# Impact adjustments/Bracing angles



## dcence (Sep 9, 2003)

This might be a spin-off of the Scraping Hoof thread, but how many of you practice impact adjustments when teaching/working a grab technique.  By that I mean, an attacker grabbing you usually hits you with some momentum when he grabs you, and you have to be able to adjust to that in your first move.  For example, any of the rear bear-hug type holds.  Many of them teach you to step out to a horse stance.  If the attacker has any significant momentum forward, which I am sure he will, if you step out to the side, you can end up on your face because of the absence of a bracing angle.  Do you practice this way, actually stepping to create a bracing angle to adjust for that momentum?  Are there other ways that you account for or adjust to such impact/momentum?

Another example is  Raking Mace, where the attacher grabs you from the front and then pulls you back toward them.  Well, first the momentum of him stepping  toward you and him putting his hands on you (rather forcefully) before pulling back naturally drives you backwards.  Do you step back with it  to brace against the initial impact of the attack?  If you don't are you at a risk of them not pulling in, but rather continuing to drive you back, and if you don't initially step back, you will end up on your back?  What else might you do to account for the initial impact toward 6:00 before the pull to 12:00?  You don't really know he is going  to pull back until he  actually starts pulling back, as opposed to keep moving forward.

Let me make a suggestion, practice some of those techniques, and have the attacker be a little more aggressive on the grab actually driving into you a little with his grab.  See what adjustments you have to make on where you step first.


----------



## kenpo12 (Sep 9, 2003)

If you've ever had Clyde grab ya for a technique you've trained that way.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 9, 2003)

The adjustment you wold want to make is to step of the line off momentum so that you end up facing his weakest base of support; so, In the next beat any force you offer, either pulling or pushing, will cause him to have to readjust be it Clyde or not.


----------



## dcence (Sep 10, 2003)

> The adjustment you wold want to make is to step of the line off momentum so that you end up facing his weakest base of support; so, In the next beat any force you offer, either pulling or pushing, will cause him to have to readjust be it Clyde or not.



I certainly agree with stepping of the line of attack (momentum) for a strike, but I am not sure I understand your thought in reference to a grab, which is what I am talking about.  If someone grabs you and the force of his grab compels you to move, I think you would actually step directly on the line of attack (momentum) so as to create a  bracing angle.

For example, in Crashing Wing, if the attacker has any momentum forward, which he probably will have, then it wouldn't make sense to step of the line of attack out to 3:00, but instead to step forward to go with the momentum and create a structurally sound bracing angle before doing the rest of the technique.  Stepping to a horse directly to either side with someone grabbing from behind with significant forward momemtum will cause you to face plant forward.

I  just think it is naive to think someone comes up to you, grabs you and just stands there, even if they are holding you for someone.  Instead, there is usually force applied in at least one direction, sometimes more.

I consider this a part of the purposeful compliance/defiance concept.  If someone grabs you and his force pushes you that way, comply (by stepping that way and create a bracing angle) then defy (by using the bracing angle for the rest of your technique). 

We do this for Thrusting  Prongs by stepping back in a front bear hug attack, but not with the rear bear hugs?  Why not?  I can't think off the top of my head of any rear bear hug attacks that have you step forward to account for an attacker's momentum.  There's Squeezing in which you step back, but I think it is more likely that the momentum of the attack will drive you forward, not pull you back.


----------



## pete (Sep 10, 2003)

when the attackers momentum begins to push you over, the force is being applied to your upper body.  therefore, you would still establish a sturdy foundation, or become rooted, by dropping your weight into a horse stance.  your lower body is not being threatened at this time.  You would then yield to the force with your upper body, so if it is enough to put you on your face, your attacker would be thrown off balance... not you.  How the force is applied by the attacker may dictate whether to yield by stepping out left or right.  our kenpo techniques are geared toward right-handedness, so we learn the attacker facing our back is right handed, exerting force from the right side, thereby we learn to yield by stepping left.  

i also agree that although we do train by posing the attacks with different intents and angles, we do far to little of it.  one problem i see is we work the techniques most when we are first learning it and must concentrate on a basic attack to understand the movements.  by the time we are ready to experiment with these variables, everyone is learning new techniques for their new belt level!


----------



## Blindside (Sep 10, 2003)

> when the attackers momentum begins to push you over, the force is being applied to your upper body. therefore, you would still establish a sturdy foundation, or become rooted, by dropping your weight into a horse stance.



Hi Pete,

Do you mean a horse stance on the 3/9:00 plane or 12/6:00 plane?  (Assuming that the attack is coming from 12:00.)

Thanks,

Lamont


----------



## FiveSwords (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pete _
> *when the attackers momentum begins to push you over, the force is being applied to your upper body.  therefore, you would still establish a sturdy foundation, or become rooted, by dropping your weight into a horse stance.  your lower body is not being threatened at this time.  You would then yield to the force with your upper body, so if it is enough to put you on your face, your attacker would be thrown off balance... not you. *



I have to disagree.

Assuming you're facing 12 and the attacker approaches from 6, this would put the force vector from 6 to 12.  Going to a horse on the 3-9 line provides no additional support against a force on the 12-6 line.

It's the same concept as trying to block a vertical strike with a vertical block or a horizontal strike with a horizontal block.  If the force of the strike is coming up (6 to 12), to block it you must counter it with a force in the opposite direction (12 to 6).  Applying a 3 to 9 force against a 6 to 12 attack will only slightly alter the direction of the attack, not nullify it.

Thusly, with enough force, you go sprawling onto your face, which is not my idea of a good time.   

Just my $.02.  :asian:


----------



## pete (Sep 10, 2003)

3/9:00 if possible.  

if the attackers force is sudden and you are physically moved to the 12/6:00 position, so be it... the attacker will now be at 3 or 9, so its really the same thing.  if the attacker is still exerting force on your upper body, yielding to the force by stepping out with the leg opposite the predominant side of the force, relaxing the back and shoulders, and rotating the hips slightly in the direction of the force will cause him to be uprooted and puts yoruself in position to execute rest the technique.

you just don't want to "carry" the attacker into a position for the sake of being there.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 10, 2003)

> 3/9:00 if possible.
> 
> if the attackers force is sudden and you are physically moved to the 12/6:00 position, so be it... the attacker will now be at 3 or 9, so its really the same thing. if the attacker is still exerting force on your upper body, yielding to the force by stepping out with the leg opposite the predominant side of the force, relaxing the back and shoulders, and rotating the hips slightly in the direction of the force will cause him to be uprooted and puts yoruself in position to execute rest the technique.
> 
> you just don't want to "carry" the attacker into a position for the sake of being there.



I totally disagree.  Maybe it's just that I'm not understanding what it is that you are describing.  I'm about 5'9" 175 lbs and I get thrown forward when someone smaller than me does this grab.  If I don't step forward with the momentum then I will end up unconcious on the ground (on my face), or find myself groundfighting with an opponent who already has my back (a very bad situation to be in).   

If you don't believe me, have someone stand behind you and push you forward right below your scapulas.  Make sure they don't tell you before each push, but just in a random manner have them push you.  See if you can step into your horse stance then, or if you find yourself stepping forward to compensate.
Next play with a forceful grab.  You don't have to do the technique just the step, if what you say is true then you should be fine.


----------



## pete (Sep 10, 2003)

countering the force of the attacker with a force from the opposite direction pits force against force, where the physically stronger will win.   I prefer to stack the odds a bit more in my favor!

with enough sudden force from the rear, like a linebacker is  tackle you by surprised, you are likely to go sprawling on you face regardless, and that leads to ground fighting, and i ain't going there! 

we're talking here about a rear bear hug where force being is applied to push you forward.

let me be clear, i'm not saying your "wrong", cause if your built like a tree trunk and have the fortune of a smaller weaker attacker, you can brace, resist, and win.


----------



## dcence (Sep 10, 2003)

> when the attackers momentum begins to push you over, the force is being applied to your upper body. therefore, you would still establish a sturdy foundation, or become rooted, by dropping your weight into a horse stance. your lower body is not being threatened at this time.



I  would tend to somewhat disagree as the upper body is connected to the lower body, and force to the upper will disturb the lower.

To me it about establishing a foundation in the right place at the right time.  Stepping to 3:00 or 9:00 with force being applied from 6:00 line seems shaky.

I don't think the answer is in  stepping all the way to 12:00 (assuming force from 6:00), but I like to step to the diagonal (say 10:30) to cause an angle of disturbance.   Instead of force hitting a brick wall (by stepping to 12:00), it is more like glancing off a guardrail, where you don't take the full impact of the force.   Try stepping to the diagonal with any of your rear bear hug attacks (with the attacker actually applying forward force).   I  like the way the angle disturbs the attacker without you having to absorb 100% of the momentum.



> i also agree that although we do train by posing the attacks with different intents and angles, we do far to little of it. one problem i see is we work the techniques most when we are first learning it and must concentrate on a basic attack to understand the movements. by the time we are ready to experiment with these variables, everyone is learning new techniques for their new belt level!



This, Pete, I agree wholeheartedly with.  At one point, I was more interested in learning the next technique before really thinking about the one I just learned.  That is natural I think at an early level.   Some never get out of that mode though.   My instructor calls these people "collectors", who want to collect and archive all kinds of moves and techniques and forms for the sake of the collection, not the knowledge they contain.

Just thoughts that I appreciate bouncing off others.

Thanks for helping


----------



## pete (Sep 10, 2003)

good dialogue!   we both agree to yield rather than resist.  

my example is based on the premise of a predominant side, usually learned as coming from the right side of the attacker, appying force with a rear bear hug.  if the force is weighted towards the right side, then by stepping to 3:00, dropping your weight, and yielding the upper body with the attack force (from a slight hip rotation), the attackers own force will cause him to be uprooted, allowing you to execute the technique.  

this is where we disagree; that the upper body can yield while the lower body remains rooted.  fair enough!  i make the visual comparison to a tree, where the roots go deep and remain stationary while the branches and leaves yield to the forces of nature.

by the way... i like the term "collector"


----------



## KenpoTess (Oct 25, 2005)

reviving for the newer members.


----------



## MJS (Oct 25, 2005)

Another technique where its important to apply the adjustments/angles would be Striking Serpents Head.  The idea of a bearhug is not just for control, but to pick you up and/or throw you.  Stepping back is going to buy some time to apply your follow up strikes.  In addition, its important to keep space between your hips and theirs.  Placing your hands on their hips will also buy you some time.

Mike


----------



## Seabrook (Oct 25, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Another technique where its important to apply the adjustments/angles would be Striking Serpents Head. The idea of a bearhug is not just for control, but to pick you up and/or throw you. Stepping back is going to buy some time to apply your follow up strikes. In addition, its important to keep space between your hips and theirs. Placing your hands on their hips will also buy you some time.
> 
> Mike


 
The importance of the neutral bow as we step back in this technique is also critical for stability and balance. 


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 25, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> The importance of the neutral bow as we step back in this technique is also critical for stability and balance.
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


 
Are you sre that a forward bow would not provide a better brace and prevent you from going back further? Just a question


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 26, 2005)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Are you sure that a forward bow would not provide a better brace and prevent you from going back further? Just a question


 
With a F/B you are anchoring your self. Don't you think so?:uhyeah: 

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 26, 2005)

Hi Jagdish,

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here please explain further.

Amrik


----------



## Seabrook (Oct 26, 2005)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Are you sre that a forward bow would not provide a better brace and prevent you from going back further? Just a question


 
You will end up in section k, row 118, if you use a forward bow. There is a reason why it has to be a neutral in Striking Serpent's Head, and a forward bow in Thrusting Prongs. It has to do with the catalyst.

Clyde O'Briant covered this topic remarkably well at his seminars in PA a few weeks ago. 


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 26, 2005)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Hi Jagdish,
> 
> I don't understand what you are trying to get at here please explain further.
> 
> Amrik


 
Amrik:

Sorry, for my partial answer. 

The F/B is better used when someone is pulling us from the front while the neutral is better when someone pulls us from the the back shoulder but we are also facing him. I haven't  mentioned any particular technique.

Now, in a different case:In trusting prongs i use F/B because you anchor
yourself so you are more difficult to move.Getting back into a F/B is difficult but it teach you to root. I do it like i am dropping so it's looks like i am slipping back but in reality i'm not.

Re:Using the N/B depends on the your N/B. there many ways of doing it.

What do you think,Amrik?

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 26, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> You will end up in section k, row 118, if you use a forward bow. There is a reason why it has to be a neutral in Striking Serpent's Head, and a forward bow in Thrusting Prongs. It has to do with the catalyst.
> 
> Clyde O'Briant covered this topic remarkably well at his seminars in PA a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Jamie but I am afraid that I have to disagree here, the intent of the attack is all important as I'm sure you would agree with me.

The bear hug grab from the front would cause some initial motion backwards for the defender providing of course the attack is done with intent, to simply allow someone to grab you from the front either implies you trust the person and it's done in fun or in my humble opinion not realistic.

Therefore assuming that we are being forced back a forward stance would certainly stop the backwards motion but I fear not the neutral stance (unless of course some other mechanisms were applied), I'll let Doc jump in if he so wishes.

I am not sure of the term catalyst it is something that I have not heard used before could you explain further please.


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 26, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Amrik:
> 
> Sorry, for my partial answer.
> 
> The F/B is better used when someone is pulling us from the front while the neutral is better when someone pulls us from the the back shoulder but we are also facing him. I haven't mentioned any particular technique.


 
No apology neccesary my friend.

I am afraid that I can't quite see this try it yourself get someone to pull you from the front and continue the pull will the forward bow stop you moving forward I think not will a neutral stance again I think not although it will be more resistant than the forward bow.

As for your second part I can't see how someone can be pulling you from behind and you are facing them maybe it's cos it's late 

good discussion by the way to all


----------



## Doc (Oct 27, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Amrik:
> 
> Sorry, for my partial answer.
> 
> ...


Incorrect as I understand it.


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 27, 2005)

Can you point out which part. I have read/ written all this late night so i am afraid i might i haven't follow the discussion properly.

Thanks.

Jagdish


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 27, 2005)

Someone pulling you hair from the front: you use a  F/B.

Someone Neck Grab :you use a N/B.


----------



## Seabrook (Oct 27, 2005)

In Striking Serpent's Head, the catalyst is a HIGH tackle. If you try a forward bow, it won't give you the same brace as a neutral bow and you will be driven back.

Conversely, in Thrusting Prongs, the bear hug is applied LOW. In this situation, a forward bow gives you the brace. Try the same thing in a neutral bow, and once again, you will going for a ride....all the way to the ground.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 27, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> In Striking Serpent's Head, the catalyst is a HIGH tackle. If you try a forward bow, it won't give you the same brace as a neutral bow and you will be driven back.
> 
> Conversely, in Thrusting Prongs, the bear hug is applied LOW. In this situation, a forward bow gives you the brace. Try the same thing in a neutral bow, and once again, you will going for a ride....all the way to the ground.
> 
> ...


Mr. Seabrook, I have a question about this.  

I understand your use of stances in terms of where on the body the pressure is applied.  I am fuzzy on the rationale for the TYPE of attack.  A low tackle as you reference in Thrusting Prongs is less likely to pin the hands.  My understanding of that attack, is that it ideally is against a Front Bear hug, arms pinned.  The intitial strike, does create a gap, but it also forces the opponent to put you back down on the ground if he is in the process of trying to pick you up.  The stance and drop make it much more difficult to pick you up at all if you settle correctly and are not suspending your own weight for him and are in the process of anchoring thier right arm following the prongs.

My problem with Striking Serpent's Head is that in the ideal, I see it as almost a close range shooting attack to the waist.  Why else would your arms be free?  They certainly would not be if it is a HIGH bear hug.  

Just some thoughts.

-Michael


----------



## jonah2 (Oct 27, 2005)

Mr Billings / Mr Seabrook,

My thoughts on the nature of the two attacks are along the lines of Mr Billings post.

My feelings regarding the use of a forward bow in thrusting prongs is because the bear hug (arms pinned) is an almost impossible attack to drop into a neutral bow as this will require a turning of the torso and hips. Not easy when the intent is a squeeze and lift. The forward bow however only requires the lowering of height and mass combined with the prongs releases the grip his ability to lift you (his intent)

jonah


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 27, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> Mr Billings / Mr Seabrook,
> 
> My feelings regarding the use of a forward bow in thrusting prongs is because *the bear hug (arms pinned) is an almost impossible attack to drop into a neutral bow* as this will require a turning of the torso and hips. Not easy when the intent is a squeeze and lift. The forward bow however only requires the lowering of height and mass combined with the prongs releases the grip his ability to lift you (his intent)
> 
> ...


 
Yes, i see the problem the same way.

...but is the F/B the only stance that can be used with maximal efficiency in this case?

Jagdish


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 27, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> In Striking Serpent's Head, the catalyst is a HIGH tackle. If you try a forward bow, it won't give you the same brace as a neutral bow and you will be driven back.
> 
> Conversely, in Thrusting Prongs, the bear hug is applied LOW. In this situation, a forward bow gives you the brace. Try the same thing in a neutral bow, and once again, you will going for a ride....all the way to the ground.
> 
> ...


 
Mr Seabrook,

I have to agree with Mr Billings on this. However further the definition of the word catalyst implies that it causes something to happen so for example the high attack in STSH which in my opinion is a bear hug from close range shooting towards you which causes the opponents head to be high is the catalyts moving into a neutral bow with any speed would cause a rotational force and give the opponent borrowed force which in turn would certainly push you onto your backside if not propel you backwards.

whereas a forward bow stance would certainly provide a body check to your opponent a good brace with the rear foot in this stance especially if you settle you weight quickly and ground your stance.

Having said that you may have to make some adjusting steps before the forward bow is reached but when reached it will enable you to have survived the attack which is all imporant. However trying to achieve a neutral stance in either of the techniques would most certainly end in you not surviving.

Shame we are so far away from each other as I believe it would be interesting for both of us to chat and train together.

Amrik


----------



## Bode (Oct 27, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> There is a reason why it has to be a neutral in Striking Serpent's Head, and a forward bow in Thrusting Prongs. It has to do with the catalyst.


 By catalyst do you mean the attack? Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences. 



			
				Jagdish said:
			
		

> Using the N/B depends on the your N/B. there many ways of doing it.


 I could not disagree more. We are subject to physics just like everyone else. Human anatomy dictates the existence of an optimal Neutral Bow. There are a few exceptions with people who have unusual lower carriages, but they are few. There are many way's of doing a neutral bow, but only one correct way.



			
				Jagdish said:
			
		

> Someone pulling you hair from the front: you use a  F/B.
> Someone Neck Grab :you use a N/B.


 Forward bows are not intended to be used as a strong stance for a long duration. When someone is pulling your hair ("Cluthing Feathers" if you have that tech) the forward bow should be considered transitionary. The FB sets up the hips to allow for torque into a NB (which is a structurally superior stance). In addition, as I mention below, there are many other factors which come into play that utilize the initial step into a forward bow. Everything matters and simply saying, "If someone grabs your hair, use a forward bow..." is a bit to simplistic. 



> My feelings regarding the use of a forward bow in thrusting prongs is because the bear hug (arms pinned) is an almost impossible attack to drop into a neutral bow as this will require a turning of the torso and hips. Not easy when the intent is a squeeze and lift. The forward bow however only requires the lowering of height and mass combined with the prongs releases the grip his ability to lift you (his intent)


I agree. To be clear, I think the problem is that everyone has discussed the end stance without discussing how they ARRIVED at said stance. Basics dictates that we perform a forward bow as a transitionary movement into a neutral bow. In addition, the STANCE is NOT the only mechanism which creates the ability to not be pushed into "row k, seat 121." Concentrating on the stance in this situation without discussing the other mechanisms doesn't do anyone justice. I guarantee Clyde's interpretation involves more than just a solid NB or FB.


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 27, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> There are many way's of doing a neutral bow, but only one correct way.


That's what i meant.



			
				Bode said:
			
		

> 1.-Forward bows are not intended to be used as a strong stance for a long duration. When someone is pulling your hair ("Cluthing Feathers" if you have that tech) the forward bow should be considered transitionary.
> 
> 
> 2.-The FB sets up the hips to allow for torque into a NB (which is a structurally superior stance). In addition, as I mention below, there are many other factors which come into play that utilize the initial step into a forward bow. Everything matters and simply saying, "If someone grabs your hair, use a forward bow..." is a bit to simplistic.


 
1.-Yes in that technique you are using it a F/B and really aware of helping to set up the hips for torque into a NB. Not everybody starts that way.

I thought all stances were transitionary.

2.-I know everything matters. What would be we doing if the attacker grabbed our hair and we were standing with both feet even. I don't think i would be going back i a forward bow. There are other elements to enhance your rooting from your starting position. I don't know if these elements are present in EPAK but i know them from other systems.

My answer was intended to clarify something to Amrik as my previous answers were shorty. 

The head is something missed sometimes in bracing yourself.

Also we must also consider in which direction is the opponent pulling the hair: to 12:00,11:00,13:00,...

Why do you think a neutral bow is structurally superior?


Yours,

Jagdish

P.S:Sorry for my poor explanations in this thread.   .I am really embarrased.


----------



## pete (Oct 27, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences.


 
pinning the arms is significant, since there is little use in pinning the arms above the elbows.  to be effective, the pin would occur below the elbow, at the forearm making the force of the 'bear hug' directed low, at the hips.  the bracing angle against a force applied at the hips is the F-bow (Thursting Prongs)

arms free, the can be either low at the hip area OR higher at the chest.  if it is up high you'd brace with a N-bow.  if the attacker is right handed, he's probably got his right shoulder in your chest and his chin tucked and head turned to the left creating target for that left backknuckle to come whipping around (Striking Serpents Head)

if the 'arms pinned' attack is up high (above the elbows) you can answer with Parting Wings or Hooking Wings coming up from the inside or outside to open him up, but still be in the N-bow.

if the 'arms free' attack is low, you'd still brace with the F-bow and can then drop an elbow to his back (Intercepting the Ram)

i was also at clyde's seminar in PA, and along with jamie i 'felt' the difference~

pete


----------



## Seabrook (Oct 27, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> By catalyst do you mean the attack? Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences.


 
I see Striking Serpent's Head for a high tackle, whereas in Thrusting Prongs the opponent is attacking us low. The low attempted bear hug necessitates the forward bow to stop the opponent from driving us back. 

About Striking Serpent's Head. Yes, the technique is written for a front bear hug, arms free. But really, who is going to grab us in a front bear hug and just stand there? In reality, the attacker will try to drive us back, and the neutral bow prevents us from being driven into a wall, object, taken to the ground, or what have you. Done from a forward bow, we are not going to be able to stop him.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## pete (Oct 27, 2005)

hey jamie... that 'strange thing' seems to be happening again.  donna told me you called, try me again over the weekend, after dinner, i'll be home~  pete.


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 27, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> I see Striking Serpent's Head for a high tackle, whereas in Thrusting Prongs the opponent is attacking us low. The low attempted bear hug necessitates the forward bow to stop the opponent from driving us back.
> 
> About Striking Serpent's Head. Yes, the technique is written for a front bear hug, arms free. But really, who is going to grab us in a front bear hug and just stand there? In reality, the attacker will try to drive us back, and the neutral bow prevents us from being driven into a wall, object, taken to the ground, or what have you. Done from a forward bow, we are not going to be able to stop him.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Mr Seabrook,

Have you actually tested this where the attacker does continue the drive back and where you as the defender have to make adjusting steps to try and reach the stance you require.

Please do so and let me know your results I have tested this on my girlfriend and training partner here who is some 80 to 90 pounds lighter than me and she can resist the push back with a forward stance rather than a neutral stance.

Just some thoughts of my own I find this discussion very interesting.

Amrik


----------



## Bode (Oct 27, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> That's what i meant.


Gotcha. Internet boards are difficult as you don't want to say too much, but you also don't want to say too little. 



			
				Jagdish said:
			
		

> There are other elements to enhance your rooting from your starting position. I don't know if these elements are present in EPAK but i know them from other systems.


I agree. There are many other ways to root. They are present in some teachers EPAK, but definetly not all. It's less about EPAK and more about the quality of the teacher. 



> I thought all stances were transitionary.


Some truth to that statement. Even in a NB we are always making adjustments to stay in alignment (For SL4 we use PAM's, BAMs, etc...) However, we do remain in the stance for our defensive posture. The FB is different. It is used primarily to generate torque and momentary stability from a frontal attack. 



			
				Jagdish said:
			
		

> Why do you think a neutral bow is structurally superior?


Because of the relation of the shoulders to the hips and hips to the feet. This creates a posture which is less likely to dissaassociate the upper carriage from the lower. I.E. you are less likely to bend at the waste. The angle of the body in relation to the attacker also acts as a bracing angle better than that of a FB.



			
				Seabrook said:
			
		

> The low attempted bear hug necessitates the forward bow to stop the opponent from driving us back.


Depends on what you do before the forward bow. It is unlikely you could stop someone dead in their tracks by stepping back into a forward bow. I would venture to say impossible unless their was a large discrepency in weight. 
I mentioned that what you do before the FB was important. In this instance you must take additional steps prior to stepping back into the forward bow. Perhaps step with the right leg, then left leg back into the forward bow. The attacker smacks into you and you take a quick step back. This forces him to almost fall forward after you, thus misaligning him. The misalignment and his sudden lunge forward (due to you stepping back) will allow you to take your left foot back into the forward bow. Just dropping into a forward bow will not work for most people. I just don't see it. 
I agree a forward bow, temporarily, is optimal for Thrusting Prongs. I would argue that you can do the same for STSH assuming you take initial steps to misalign your attacker. In addition to certain other misaligning movements and placement of your hands (more detail than I would like to go into right now), you will not end up in "row k, seat 121." I realize not every kenpo school does the technique the same way, so we might just have to chalk this up to differing techniques. Don't we all, after all, believe our way is the most optimal!


----------



## Doc (Oct 27, 2005)

Somehow the real question of this string has gotten lost by some. While I was pleased to see the question of "adjusting to the impact' of a bear hug asked, only a couple of people seemed interested in addressing the issue. Most focused on the validity of different stances in different high/low, arms pinned/unpinned, Parting Wings/Thusting Prongs irrelevant scenarios. Some even confused the issue by injecting "pulling" into the equation, and although it is definitely an issue to be explored, it is not a part of the question of dealing with the "Body Momentum" of a "Mugger Hugger" attack, and the resulting Bracing Angle" necessary to "Survive the Initial Assault."

The reality is both the neutral and forward bow have efficacy, however the real question is how you deal with the initial impact and momentum. Regardless of choice of stance, it occurs AFTER the fact. Anytime someone expeditiously attacks you, inertia of their mass is a major factor. In a punching or striking scenario, this is obvious. However, it is often overlooked, or is less obvious to the non street indoctrinated in "seizing" scenarios. This is not surprising considering most are taught to avoid this factor even in "pushing" scenarios where the very attack describes the act itself.

Also there seems to be a focus on a frontal attack, and the reality of techniques like "Captured Twigs" suggests the problem needs to be addressed in more than one direction. A couple of you have experienced some solutions first hand under extreme circumstances against much smaller "victims" when you have played the role of attackers. Perhaps a discussion centered around your experiences of having your momentum stopped will help the exchanges.

Additionally all should keep in mind that Bode is correct when he said there is only one correct neutral bow, but more importantly, there is only one way in these scenarios to resolve issues of "Structural Integrity" regarding either of the discussed stances. There is a "Universal Truth" to the physics of human anatomy that is NOT open to the interpretations of the martial arts. Martial Science doesn't lie and it doesn't care about your style, rank, or martial philosophy.


----------



## Jagdish (Oct 28, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> > I agree. There are many other ways to root. They are present in some teachers EPAK, but definetly not all. It's less about EPAK and more about the quality of the teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Seabrook (Oct 28, 2005)

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Hi Mr Seabrook,
> 
> Have you actually tested this where the attacker does continue the drive back and where you as the defender have to make adjusting steps to try and reach the stance you require.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Amrik,

You can just call me Jamie....thanks!

Not sure if you remember me? You were helping me through the Book Set at Larry Tatum's LV camp. Remember....I loved his version. 

Yes, we tried out the difference between the forward bow and neutral bow on Clyde O'Briant at Larry Tatum's east coast camp a few weeks back. 

Interesting discussion, and hope to see you again my friend.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 28, 2005)

Hi Jamie,

Yes I remember you had such a great time in Vegas and made lots of new friends and met old friends again.

Hope to see you again too. Maybe at the BKKU summer camp in england perhaps?

Take care my friend

Amrik


----------



## MJS (Oct 28, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> By catalyst do you mean the attack? Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences.


 
Just a few questions for you sir-

Reading a few of the posts, some are looking at one tech. more of a higher grab than the other.  Am I safe to assume that you are looking at them the same, the difference being arms pinned vs not pinned?

You are not using a set stance.  ie: fb for one tech. and nb for the other, but instead, whichever one feels right at that moment?

Mike


----------



## Doc (Oct 28, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Bode said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bode (Oct 31, 2005)

Jagdish, I believe Doc responded to the questions you asked. If you needed more clarification on something I wrote, ask away. 



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Reading a few of the posts, some are looking at one tech. more of a higher grab than the other. Am I safe to assume that you are looking at them the same, the difference being arms pinned vs not pinned?


Yes, I am looking at them the same way, but only because of what happens BEFORE I settle into my stance. The initial goal is to reduce the attackers momentum, strength, and to survive the initial assault. Simply dropping back into a forward bow without reducing the attackers forward momentum could result in a damaged knee. Imagine all that pressure. You step back at the point of impact, wham, that's a lot of pressure to be putting on a joint, even as strong as it is. 
So the question is, how, in your Kenpo, do you reduce the attackers forward momentum and strength without taking the brunt of the blow? 

The fact that the arms are pinned vs not pinned should not make a large difference in how you can absorb the attack and settle into your stance. After all, is it the stance that makes your base strong or is it the placement of the arms? The upper body, even if attacked high, will not bend if you are in a forward bow (this notion came up in the thread). However, the mechanisms and timing necessary to align the upper body with the lower are not well known. 




			
				MJS said:
			
		

> You are not using a set stance. ie: fb for one tech. and nb for the other, but instead, whichever one feels right at that moment?


 Not really. We always hit a forward bow as a transitory stance into a neutral bow. If we are still only talking about surviving the initial assault (SIA) and not including retaliatory strikes, then we end in a bow for both STSH and Thrusting Prongs. After the SIA, we absolutely shift our stances to generate torque, etc... As I said though, what we do BEFORE settling into the stance is what's important.


----------



## Jagdish (Nov 3, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> > Its not the art that's lacking, it's the teachers. And for the record, it's not always the teachers fault unless he ignores the obvious after a long period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Doc (Nov 3, 2005)

In this age of multimedia education, it seems everyone's answer to learning since Mr. Parker passed is to "crosstrain," and a lot of that by video. That's a "sport concept I do not subscribe to. If people looked more to other disciplines to "educate" themselves I would be more inclined, but "training" is another issue. When you "train," the assumption is, going in you already have a significant knowledge of a partiular activity and you are training to hone your skills and abilities. In sport you train because the activity is a limited function activity and all of it's variations can be learned rather quickly. Then you train to enhance your ability to the highest function level possible.

The problem with cross training is, ".... going in you don't know what you don't know, so how do you know what you need to know and how to know it?


----------



## Jagdish (Nov 4, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> In this age of multimedia education, it seems everyone's answer to learning since Mr. Parker passed is to "crosstrain," and a lot of that by video. That's a "sport concept I do not subscribe to.
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------

