaps it is just me but it seems as if the opponent would have to absorb more of the energy of the strike because his/her body is not being driven directly backward. He/She is being driven back and down at an angle that requires his/her base to absorb more of the shock.



> please don't address me as sir  no need for formalities with me


Thank you for your courtesy!


----------



## dubljay (Jul 29, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Yes! One thing I've started to notice is a general tendency to strike on the downward angle while using the curve. I find the effects to be absolutely tremendous. Of course, I mean after the appex of the portion of elliptical motion into the slight downward curve. The effect does seem to drive the opponent back and down. Perhaps it is just me but it seems as if the opponent would have to absorb more of the energy of the strike because his/her body is not being driven directly backward. He/She is being driven back and down at an angle that requires his/her base to absorb more of the shock.


 

 I've also noticed that this downward arc is extremely effective when striking at the solar plexus and the liver.  Hitting the liver straight on, or from underneath is not nearly as effective as striking it at a downward angle, there is very little protection for it from this angle.


----------



## Bode (Jul 29, 2005)

> I've also noticed that this downward arc is extremely effective when striking at the solar plexus and the liver. Hitting the liver straight on, or from underneath is not nearly as effective as striking it at a downward angle, there is very little protection for it from this angle.


 How true. 
 Consider one more experiment. Have the person you are striking lean backwards so their shoulders are behind their hips almost as if the start of a back bend. (This posture is created, for instance, when you strike someone properly with a sandwich elbow). 
 Now, while they are in this body posture strike doward at a forty five degree angle with a hammer fist to the gallbladder/liver. Tell me how that feels compared to having the person stand upright. Of course, be gentle... it doesn't take much. (Key is the 45 degree angle, but keep in mind the angle changes depending on how far back the person is leaning)


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 29, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> Of course, be gentle... it doesn't take much. (Key is the 45 degree angle, but keep in mind the angle changes depending on how far back the person is leaning)


Does the requirement of 45 degrees have something to do with getting the opponent's muscles out of position so that the force of the strike can pass easily through? I think that I read a post somewhere on this board about how it is possible to alter muscle density by altering the position of the body.
Or, is it more a matter of angles that provide maximum delivery of kenetic energy?


----------



## dubljay (Jul 30, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Does the requirement of 45 degrees have something to do with getting the opponent's muscles out of position so that the force of the strike can pass easily through? I think that I read a post somewhere on this board about how it is possible to alter muscle density by altering the position of the body.
> Or, is it more a matter of angles that provide maximum delivery of kenetic energy?


 
   The angle is about getting around the muscles.  The same is true for the kidneys as well.  A kidney strike is much more effective at a downward angle when the person is bent forward.  Having the opponent bent forward exposes the kidney more by stretching the muscles around it.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 30, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> The angle is about getting around the muscles. The same is true for the kidneys as well. A kidney strike is much more effective at a downward angle when the person is bent forward. Having the opponent bent forward exposes the kidney more by stretching the muscles around it.


I am no stranger to Anatomy, but I must confess that I rarely give thought to positioning my opponent for this purpose. Honestly, I spend far more time considering delivery and/or setting the opponent up for a good follow-up movement.
Well, you both have just exposed a weak area in my training. This is excellent food for thought.

As a side note, both of the positions described have the opponents center of gravity parilously off-centered. The downward tendency of our strikes would certainly plant in the dirt either of the opponents described (leaning forward/leaning backward) in addition to the internal damage caused to unprotected organs. I suppose that is fairly obvious though. Kenpo rocks!


----------



## dubljay (Jul 31, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I am no stranger to Anatomy, but I must confess that I rarely give thought to positioning my opponent for this purpose. Honestly, I spend far more time considering delivery and/or setting the opponent up for a good follow-up movement.
> Well, you both have just exposed a weak area in my training. This is excellent food for thought.
> 
> As a side note, both of the positions described have the opponents center of gravity parilously off-centered. The downward tendency of our strikes would certainly plant in the dirt either of the opponents described (leaning forward/leaning backward) in addition to the internal damage caused to unprotected organs. I suppose that is fairly obvious though. Kenpo rocks!


 This is something found in all kenpo techniques.  The best example I can think of to illustrate this are the techniques Thrusting Salute and Buckling Branch from the Orange Belt list (EPAK 24 tech ciruc.)  Comparing these two techniques you can find a lot of things.

 Thrusting Salute:  Defense against a right front kick

 After blocking the kick you deliver a front kick to the _front_ of the groin, causing the opponent to bend forward, as you land you deliver the thrusting palm heal to the chin.  This palm heal has a greater effect because you bent the opponent forward, and possibly still moving into your strike when you hit.

 Buckling Branch:  Defense against a left front kick

 After blocking the kick you deliver a front kick to the _underside_ of the groin.  This causes the opponent to lift up (even just momentariliy) when you deliver the kife edge side kick to the back of the knee to bring them down.


 So you see in Thrusting Salute you bring the opponent down to deliver an upward moving strike gaining mamimum effect, while in Buckling Branch you lift the opponent up only to drive them back down.  

 This is just one example, and the easiest for me to explain through text.


----------



## Doc (Aug 2, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> This is something found in all kenpo techniques.  The best example I can think of to illustrate this are the techniques Thrusting Salute and Buckling Branch from the Orange Belt list (EPAK 24 tech ciruc.)  Comparing these two techniques you can find a lot of things.
> 
> Thrusting Salute:  Defense against a right front kick
> 
> ...


OK time to stir thigs up a bit. Nice thread, and smart people. Now consider this; when you kick someone in the front of, or in the "groin" they do not "bend forward" as the initial reaction to your strike.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 2, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Now consider this; when you kick someone in the front of, or in the "groin" they do not "bend forward" as the initial reaction to your strike.


I think the key term here is initial.:asian: Initial refers to the beginning of an event or process. If you could slow the process down as in watching a film in super slow motion (or think flip card animation - where you can observe frame by frame), you would observe a finer distinction of movement that appear less subtlety to the eye that way than in real time. The front kick, depending on the accuracy of the kick, could cause an _initial _reaction to the kick to manifest first in terms of the destabilization of a persons base affecting balance. The first obvious or initial movement you might observe is a weight drop or dip as the base weakens (at the knees). In between the initial reaction and final position there would be many position changes (or freeze frame movements) to observe. 

If the force of the kick is a push through or disruption of your opponents hips, I think the next more obvious step in the slow motion process might reveal a possible backward step and then as a reaction to the pain of the kick the next more obvious step might be that the hands begin to come forward to protect the groin (hold what hurts) and in the final most obvious position you may see the person in a bent position. 

It would be interesting to analyze film of different groin kicks and slow them down to actually be able to observe more accurately the outward manifestations of the reactionary process. Any takers?  :btg:


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 2, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> OK time to stir thigs up a bit. Nice thread, and smart people. Now consider this; when you kick someone in the front of, or in the "groin" they do not "bend forward" as the initial reaction to your strike.


In my experience their knees buckle and they drop straight to the floor. Now, I live a very quiet boring personal life so my only experience with this, is kicking people with a cup, without a cup the reaction may be different but personally I don't want to study this. I have found that light taps or whips to the groin make most men pull their hips back slightly and drop their shoulders forward to counter balance.  Most is the operative term because it doesn't always work.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## dubljay (Aug 2, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> OK time to stir thigs up a bit. Nice thread, and smart people. Now consider this; when you kick someone in the front of, or in the "groin" they do not "bend forward" as the initial reaction to your strike.


 
 Hmm, I suppose you are right, especially considering that striking at the front of the groin is not nearly as effective as coming up from underneath.  

 I suppose the inital reaction would be them being driven back from the kick.  

 So it's not really a reaction on the opponents part (ie them actually bending forward) but having their lower half being driven back and their upper half having to catch up?

 :idunno:


 Thank you sir, you're making me think about things in a differnt way... eventhough it makes my head hurt :whip:

 -Josh


----------



## Doc (Aug 2, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> Hmm, I suppose you are right, especially considering that striking at the front of the groin is not nearly as effective as coming up from underneath.


Well that depends on what your objective. I suggest pain should not be the only factor. Everyone has a different pain threshold, and even that varies from moment to moment depending other fatctors. Blunt force trauma is the lowest form of martial application available to both "skilled" and "semi-skilled."


> I suppose the inital reaction would be them being driven back from the kick.


Yes sir, you are gorrect.


> So it's not really a reaction on the opponents part (ie them actually bending forward) but having their lower half being driven back and their upper half having to catch up?


Actually sir, you are on the right track. It is indeed a reaction that is however complimented by the action. Take any male student standing erect. Any sharp quick movement toward their groin will illicit a reaction even though there is no contact. By accessing the "startle reflex" mechanism, the individual will draw his pelvic bone rearward involuntarily. When told of the experiment, students will attempt to not move. However if the movement is aggressive enough, the reflex will occur even if it is not visible. Think of it as another startle reflex that is more common, "blink reflex." This is extremely important. The myth of, or at least the poorly defined reaction of "bending over" is incorrect, and has significant implications in applications beyond simplistic and neanderthal blunt force trauma and the advanced undersatnding of "Negative Posture."


> Thank you sir, you're making me think about things in a differnt way... eventhough it makes my head hurt :whip:


Thank you sir, and a nod to KenpoDoc whose on th money, except because it is a reflex, it always happens to the conscious. Remember, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. This should generate more questions and thought gentlemen.


----------



## dubljay (Aug 2, 2005)

Okay, I'm beginning to see the light now.  Strikes that don't connect, or that aren't deadly powerful aren't necessarily ineffective.  If the intent for the strike is to get the opponent to react in some specific manner, then landing the strike with all the power your have is essentially irrelevant.


 I'll have to ponder more on this...


 Thank you again sir.

 -Josh


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 2, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Thank you sir, and a nod to KenpoDoc whose on th money, except because it is a reflex, it always happens to the conscious. Remember, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. This should generate more questions and thought gentlemen.


This generates a couple of thought problems for me.
a. I've worked with a number of people with no apparent groin reflex.  Are these people just so subtle in response that I miss the signals that they've responded and can still use the response? Are these people without a reflex. (I regularly see people with missing spinal reflexes because of neurological disease.) How do I tell the difference? Does it matter?

thanks, 

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Aug 2, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> This generates a couple of thought problems for me.
> a. I've worked with a number of people with no apparent groin reflex.  Are these people just so subtle in response that I miss the signals that they've responded and can still use the response?


Absolutely correct. It's there even when you can't see it. The amount of movement to accomplish the goal is so subtle it can be invisible.


> I regularly see people with missing spinal reflexes because of neurological disease.) How do I tell the difference? Does it matter?


As long as the senses are functioning, you can induce. Although sound is just as effective, if not more so in some cases, if the visual cortex is active then its there. The trick is to know what to do with it once its accessed, and what happens to the body when its in that negative posture even if you can't see it.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 3, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> except because it is a reflex, it always happens to the conscious. Remember, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. This should generate more questions and thought


Interesting point Doc that the response may be there even if we don't see it, and it got me to metacognate  or think about thinking. I would add that while the reponse happens to the conscious the reflex action results from subconscious prompts. This is because stimuli such as sudden movements or bright lights trigger our midbrain vision and hearing centers. These areas of the brain are responsible for our reflexive reactions or defensive postures such as crouching from loud noises, and focusing our attention on moving objects or other dangerous stimuli. The human brain developed both auditory and optic lobes through the evolutionary process and relates back to our amphibian ancestors. As amphibians became land dwelling creatures they developed both auditory and visual acuity as an adaptation to their new environment. These older areas of the human brain are responsible for our unconscious reflexive reactions to certain dangerous stimuli. They enable us to turn our eyes and ears on possible danger before our forebrain is even aware, on a conscious level, that danger may exist. 




> Take any male student standing erect. Any sharp quick movement toward their groin will illicit a reaction even though there is no contact. By accessing the "startle reflex" mechanism, the individual will draw his pelvic bone rearward involuntarily. When told of the experiment, students will attempt to not move. However if the movement is aggressive enough, the reflex will occur even if it is not visible.


This reflex will occur because the midbrain acts as our audiovisual processing center prompting us to unconsciously react - however subtle that reaction may be. It is difficult to control this response because it occurs in the unconscious mind and is a primal response to possible danger. 

For further thought...if a groin strike is obscured (such as in the case of say a palm heel to the chin that is followed by an obscured kick to the groin) with the stimulus removed, would the initial response to the groin strike itself then be reactionary?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 3, 2005)

MJ:

Thank you for one of the most pleasant posts I've read here in quite a spell. It made me feel all fuzzy inside to see a mind in motion. There is yet hope for the academic (and not just grab-&-beat) future of kenpo.

Warmest Regards,

D.


----------



## Doc (Aug 3, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> Okay, I'm beginning to see the light now.  Strikes that don't connect, or that aren't deadly powerful aren't necessarily ineffective.  If the intent for the strike is to get the opponent to react in some specific manner, then landing the strike with all the power your have is essentially irrelevant.
> 
> I'll have to ponder more on this...
> 
> Thank you again sir.


Yes sir. I'm told by one of my students who has some experience with "Systema," that they have similar methodologies.


----------



## Doc (Aug 3, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Interesting point Doc that the response may be there even if we don't see it, and it got me to metacognate  or think about thinking. I would add that while the reponse happens to the conscious the reflex action results from subconscious prompts. This is because stimuli such as sudden movements or bright lights trigger our midbrain vision and hearing centers. These areas of the brain are responsible for our reflexive reactions or defensive postures such as crouching from loud noises, and focusing our attention on moving objects or other dangerous stimuli. The human brain developed both auditory and optic lobes through the evolutionary process and relates back to our amphibian ancestors. As amphibians became land dwelling creatures they developed both auditory and visual acuity as an adaptation to their new environment. These older areas of the human brain are responsible for our unconscious reflexive reactions to certain dangerous stimuli. They enable us to turn our eyes and ears on possible danger before our forebrain is even aware, on a conscious level, that danger may exist.
> 
> This reflex will occur because the midbrain acts as our audiovisual processing center prompting us to unconsciously react - however subtle that reaction may be. It is difficult to control this response because it occurs in the unconscious mind and is a primal response to possible danger.
> 
> For further thought...if a groin strike is obscured (such as in the case of say a palm heel to the chin that is followed by an obscured kick to the groin) with the stimulus removed, would the initial response to the groin strike itself then be reactionary?


of course, but once again, they would not "bend over."


----------



## jonah2 (Aug 3, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> ....This reflex will occur because the midbrain acts as our audiovisual processing center prompting us to unconsciously react - however subtle that reaction may be. It is difficult to control this response because it occurs in the unconscious mind and is a *primal response* to possible danger....


This interests me - We were shown the experiment a few years ago with the 'reach' for the groin area to observe the natural reaction to, as Doc says, withdraw the pelvis.

I am curious to see if this is a 'primal response' or a learned reaction. At the time I carried out an experiment of my own with two other subjects. The first was my partner and she moved away as male subject would. The second was my then three year old son and he did not flinch (I will state that no contact was made on either and they were not aware of the intent of the experiment).

So is it a primal reaction or a learned response from the first painfull contact - I dont know. The same withdraw reaction can be gained by making a thrust towards someones face too.

Jonah


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 3, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> This interests me - We were shown the experiment a few years ago with the 'reach' for the groin area to observe the natural reaction to, as Doc says, withdraw the pelvis.
> 
> I am curious to see if this is a 'primal response' or a learned reaction. At the time I carried out an experiment of my own with two other subjects. The first was my partner and she moved away as male subject would. The second was my then three year old son and he did not flinch (I will state that no contact was made on either and they were not aware of the intent of the experiment).
> 
> Jonah


Interesting Jonah. I would contend that it is a primal response. The subject needs to be threatened, and while for a few reasons I don't recommend using a 3 year old test subject it is possible that your son was not startled because he instinctually did not experience the feeling of danger here. In other words the movement toward your 3 year old may not have been threatening enough, but for psychological reasons for one I wouldn't test that. There are other variables as well though, such as individual sensory acuity that would need to be tested to prove this in your case. 


			
				Jonah said:
			
		

> So is it a primal reaction or a learned response from the first painfull contact - I dont know. The same withdraw reaction can be gained by making a thrust towards someones face too.


Again I think it's a primal response. Good observation concerning the thrust towards a person's face. Our startle reflex is involuntary and triggers protective movements that withdraw the body and its parts out of harms way. Doc also mentioned the blink and there are others. Drawing the shoulders up, grimacing, flexing the knee and elbow joints and neck are a few other examples. The body will automatically take on certain defensive postures as well as submissive gestures when we are physically, emotionally or socially threatened. 

The other thing to consider is that a learned response must come from an experience, and/or many experiences that result from conditioning. Did your test subjects experience this (taking painful groin strikes) prior to your test? If so, you might want to test the variable of also using subjects who did not have any prior experiences with having taken a painful groin strike. 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> of course, but once again, they would not "bend over."


 Thanks Doc agreed, not as their _initial _reaction...




			
				 Dr.D said:
			
		

> Thank you for one of the most pleasant posts I've read here in quite a spell. It made me feel all fuzzy inside to see a mind in motion. There is yet hope for the academic (and not just grab-&-beat) future of kenpo.


Dr. Dave let me just take this opportunity to say that I always enjoy and learn from reading your thoughtful, intelligent posts and thanks. :asian:


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Aug 3, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> This interests me - We were shown the experiment a few years ago with the 'reach' for the groin area to observe the natural reaction to, as Doc says, withdraw the pelvis.
> 
> I am curious to see if this is a 'primal response' or a learned reaction. At the time I carried out an experiment of my own with two other subjects. The first was my partner and she moved away as male subject would. The second was my then three year old son and he did not flinch (I will state that no contact was made on either and they were not aware of the intent of the experiment).
> 
> ...


http://media.ebaumsworld.com/wmv/kozak.wmv

As you can see from this video, the reflex is a learned response to stimulus, it's not something we do from birth.   If you'll notice, neither child was reactant to the leg coming at them.


----------



## jonah2 (Aug 3, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> http://media.ebaumsworld.com/wmv/kozak.wmv As you can see from this video, the reflex is a learned response to stimulus, it's not something we do from birth. If you'll notice, neither child was reactant to the leg coming at them.


Mr O'Briant,

First off - ouch. Hope the child was ok.

They didn't react cause they didn't see it comming and had no expectation that it would have - until BAM!!

The test I carried out with my son - I made sure he was watching me reached forward and back slowly at first to within about 6 inches then fired out a jab again pulling back at around 6 inches away - and no reaction.

I kind of agree with Mj-hi-yah's statement about the perceived threat though - after all, as far as he is concearned I am his dad and I would not inflict pain, even if the reach out towards him was over 3/4 full speed.

Interesting

jonah


----------



## pete (Aug 3, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> http://media.ebaumsworld.com/wmv/kozak.wmv
> 
> As you can see from this video, the reflex is a learned response to stimulus, it's not something we do from birth. If you'll notice, neither child was reactant to the leg coming at them.


another example: http://www.geocities.com/daniphil_11721/attach.gif


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 3, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> http://media.ebaumsworld.com/wmv/kozak.wmv
> 
> As you can see from this video, the reflex is a learned response to stimulus, it's not something we do from birth. If you'll notice, neither child was reactant to the leg coming at them.


Hmm I guess we need to re-evaluate the uefulness of spinning kicks... ROFL


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 3, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> In other words the movement toward your 3 year old may not have been threatening enough, but for psychological reasons for one I wouldn't test that.


Yes, try using somebody else's kid.  There's a few in my neighborhood who need to get "experimented" on.


----------



## Doc (Aug 4, 2005)

Sorry but it is not a learned reflex, anymore than you "learn" to blink your eyes. The reflexes develop as the body matures, and each sense develops at a different rate. As an example the first to develop is a "startle reflex" to sound long before the visual cortext has developed. The very young show little to no reaction to external visual stimuli that would activate startle reflex. Not because they haven't "learned," but simply because it has not developed.


----------



## Simon Curran (Aug 4, 2005)

Pertaining to the current conversation about reflexes, this morning on my way into work I almost decked my self walking into a roller shuttter that was too far down (yeah I know, dumb thing to do...)

Even though I barely made contact with it, it was my own violent subconcious recoil which nearly put me on my butt not the impact itself, I have now decided to learn from my "blonde moments" and see what, if any of it, I can use in relation to my training.
Thanks for the inspiration guys (and gals)


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 4, 2005)

Simon Curran said:
			
		

> Even though I barely made contact with it, it was my own violent subconcious recoil which nearly put me on my butt not the impact itself, I have now decided to learn from my "blonde moments" and see what, if any of it, I can use in relation to my training.


 Right on! and LOL Simon :rofl:


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 4, 2005)

Simon Curran said:
			
		

> Pertaining to the current conversation about reflexes, this morning on my way into work I almost decked my self walking into a roller shuttter that was too far down (yeah I know, dumb thing to do...)
> 
> Even though I barely made contact with it, it was my own violent subconcious recoil which nearly put me on my butt not the impact itself, I have now decided to learn from my "blonde moments" and see what, if any of it, I can use in relation to my training.
> Thanks for the inspiration guys (and gals)


Not being an AK student, I have not spent a lot of time with the material... but didn't Mr. Parker talk about this in Infinite Insights?  I wish I could remember the term... I think he related it to when you think there is one more stair and almost fall for no reason...


----------



## Doc (Aug 4, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Not being an AK student, I have not spent a lot of time with the material... but didn't Mr. Parker talk about this in Infinite Insights?  I wish I could remember the term... I think he related it to when you think there is one more stair and almost fall for no reason...


That was me D.


----------



## pete (Aug 4, 2005)

i've heard that analogy used to describe a tai chi principle of 'leading into emptiness'.  another one is the old comic routine of a guy trying to knock down a door thats already been opened. 

i don't remember if any of these were ever attributed to ed parker though...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 4, 2005)

Yep. There are many reflexes in the body that require growth and maturation prior to actualization. Neurons are still making the trip from central nervous system to extremities during the first few years of development. 

For example, the righting reflex...firmware exists in the central nervous system; nerves connecting CNS to extremities, muscles, joints, etc., to carry the proprioceptive info to and from the brain and body aren't in place yet. Hence, even though the kids brain is sending out messages about correcting weight distribution for balance, we still see the little rugrats staggering around like drunks and plopping on their bottoms for no apparent reason, or for very small bumps in the carpet that wouldn't phase an older body.

Some are in place, but lacking maturity, reflect "incorrect" information. Babinksi's reflex positive in a baby is normal; in an adult, the reflex should extinguish and be replaced with more of a plantarflexion response. Babinski's positive in an adult indicates some long-tract or Upper Motor Neuron Lesion stuff...bad things influencing spinal cord, etc.

Grab a neuro book.

Regards,

D.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 4, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Sorry but it is not a learned reflex, anymore than you "learn" to blink your eyes. The reflexes develop as the body matures, and each sense develops at a different rate. As an example the first to develop is a "startle reflex" to sound long before the visual cortext has developed. The very young show little to no reaction to external visual stimuli that would activate startle reflex. Not because they haven't "learned," but simply because it has not developed.


Neurology is extremely complicated but to cut to the chase Doc's right. Nature and nurture may be difficult to separate but not everything which develops later in life is learned.  This is further complicated by the multiple factors which trigger and moderate reflexes.  

Jeff


----------



## dubljay (Aug 4, 2005)

This has been a facinating thread despite it's drift from the original topic.  I am going to be wasting a lot of ink printing this stuff out (gotta have a paper copy for easier reference).  


 My question is how effective is using someone's reflexes against them?  Is using their reflexes against them more of psychological tool with only limited physical usefulness?  If the use of reflex fails then what, grab 'em and beat 'em?  


 This thinking stuff hurts....


 -Josh


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 4, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> This has been a facinating thread despite it's drift from the original topic. I am going to be wasting a lot of ink printing this stuff out (gotta have a paper copy for easier reference).
> 
> 
> My question is how effective is using someone's reflexes against them? Is using their reflexes against them more of psychological tool with only limited physical usefulness? If the use of reflex fails then what, grab 'em and beat 'em?
> ...


The kick I get outta SL4 self-defense techniques is how they remain EPAK kenpo techniques, re-tooled to incorporate many of these ideas. Techs you've seen before and practiced often get a change added to include things like initiating reflexes to place an attacker at a disadvantage so the rest of the technique works mo' bettah. Once you've drilled it for a spell with the changes in place, going back to how you did it _without_ the inclusions feels like a return to the un-edumacated primal. It becomes part of the grab and beat, and not just a precursor or cherry on top.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## KenpoEMT (Aug 4, 2005)

Great discussion here .


----------



## distalero (Aug 4, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> The other thing to consider is that a learned response must come from an experience, and/or many experiences that result from conditioning. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...which is another definition of Kenpo practice. So...with long and focused MA practice, need there be exclusive catagories of primal perception/reflex action vs. learned response? Can't one type shape or "inform" the other, in effect with no "senority", as it were, from the midbrain?


----------



## Simon Curran (Aug 4, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Right on! and LOL Simon :rofl:


Glad I could amuse with my plight.:ultracool


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 5, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> mj-hi-yah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## distalero (Aug 5, 2005)

Thanks . I should have mentioned suppression; it's a basic concept, certainly a necessity, in MA. What I think I've noticed has been a sort of two-staged response elicited by a surprise attack: the original reflexive posture, very quickly replaced by a learned action, sometimes with almost no distinction/time between stages. May be the most, that the most of us can hope for; I'll take it, anyhow.


----------



## Doc (Aug 5, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> Thanks . I should have mentioned suppression; it's a basic concept, certainly a necessity, in MA. What I think I've noticed has been a sort of two-staged response elicited by a surprise attack: the original reflexive posture, very quickly replaced by a learned action, sometimes with almost no distinction/time between stages. May be the most, that the most of us can hope for; I'll take it, anyhow.


The difference, at least for what we teach, is those reflexes are already correct. And rather than attempt to suppress them, we simply augment them into a positive response beyond the initial startle reflex. As an example, our mthodology of teach kenpo Blocks is in-house defined as "Reflex Blocking." Students don't learn something so much as new, but rather extend the old.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 5, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> The difference, at least for what we teach, is those reflexes are already correct. And rather than attempt to suppress them, we simply augment them into a positive response beyond the initial startle reflex. As an example, our methodology of teach kenpo Blocks is in-house defined as "Reflex Blocking." Students don't learn something so much as new, but rather extend the old.


Once again Doc that's a very thoughtful solution :asian: , since suppression of these reflexes is difficult and can be unreliable. In some ways, in some instances, many of us may incidentally do this, without having conceptualized it that way, as distelero may have inadvertently done. This can be seen in his explanation of seeing_ no distinction at times between the two reactions._ However, Doc, yours is a perfect example of the importance of understanding in greater detail the distinction between involultary and voluntary or learned behavior, which can further lead to purposeful manipulation for what may more likely be the desired or positive outcome. I like it a lot! 

The first time my instructor surprise attacked me with a club I took a classic reflexive defensive posture. I was a brand new student and was shocked by the suddenness of the attack. I found my reaction curious - not realizing at the time it was a primitive instinct prompted by the looming club. I crouched down and crossed my arms over my head and grimaced with my eyes squinted. (it looked very cool :uhyeah: ) I have since learned to turn that reaction to the stimulus of a looming anything near my head into a block. However, I can not rely on this reaction alone if fighting for my life, for the danger in the studio is only implied. 

So an important thing in terms of this type of conditioning is that the training or conditioning be as close to reality as is possible. For we know that we are not in actuality in grave danger in our daily training sessions, and it is the feeling of actual danger that brings out the reflexive response. Unless we test this in reality, which is to me foolish unless we are doing it as law officers and is a result of on the job necessity, we can not guarantee that our conditioning will override our strong internal reflexive reactions, but I do think that building on those reactions could increase the odds of a successful outcome, but based on everything I know about behavioral science, even this would need to be consistently trained. 

MJ :asian:


----------



## Doc (Aug 5, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Once again Doc that's a very thoughtful solution :asian: , since suppression of these reflexes is difficult and can be unreliable. In some ways, in some instances, many of us may incidentally do this, without having conceptualized it that way, as distelero may have inadvertently done. This can be seen in his explanation of seeing_ no distinction at times between the two reactions._ However, Doc, yours is a perfect example of the importance of understanding in greater detail the distinction between involultary and voluntary or learned behavior, which can further lead to purposeful manipulation for what may more likely be the desired or positive outcome. I like it a lot! [/color]
> 
> The first time my instructor surprise attacked me with a club I took a classic reflexive defensive posture. I was a brand new student and was shocked by the suddenness of the attack. I found my reaction curious - not realizing at the time it was a primitive instinct prompted by the looming club. I crouched down and crossed my arms over my head and grimaced with my eyes squinted. (it looked very cool :uhyeah: ) I have since learned to turn that reaction to the stimulus of a looming anything near my head into a block. However, I can not rely on this reaction alone if fighting for my life, for the danger in the studio is only implied.
> 
> ...


... as we do, and consistently recognize the importance of AST, "Adrenal Stress Training" once material has been properly internalized. I have often advocated this type of training, which I note is difficult for young and or emotionally fragil students to handle sometimes. Thus my selection process to eliminate students incapable of dealing with artificially induced external stress. Extending reactions beyond startle reflex, and then "hardening" those "learned reflex extensions" and synaptic pathways, (soft muscle memory) to the effects of an "Adrenal Dump" are a primary goal not everyone wants to experience. Everyone is capable, but not everyone will allow themselves to be subjected to the training.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 5, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> ... as we do, and consistently recognize the importance of AST, "Adrenal Stress Training" once material has been properly internalized. I have often advocated this type of training, which I note is difficult for young and or emotionally fragil students to handle sometimes. Thus my selection process to eliminate students incapable of dealing with artificially induced external stress. Extending reactions beyond startle reflex, and then "hardening" those "learned reflex extensions" and synaptic pathways, (soft muscle memory) to the effects of an "Adrenal Dump" are a primary goal not everyone wants to experience. Everyone is capable, but not everyone will allow themselves to be subjected to the training.


 Doc, a light bulb just went off. :idea:  I now better understand your concept of the "adrenal dump".  Thanks for the elaboration.  It makes more sense in this context to me.  It is understandable why some would not desire this type of training, but it seems it would be worthwhile for others to apply what they can, at the very least in terms of reality training, to their own routine.   

MJ :asian:


----------



## distalero (Aug 6, 2005)

Interesting stuff; goes to things I've observed in my time (Distalero is an aging critter). I would mention that there seem to be (I'm qualifying all the way through this and will defer to those more knowledgeable) basic responses superimposed over the most basic one: fight or flight (which for most of us not "at arms" usually occurs the other way around). Said a different way, there are apparent responses (reflexes?) that seem to belong to protection/fighting and which seem to be predicated on however unconsciously deciding to "stay there", and another response, which apparently comes before this: turning your back and running like hell. Turning your back as a response is less than perfect , but I've seen it, even when those backs were already against a wall. I think we, as MA practitioners, learn to suppress this as an initial response (admittedly it's not strong; the call to flight may break through if the stress goes on long enough). If there's a pause while the midbrain debates the issue, it's a very short and not particularly conscious one for us.


----------



## Doc (Aug 7, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff; goes to things I've observed in my time (Distalero is an aging critter). I would mention that there seem to be (I'm qualifying all the way through this and will defer to those more knowledgeable) basic responses superimposed over the most basic one: fight or flight (which for most of us not "at arms" usually occurs the other way around). Said a different way, there are apparent responses (reflexes?) that seem to belong to protection/fighting and which seem to be predicated on however unconsciously deciding to "stay there", and another response, which apparently comes before this: turning your back and running like hell. Turning your back as a response is less than perfect , but I've seen it, even when those backs were already against a wall. I think we, as MA practitioners, learn to suppress this as an initial response (admittedly it's not strong; the call to flight may break through if the stress goes on long enough). If there's a pause while the midbrain debates the issue, it's a very short and not particularly conscious one for us.


The key is to not confuse "response" with "reflex." How you respond to a given external stimulus will be AFTER the activation of the "Startle Reflex."


----------



## Doc (Aug 7, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Doc, a light bulb just went off. :idea:  I now better understand your concept of the "adrenal dump".  Thanks for the elaboration.  It makes more sense in this context to me.  It is understandable why some would not desire this type of training, but it seems it would be worthwhile for others to apply what they can, at the very least in terms of reality training, to their own routine.
> MJ :asian:


Here's the problem; The Adrenal Dump is a very real human physical reaction to externally induced stress factors. It can additionally be as much emotional (psychological) as it is physical. It is not about "will" or desire, nor can you train yourself to deal with it on a limited basis. You must pull the trigger all the way back and let it fly or you're not firing the gun. To do so would be akin to learning to swim on the internet and than expect that would be sufficient should you be pushed in deep rapidly moving water. The physical manesfistation of the "Adrenal Dump" is absolutely debilitating to anyone who has not "hardened" (or seasoned as Mr. Parker used to say) their synaptic pathways to its affects. You either "get wet" and learn to swim, or stand on dry land and pretend that you can swim. On the beach everyone is a great swimmer.


----------



## Jagdish (Aug 7, 2005)

Do profesional killers, special forces members and other types of soldiers go through any special training to avoid being influenced by the adrenal pump or it's a matter of practicing their craft? How come some of them seem to be emotionless?

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 7, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Here's the problem; The Adrenal Dump is a very real human physical reaction to externally induced stress factors. It can additionally be as much emotional (psychological) as it is physical. It is not about "will" or desire, nor can you train yourself to deal with it on a limited basis. You must pull the trigger all the way back and let it fly or you're not firing the gun. To do so would be akin to learning to swim on the internet and than expect that would be sufficient should you be pushed in deep rapidly moving water. The physical manesfistation of the "Adrenal Dump" is absolutely debilitating to anyone who has not "hardened" (or seasoned as Mr. Parker used to say) their synaptic pathways to its affects. You either "get wet" and learn to swim, or stand on dry land and pretend that you can swim. On the beach everyone is a great swimmer.


  The closest I can come to trying to really relate to what you describe in terms of the psychological component is my experience in solo skydiving (before the days of the tandem dive).  You can try to prepare yourself for every eventuality in the classroom, but it is not until you actually take the leap that you truly test your ability to function and cope in order to bring yourself back to safety.  In my instance, the preparation did not produce the dump but rather the on the job training did.  In the case of skydiving the dangers described to us in the classroom were serious and impressionable, but could never compare to the moment my chute failed to open properly in reality.  I'm not sure if anything could have prepared me to deal with _the feelings_ associated with that moment.  I can say from experience it is not for the faint of heart to experience this type of danger, but once I recovered from the initial shock of the moment I was able to utilize the knowledge I had learned in the classroom to rectify the situation.  

Can experiencing other types of stressful situations produce the same benefits as the reality of jumping in the deep end in learning to cope with and recover from the authentic feelings produced during a moment of _true danger_?


----------



## Jagdish (Aug 7, 2005)

Also can the adrenal pump be controlled or avoided?


----------



## Jagdish (Aug 7, 2005)

Can the adrenal pump be avoided? Can someone under external stress   perform or act just relaxed?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 8, 2005)

The prolonged stress response experienced by spec ops gents eventually leads to (and there's a running joke in psych about the number of syllables this syndrome has gained with each passing generation) shell shock/battle fatigue/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. As far as looking cool, well...after a spell, it becomes your high; your morning cup of coffee gets replaced with a stiff jolt of adrenaline, and you do eventually learn to think quite clearly under the influences of adrenaline. Matter of fact, you get so hooked on it, that you eventually can't think without it (or some chemical version of it). While it may seperate the men from the boys in the heat of combat when it comes to experiencing "battle glory" rush instead of "jitters", I would avoid seeking the state voluntarily.

Few people in life will be in prolonged, intense enough situations to become dependent on this bodily-manufactured drug. Don't envy those who are on high long enough to get hooked...living in the real world is never the same after returning from the edges. Make your training intense enough to not be surprised by the shakes and heart-in-throat thing if and when it happens, but dont get too out there with it. We aren't a warrior society anymore, and home hardly has a place for those challenged by the doldrums of daily life.

It'll be interesting to see what they rename the addiction/withdrawel syndrome this time, when our boys come back from the sands.

Regards,

D.


----------



## distalero (Aug 8, 2005)

Amen. In my mild example (and I had just a few experiences getting caught in the "stuff", because my primary MOS was a non combatant one (for what good THAT did)), the shakes came afterwards. Involuntary. So did another apparent reflex that hasn't been discussed here: involuntary loss of bladder control during the "event" (thinkin' this would be effective in sparring, though ). This all happened a long time ago but maybe it's this that causes me to accept that suppression of the initial flight response is worth considering as a learned response (at least an exposure) in MA; a subtlety maybe, but it's there.  Some didn't suppress it back then, and didn't end up well because of it (neither choice was a good one), which brings me to add something to the truth of your great post: surviving. Addiction to adrenaline may exist at the same time with survivor's guilt; it's a chemical payoff, but perhaps secondary in episodic reunion with probable death. So, what I've learned today...adrenal dump as a physiological response is just what your physiology does and it has to be addressed in training, can't be "avoided".  What I've known for a long time (and to add to the answer to Jagdish) the masks you see are just that, or even worse: permanent disability. As Doc mentions, the psychological effect is always there and also can't be avoided. This truth is why Hell has two big evil looking, but actually friendly dogs at the entrance, suggesting you walk away.


----------



## Dan G (Aug 8, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> The closest I can come to trying to really relate to what you describe in terms of the psychological component is my experience in solo skydiving (before the days of the tandem dive). You can try to prepare yourself for every eventuality in the classroom, but it is not until you actually take the leap that you truly test your ability to function and cope in order to bring yourself back to safety. In my instance, the preparation did not produce the dump but rather the on the job training did. In the case of skydiving the dangers described to us in the classroom were serious and impressionable, but could never compare to the moment my chute failed to open properly in reality. I'm not sure if anything could have prepared me to deal with _the feelings_ associated with that moment. I can say from experience it is not for the faint of heart to experience this type of danger, but once I recovered from the initial shock of the moment I was able to utilize the knowledge I had learned in the classroom to rectify the situation.
> 
> Can experiencing other types of stressful situations produce the same benefits as the reality of jumping in the deep end in learning to cope with and recover from the authentic feelings produced during a moment of _true danger_?


:asian: 

Hi MJ, it sounds like your experience is right up there at the extreme end, and I reckon your opinion is definitely worth listening to. What is your take on stress training/training for stress based on your experience?

respectfully 

Dan


----------



## Jagdish (Aug 9, 2005)

May some type of therapy help to recover the inner balance for the ones who are hooked to the adrenal pump?

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 9, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> May some type of therapy help to recover the inner balance for the ones who are hooked to the adrenal pump?
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Jagdish


EMDR has had some promising hints, but the jury is still out. Many will spend thousands of dollars and invest years in therapy. Net result? They will be better at articulating what bothers them, but still be hamstrung in life by the PTSD. 

"We either live as slaves to our addicitons, or servants to our commitments". They need to find something bigger than they, and surrender to living it.

D.


----------



## Jagdish (Aug 10, 2005)

Being a warrior is very difficult.


----------

