# The neutral bow



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 8, 2003)

I posted a reply to the thread started by Kenpogirl called "short form 3". The reply that I am talking about is on page two of that thread. Please go and read it as well as the response to it. It discusses the neutral bow. I was stunned when I read the response to my post in that how can two Kenpo practitioners have exactly opposite ideas of the body mechanics of the neutral bow. We also discuss the horse stance in the two posts. please post some comments about that as well. gettin to the question finally: how do you all teach the neutral bow with regard to body mechanics and correct anatomical allignent. Also how do you teach the horse stance. Do you use the horse stance with the idea in mind that you are isolating the upper body from the lower body and so on and so forth. 

I am very curious about this and I hope that it produces a long thread. I am not out to prove anyone wrong here. What works for one person may not work for another. I just want to know what you are all teaching. 

salute,
Mike Miller


----------



## Shodan (Aug 8, 2003)

On the neutral bow.......I was taught, and teach that it is a toe-heel alignment (front to back)- that is the width.  The depth is if you drop down your back knee, your knee should align with your front heel.  Your feet are angled as though on railroad tracks facing to 10 o'clock for a right neutral bow and 2 o'clock for a left.  We often teach the toe heel alignment by having people look at a line on the floor or by placing a staff on the floor and having them put one foot on either side.  Cracks in the sidewalk work too!!

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 8, 2003)

Shodan,

You teach it almost identically to the way we teach it. I was wondering how you teach the alignment of the Knees. Do you teach it so that the knees push outwrdly to put the weight on the outside of the foot or slightly inwardly to put the weight more on the inside of the foot. Or do yoou teach that the weight should be even accross the whole foot.

Thanks for the response,

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 8, 2003)

Yeah, I was bothered too--a fundamental difference, and thought that maybe I'm an idiot. So I ran through Short 3, and I looked it up. 

In vol. 2, "Physical Analyzation I," (I still say it's, "analysis," but I digress) of Ed Parker's "Infinite Insights," relevant stances are discussed on pages 53 and following. On the Horse stance (of which there are a lot in Short 3), we agree. The Fighting Horse (often, and properly, confused with a neutral bow) notes, p. 53, say, "your feet should be pigeon toed," as do the little feet at the bottom of the page. As for the Neutral Bow, page 62: "Knees are forced out," though of course the toes are more parallel. And in the Forward Bow, see page 66: "The position of the...{front} foot is the same position as when you are in a...Neutral Bow Stance."

I should also note that if you look at the accompanying pictures, there's no way in hell that these guys and gals have their weight on the insides of their feet...the instep's much too visible, and the outside edge of the feet slightly rolled under and out of view...and this is consistent throughout the books.

I do agree, however, that a black belt neutral bow looks pretty different from a white belt neutral bow, and that some of the difference has to do with weight distribution, as well as the angle of the back shoulder.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 8, 2003)

After your post I called my instructor and asked him how he originally learned the neutral bow. And he repeated almost verbatum the definition that you posted. His original instructor was John Sepulveda. He is now under the tutelage of Michael Robert Pick. He also told me that the neutral bow was strongly influenced by Japanese style stances and that forcing the knees out in the neutral bow started to fade over time. That is why some of the more advanced belts look different in the pictures. I tried it the way that you described it and I felt like it pulled my hip back a little to far changing the angle of my shoulders and taking my back hand further back and away from where I feel it should be and out of line from the attacker. But then again I have been doing it the way that I described It for more than ten years so my natural body mechanics want to reject it.  It also feels very much like a fighting horse simply cocked to the side slightly to get the toe heel alignment. I don't have any arguments as to your use and exacution of the fighting horse or as we call it the side horse. The side horse has the most depth of penatration such as in Thrusting Salute. 

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 8, 2003)

I guess it's just going to be one of those arguments...

First off, the folks in "Infinite Insights," are really rather advanced...I see of course that they're demonstrating what's ideal, but nonetheless...

Second, sure, a sophisticated neutral bow has a bit of that "starter's block," quality. Still, a) the weight just doesn't go on the inside of the feet, and the knees just don't tuck in; b) this would require an extra move before you could go forward; c) there're going to be problems if anybody falls on your knee for any reason, since the knee will necessarily get forced in on you; d) this gives kind of an odd weight distribution for punches and kicks...

Third...uh, a side horse does not afford more penetration with, say, the heel palm in Thrusting Salute...or in the thrusting heel-palms in Short Form 2...the point from Inf. Insights, in fact, is that the side horse allows you to "turtle up," a little more than the neutral bow, trading some striking quickness and depth for better armor...Moreover, if you'll look sideways in the mirror wwhile you're doing a step-through heel-palm, you'll see that the side horse gives you worse body alignment...not only will the heel-palm resemble a slap more than a thrust, but the diagonal line that should be created from the hand, to the hip, to the back foot (actually, the idea works the other way around, but you know what I mean) will be very much broken...

Fourth...I tend to exaggerate a bit, appropriately enough at my stage, but a neutral bow with the knees in would seem to make settling a tad difficult...

Last...I flipped through some stuff on t'ai chi and shaolin...and unless I'm hallucinating, always a possibility, the weight is pretty definitely on the outside of the feet...unless they're in some version of a concave stance...

Thanks for the discussion. It's a pleasure to argue without the silly name-calling.


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 8, 2003)

quote: Originally posted by rmcrobertson 
Uh... try dropping somebody big on your knee with your knees in and your weight on the inside of your feet...or on second thought, really really don't do that.  


I have and I don't have any problems. Such as in Back Breaker. I would be willing to bet that if we took pictures of ourseleves in our neutral bows they would not look much different. They would just feel a little different. You might be picturing the stance the way that I do it in an exagerated fashion. It is not as if I trying to touch my knees together. It is simply that as I let my weight settle into the stance my knees tend to go more twords my big toe versus my pinky toes. Vice versa as well, I might be picturing you over exagerating the way that you do it. 

quote: _I don't quite know what to tell you about this. I did look it up, as I mentioned in the other thread you started. I agree with the modification of stances as you advance, but... [/B] 


There is no need to tell me anything it is just making for a good thread I think. 

quote: I really kinda hate the status game, but uh...well...since you mentioned it, I'm a little further along (not much), and I train at Larry Tatum's in Pasadena. [/B] 


I was not trying to play a status game at all. I was merely getting to the point that we are both in similar places in our Kenpo Journey as far as rank goes and how I came to that conclusion was based on the forms you mentioned and when I learned them with relation to rank. 

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF_


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I guess it's just going to be one of those arguments...
> 
> First off, the folks in "Infinite Insights," are really rather advanced...I see of course that they're demonstrating what's ideal, but nonetheless...*



No argument there...




> _Second, sure, a sophisticated neutral bow has a bit of that "starter's block," quality. Still, a) the weight just doesn't go on the inside of the feet, and the knees just don't tuck in; b) this would require an extra move before you could go forward; c) there're going to be problems if anybody falls on your knee for any reason, since the knee will necessarily get forced in on you; d) this gives kind of an odd weight distribution for punches and kicks...[/B]_


_

I kid you not, but I feel that I could say the exact same thing about putting the weight over the outside of the foot. This engages you flexer muscles more than your extensor muscles. Before you can move in any direction you have to engage the extenser muscles. This is why I feel that having your weight to the outside requires an extra movement before moving in any direction. As far as some one falling on my knee that is a matter of from which angle a person fell on it from. A knee is a vulnerable target on anybody if you take advantage of the proper angle. I have had people fall on my knee while sparring and not had a problem but I bet you could say the exact same thing. No problems in the punching and kicking department either.    




Third...uh, a side horse does not afford more penetration with, say, the heel palm in Thrusting Salute...or in the thrusting heel-palms in Short Form 2...the point from Inf. Insights, in fact, is that the side horse allows you to "turtle up," a little more than the neutral bow, trading some striking quickness and depth for better armor...Moreover, if you'll look sideways in the mirror wwhile you're doing a step-through heel-palm, you'll see that the side horse gives you worse body alignment...not only will the heel-palm resemble a slap more than a thrust, but the diagonal line that should be created from the hand, to the hip, to the back foot (actually, the idea works the other way around, but you know what I mean) will be very much broken...[/B]

Click to expand...



I have to disagree wih you on the penatration of a strike in the side horse as compared to the neutral bow. In the neutral bow your front foot and your hip are on the upside of the circle and as apposed to its apex. You are striking off your centerline which is your soloplexis or you rheel toe alignment. Your shoulder is also on the upside of the circle yet you are striking to the apex of the circle. When you move up the circle into a side horse evreythying comes into alignment. Your foot, your hip, your shoulder and your strike are all at the apex of the circle thus giving you maximum penatration. A similar thing happens when you rotate from a nuetral bow to a forward bow. Your heel on your back foot is at the apex of the backside of the circle (the furthest thing on your body from your apponent) if you stay in a neutral bow and try and strike with your back hand it will not reach as far as your front hand. As you rotate into the forward bow your back foot moves up the circle as well as you hip and back shoulder giving you the penatration needed to strike your apponent. transversely your front shoulder moves slightly down the other side of the circle.       




Fourth...I tend to exaggerate a bit, appropriately enough at my stage, but a neutral bow with the knees in would seem to make settling a tad difficult...[/B]

Click to expand...



I pretty much said this exact same thing about me in a prior post. 

Salute,
Mike Miller_


----------



## kenmpoka (Aug 8, 2003)

your weight must be distributed evenly on the whole foot. Not inward and not outward. To push your weight inward puts your knees in a vulnerable position and to push your weight outward, cups your feet and weakens your ankles. In my opinion, as the name implies, everything must be in a neutral position. No pulls or tention in any direction to facilitate movements.

Salute,


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 8, 2003)

Uh... wow. Please look at the illustrations in "Infinite Insights."

Moderation and modification in all things, but this ain't correct. Frankly--this is looking to me like justification for sloppy stance-work.

But we'll see.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 9, 2003)

FYI, we don't work the fighting horse as it is a too defensive stance for fighting and doesn't allow for a quick transition into an attacking stance and doesn't flow as easily as a neutral.

And if you want greater power and strenght with your rear weapons, we do the transition from neutral to forward bow, thus adding the power from the lower body and that extra penetration needed to get to the opponent. Easy and simple!

Kenpo2dabone, please explain to me how is it that you have more penetration with the back hand or foot with a side horse than with a neutral, wiouth changing into another stance, as you stated with the neutral to forward change. I'll appreciate it very much 

By the way, we do the neutral with the toe-heel alignment  to 1:30 or 10:30, while facing 12:00. Feet shoulder lenght apart and weight 50/50 with knees flexed and back straight.


----------



## MJS (Aug 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Shodan _
> *On the neutral bow.......I was taught, and teach that it is a toe-heel alignment (front to back)- that is the width.  The depth is if you drop down your back knee, your knee should align with your front heel.  Your feet are angled as though on railroad tracks facing to 10 o'clock for a right neutral bow and 2 o'clock for a left.  We often teach the toe heel alignment by having people look at a line on the floor or by placing a staff on the floor and having them put one foot on either side.  Cracks in the sidewalk work too!!
> 
> :asian:  :karate: *



I was taught the same way also.  As for the movement, I would think that you would not want to be to "set" in your stance as its going to make it harder to move. As far as the weight goes, I was taught the neutral bow as being 50-50.

Mike


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Aug 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *
> 
> Kenpo2dabone, please explain to me how is it that you have more penetration with the back hand or foot with a side horse than with a neutral, wiouth changing into another stance, as you stated with the neutral to forward change. I'll appreciate it very much  *



I was not making any referance to the back hand at all when in the side horse. The side horse basically nulls the use of the back hand and foot as you would have to go around your own body to use those weapons from the side horse. What I was making referance to is the extra penatration of the front hand by moveing up the circle in the side horse as apposed to the penetration of the fron hand in the neutral bow. When I made reference to the forward bow I was talking about the back foot rotating up the circle to allow the back hand the proper amount of penatration to strike the target. So what I was comparing, and I should have been more clear on that, is that when you move up the circle you close the gap between you and your attaacker giving you better penetration and no stance has more penetration than the side horse. I also should add that I don't use the side horse very often but it definitely has its place and purpose. I hope that clears up what I was saying kenpomachine if not then shoot me an e-mail and I will try and break it down further. 

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## Kenpomachine (Aug 10, 2003)

Thanks for your reply. Now I understand what you were talking about. I thought I must have gotten confused by you talking first about the front hand and then then back hand, but not specifying it. Now it's clear and fits with the image I have of a side horse and the relative position of hands.

:asian:


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Aug 10, 2003)

When I was taught the N. Bow, it was explained as the Heel-Toe, 45 degree, length of the Tib/Fib portion of your leg, and all that jazz.  The weight dist. was 50-50 all the way across the board including left/right leg and the ball/heel of the foot.  However, what I have been taught, for some time now, is that you use a modified N. Bow (heel up) while manuevering as it allows you to be a lot quicker than the Traditional N. Bow.  You can also strike from the Modified Neutral Bow, but it requires good mechanics so you don't bounce of your target.  You can easily drop the back heel to provide your bracing angle if you really want to blast the guy, but it isn't always necessary and in most cases you can get by with the heel up if your targeting is good.  

You don't always need a 4 mega-ton explosion to blow up an enemy tank, but it's always nice to know it's there if you do.


----------



## kevin kilroe (Aug 10, 2003)

Mr. Wedlake said in a seminar last month that Mr. Parkers neutral bom looked like his knees were inward on his neutral bow because he was so relaxed until it was time to strike. Stances are just frozen transitions and strikes are just pauses in relaxation.

full salute

kevin kilroe


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 10, 2003)

It may have looked that way, sure...at his level, he often doesn't seem to have bothered with the formalities...but beyond the fact that that's not where we're at, I can guarantee that his weight wasn't on the insides of his feet unless he was in a concave stance.


----------

