# EPAK Slapping from another Systems Viewpoint.



## KenpoTess

Here's an article I found this morning.. what are your thoughts and comments?

Amazing how EPAK crosses into other Systems 

*Author* 
Jeremy Bays is an experienced martial artist and writer who holds a black belt in Chun Do Kwan Taekwon-do, 
Chinese Kempo jiu-jitsu, and is currently working in Kali and Jeet Kune Do. He lives in Farmland, Indiana with his wife and two daughters. 


Slap! Slap! Slap! This is a sound that you will hear upon entering into an American Kenpo, Shaolin Long Fist, or various other styles of karate and kung fu's class. People seem to be slapping themselves while performing the techniques of this system. Have you ever wondered what they were really doing? Have you ever wondered if the martial artists themselves knew what they were doing? 

In this article I will attempt to give ONE possible explanation f or this odd looking movement. Please understand that there are as many more explanations as there are stars in the heavens. This is not THE ANSWER for this rebounding motion, but instead it is MY ANSWER. 

The Technique: 

Observe a high ranking American Kenpo stylist and you might notice this person will appear to slap themselves, usually on the chest area, while performing the various hand techniques of the art. One hand will go out to strike the opponent, then rebound off their body and go out and strike the attacker again. This process gets repeated at very high speeds in a movement. Please understand that there are as many more explanations as there are stars in the heavens. This is not THE ANSWER for this rebounding motion, but instead it is MY ANSWER. 

The Technique: 

Observe a high ranking American Kenpo stylist and you might notice this person will appear to slap themselves, usually on the chest area, while performing the various hand techniques of the art. One hand will go out to strike the opponent, then rebound off their body and go out and strike the attacker again. This process gets repeated at very high speeds in a 

To rebound the technique off the body 
To minimize the harm done to the attacker (training partner) 
To indicate where the technique will land on the attacker by striking yourself in the same spot 
To ensure that the strike is given in a relaxed, whipping manner 
Some people I spoke with had not idea why they did this motion in their forms. 

My Reason for Slapping Myself: 

I tend to view the martial arts from a TCM (Traditional Chinese Medical) viewpoint. I find value in the theory of Chi (Qi, Ki, parna, life-force, energy). I believe that there are several locations on the human body where the Chi can be affected. These areas are commonly called pressure points and the art of manipulating these areas can do by many names including: kyusho, dim-mak, vital point applications, hyul-dul, and a host of other names. It is from this tradition that I draw the following theory in regards to slapping yourself. 

Try this simple experiment with a partner: 

First, locate the pressure point called Lung One on yourself. This point is located where the arm and shoulder meet. It lies about one inch under the clavicle (collar bone) towards the arm. Press around with light, finger tip pressure until you find a painful spot. Now find the same pressure point on your partner using the same method of light, fingertip pressure. 

Next, strike your partner in this area VERY LIGHTLY!!!! This strike is not a full cocked punch but instead more of a heavy push. Just give your partner a little tap and then ask them to remember the amount of pain they felt. 

The next step is now to strike yourself in Lung One with a slapping motion and then rebound off that slap and strike your partner in Lung One. Again, please PLAY NICE and go not hit them hard. Ask your partner to remember the results of this strike and compare it to the first one. If you were on target the effects of the second strike (with the self slap) should be much greater. 

This is due to the fact you are doing several things with this technique: 

You are maintaining a 'soft body' 
You are executing a whip-like strike 
You are attacking a pressure point on the body (a cluster of nerves in this case) 
You are 'programming' in your mind the exact location of Lung One on your partner by first striking there on yourself. 
Try this out with several of your techniques to is if your results are not greatly improved. Remember, this technique is not for everyone or for every situation. This movement is greatly telegraphed if the attacker can see you slapping yourself or knows what you are doing. Only use this technique when you have the attacker in a position where they can not see you due to some obstruction in their line of sight or some movement of deception you have preformed. 

Here is a good technique to try this combination on. It is the classic Delayed Sword: from American Kenpos curriculum. 

Attacker reaches out with the right hand to grasp the collar or lapel of the defender. Defender steps back to perform a right inward block (strike) to the attackers radial nerve area. 

Defender then steps into a cat stance and executes a low front snap kick to the attackers exposed abdomen, bladder, groin, or femoral artery region. This action will double the attacker over, obstructing the vision, allowing the time needed by the defender to perform the 'self-slapping' motion before the follow-up strike. The defender then executes the self-slap and strikes at a target of opportunity.


----------



## kenposikh

Hi,

The comments posted seem to be quite feasible however my understanding of the slapping in Kenpoo is to overall increase power of the stike. NOt necessarily by striking the target on your body that you are also aiming to hit on your opponent.

A greater understanding of Sub Level 4 techniques and principles would assist here but I don't have this yet!!!


----------



## Michael Billings

... but somewhat limited article, and as he mentions, it is his interpretation, and not a bad one.

However, that being said, the "slapping" heard when training alone is often off your own body, when with a partner or opponent, hopefully most of the sound is due to your contact with HIS body.  Some rebounding or launching my occur, but that is not primarily why there is a "slapping" noise.  

Active v. Passive checks is another reason for the slapping noise, especially when patterning in the movement, but essentially the same as above, just with checks instead of strikes.

I have also seen, and to a lessor extent use the slapping as a timing pattern for teaching lower ranking students.  I use this to make them aware of intervals between strikes and the disturbance they create in an opponent.  We all know the tendency of beginners is to go as fast as they can, when they can.  Major and minor notes with a syncopated, half-beat or quarter-beat timing takes some getting accustomed to.

Lets see, what else.  Doc provided some info a year or so ago about slap checks off the opponent, AND OFF THE STUDENT.  There was some information that supported Jeramey Bays' article, but I do not consider myself qualified to really make a statement about this either way.

It is certainly something to think about and given the lack of the author's background in American Kenpo, he was taking a stab at something Mr. Parker addressed in many articles and seminars.

Oss,
-MB


----------



## Karazenpo

I don't know. I totally understand the use of 'check' blocks on an opponent and agree ( I believe I once read an article in which Mr. Parker stated the slaps were the result of these checks.), but slapping YOURSELF? It may be just used as a sort of 'special effects' with no significant meaning at all. Perhaps we are looking too deep into this trying to find justification for its use. To the uninitiated or less experienced it gives the illusion of blitzing speed and power and makes for an entertaining demo but really doesn't do much of anything. Think about it. It sure sounds good though.  Respectfully submitted, Shihan Joe Shuras


----------



## arnisador

This is seen in the FMA also. You might find it interesting to ask about it in FMA-General!


----------



## Michael Billings

... are what I use the "slaps" for.  When working on an opponent, I seldom have to slap myself awake.  There is the slapping sound, but this is contact with the opponent, or perfectly logical use of principles of rebounding, richocheting or launching off my own body or theirs.

-MB


----------



## KenpoTess

an example 

Five Swords..Right hand  slapping your  left bicep into the uppercut brings that Left sword hand to the neck with excellent  speed & power..


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by KenpoTess _
> *an example
> 
> Five Swords..Right hand  slapping your  left bicep into the uppercut brings that Left sword hand to the neck with excellent  speed & power..  *



Not the way I do it.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Karazenpo

I understand and practice the rebounding principle when utilizing blocking, Professor Cerio referred to it as "springboard" , same idea though. My point however, does it really produce more power or is it pyschological? Respectfully, Shihan Joe Shuras


----------



## KenpoTess

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *Not the way I do it.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde *



Different strokes..


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by KenpoTess _
> *Different strokes..  *



Did you read what you wrote?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## KenpoTess

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *Did you read what you wrote?
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde *



Ok Clyde.. I had that Dylexic moment again.. I hear ya..

right foot
stepping in.. the double sword hands to the punch.. right hand rebounding off their arm to sword hand their throat.. pivot to forward bow for the left finger gouge.. as I step back with left foot to 4:30 my left hand slaps my right bicep *acting as a check in mid movement ...as my right uppercut makes target.. my left sword hand to the throat .. then cranes around pulling head down.. as I settle into my neutral bow..my right hammerfist to the base of the skull..

*needs to learn my right from left..


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by KenpoTess _
> *Ok Clyde.. I had that Dylexic moment again.. I hear ya..
> 
> right foot
> stepping in.. the double sword hands to the punch.. right hand rebounding off their arm to sword hand their throat.. pivot to forward bow for the left finger gouge.. as I step back with left foot to 4:30 my left hand slaps my right bicep *acting as a check in mid movement ...as my right uppercut makes target.. my left sword hand to the throat .. then cranes around pulling head down.. as I settle into my neutral bow..my right hammerfist to the base of the skull..
> 
> *needs to learn my right from left..
> 
> *





That's what I was trying to tell you, duh!    I was attempting to be nice but nevermind.

Clyde


----------



## rmcrobertson

Given what Hawaii means in kenpo, there's some interesting self-slappin' going on in the film, "Once Were Warriors." Watch the funeral scene, and what's more you get to see that clonable guy from "Star Bores," a) show us all how to order beer, and b) show us all how to handle a serious bar fight.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *My point however, does it really produce more power or is it pyschological? *



I wonder about this as well. We do it in the FMA sometimes to whip around a stick/sword strike by slapping the bicep and I am not fully convinced that it makes a great deal of difference.


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by KenpoTess _
> *an example
> 
> Five Swords..Right hand  slapping your  left bicep into the uppercut brings that Left sword hand to the neck with excellent  speed & power..  *


Why do you slap your own bicep? It seems that would stiffle the uppercut a bit. I recognize you are in a position to strike the throat but...     Anyways we slap but we slap the return motion points higher up on the arm.
Sean


----------



## WhiteTiger

I fail to see any possible reason why anyone would slap themselves while executing self-defense techniques, other than improper hand motion during the transition between strikes.  As for Five Swords, it must be a different variant than I have seen.  The Five Swords I know all striking is done with the right hand,  the left hand guards the head.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Its that your body happens to be at the apex of your return motion. It sounds as if to me that you might not be as versed in recoiling; therefore, that is all your left will ever be is a check.


----------



## WhiteTiger

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Its that your body happens to be at the apex of your return motion. It sounds as if to me that you might not be as versed in recoiling; therefore, that is all your left will ever be is a check. *



Well it sure sounds technical, I guess it must be correct.....


----------



## Doc

"Slapping"  is an extrememly complicated science of alignment and energy managemnent and resistence tool (among many uses) that all physical activities that demand maximum anatomical efficiency utilize. Sometimes it is not always obvious, but if its missing, than alignment etc, are sacrificed.

Although some arts use it, the science of "how," when," and especially "why" seems to be lost in modern practitioners. It is found primarily in some Chinese Arts that have maintained traditional training, although the science of application seems to be missing in my experience.

It is a very large part of SubLevel Four Kenpo which emphasizes structural integrity in all movement, which is not possible without counter resistence sometimes obtained through "slapping." It is taught situationally because the variances are as numerous as there are combination of physical realtionships between one's body and an opponent.

Those who find no value in it should perhaps re-examine any available video of Ed Parker performing techniques and/or forms, and I further remind those of Mr. Parker's idea's about "wasted motion."

What's "Wasted Motion" at one knowledge level is proper execution to those who "understand."

The idea of "slapping" your nerve to correspond to an opponent's nerve is incorrect. However, many do at least understand the conservation of mechanical energy through "Rebounding." But even this is an elementary use of "slapping" as taught by and in Ed Parker' conceptual vehicle, but can be very effective in proper application.


----------



## M F

> The Five Swords I know all striking is done with the right hand, the left hand guards the head



WhiteTiger, could you explain how the five swords you know is done?  I have never seen a version of five-swords without at least two strikes with the left hand.  A palm heel (eye gouge, or handsword) following the initial right outward handsword, and then an outward handsword just after the uppercut.  I am curious how this technique would look without them.  Thanks.


----------



## pete

sift through this thread for some variations of 5 swords...

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=10595&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

pete.


----------



## kenpo_cory

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *"Slapping"  is an extrememly complicated science of alignment and energy managemnent and resistence tool (among many uses) that all physical activities that demand maximum anatomical efficiency utilize. Sometimes it is not always obvious, but if its missing, than alignment etc, are sacrificed.*



This is how the slapping was taught to me as well. The main reason my instructor said it was used for was alignment. It wasn't something he taught to the class at all though. I saw him doing it often enough that it made me question it.


----------



## Doc

I received a private e-mail regarding this string from someone who asked me how the "Positional Check" was related to the "Slap-Check." I told them I would respond here for public consumption.

The "Positional Check" was created by Mr. Parker for his conceptual creation of kenpo to replace, (in most instances) and to avoid, (I believe) teaching the very complex "Slap-checks." I do feel however he would have introduced and began teaching more intricate aspects of his personal art, (what he did as opposed to what he taught most) had he lived longer. The Positional Check is non-existent in SubLevel Four Kenpo. Human anatomy demands the body exercise symetrical balance with no passivity of opposing appendages in movement. To do so is to circumvent most efficient and natural anatomical movement of the body architecture, as well as cause excessive and premature deterioation of the body. ie hips, shoulders, knees, ankles, and cervicle.


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *I received a private e-mail regarding this string from someone who asked me how the "Positional Check" was related to the "Slap-Check." I told them I would respond here for public consumption.
> 
> The "Positional Check" was created by Mr. Parker for his conceptual creation of kenpo to replace, (in most instances) and to avoid, (I believe) teaching the very complex "Slap-checks." I do feel however he would have introduced and began teaching more intricate aspects of his personal art, (what he did as opposed to what he taught most) had he lived longer. The Positional Check is non-existent in SubLevel Four Kenpo. Human anatomy demands the body exercise symetrical balance with no passivity of opposing appendages in movement. To do so is to circumvent most efficient and natural anatomical movement of the body architecture, as well as cause excessive and premature deterioation of the body. ie hips, shoulders, knees, ankles, and cervicle. *


What is the purpose of a slap-check?
What diferentiates it from any other check?
Thanks
Your Brother
John


----------



## WhiteTiger

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *"Slapping"  is an extrememly complicated science of alignment and energy managemnent and resistence tool (among many uses) that all physical activities that demand maximum anatomical efficiency utilize. Sometimes it is not always obvious, but if its missing, than alignment etc, are sacrificed.
> 
> Those who find no value in it should perhaps re-examine any available video of Ed Parker performing techniques and/or forms, and I further remind those of Mr. Parker's idea's about "wasted motion." *



I am sorry but this sounds just like alot of double talk for, " we don't really know why but the "Old man" did it this way, and his example must not be questioned".

If your free hand is slapping your body how can it check an incomming attack?  Every instant your guard is not between your opponents weapon and whatever target, it is that much longer that the target is vulnerable to his attack.

What is "rebounding"?  Alignment of what?  In relation to what?    

I do know something about conservation of energy, and if you are slapping yourself with enough force to alter the position of your body, that is energy you are wasting by not directing it at your opponent.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *I am sorry but this sounds just like alot of double talk for, " we don't really know why but the "Old man" did it this way, and his example must not be questioned".*


*

I never suggested it could not be questioned because "Ed Parker did it." I simply used Mr. Parker as an example for those who might question its efficacy in American Kenpo. If the progenitor utilized it in his own exceution, it becomes difficult to repute its existence. 

However whenever anyone is exposed to information beyond their knowledge, I'm sure it all sounds like "double talk" at some point. Although I am an educated man and reasonably worldly, my doctor, lawyers, and mechanic, all at some time or other have spoken "double talk" to me. Fortunately like they, (and of course Mr. Parker) I am capable of ultimately clarifying the validity of my statements.




			If your free hand is slapping your body how can it check an incomming attack?
		
Click to expand...


I never said it could or couldn't, (although it can), and I'm surprised you asked that question. That is a no-brainer and I'm sure someone here will fill you in.




			Every instant your guard is not between your opponents weapon and whatever target, it is that much longer that the target is vulnerable to his attack.
		
Click to expand...


 ?  In your understanding that may be true, but I bet there are many here from American Kenpo who would engage you in a dialog on that one as well.




			What is "rebounding"?
		
Click to expand...


Simply, when a body part makes contact with something with sufficient energy to "bounce" and re-direct the energy in another direction.




			Alignment of what?
		
Click to expand...


Your body. 




			I do know something about conservation of energy, and if you are slapping yourself with enough force to alter the position of your body, that is energy you are wasting by not directing it at your opponent.
		
Click to expand...

*
Your statement includes an assumption I have not included in any of my descriptions or definitions. Unfortunately your understanding of "energy" and its use appears to be, from my perspective, quite limited.


----------



## WhiteTiger

Forgive me Doc, but your replys offer no specific information or explainatons, only vague insinuation that these concepts are too complex for most kenpoists to understand.  Judging by the posts in this thread, noone seems either willing or able to offer any explaination to this concept, so you may be right.  But as someone with 20 years experience in martial arts and a graduate degree in engineering, there are few scientific principles that I have come across that I don't have at least a limited understanding of.  Everything I have learned in kenpo thus far follows established scientific precepts, on the surface this "Slapping" seems to contridict them, lacking a detailed explaination it is impossible to make a determination.

If you could provide an example of the application and how the mechanics work, that might help several people understand it better.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *Forgive me Doc, but your replys offer no specific information or explainatons, only vague insinuation that these concepts are too complex for most kenpoists to understand.  Judging by the posts in this thread, noone seems either willing or able to offer any explaination to this concept, so you may be right.  But as someone with 20 years experience in martial arts and a graduate degree in engineering, there are few scientific principles that I have come across that I don't have at least a limited understanding of.  Everything I have learned in kenpo thus far follows established scientific precepts, on the surface this "Slapping" seems to contridict them, lacking a detailed explaination it is impossible to make a determination.
> 
> If you could provide an example of the application and how the mechanics work, that might help several people understand it better. *



Fair enough and your points are well taken, but consider this: The basic laws of engineering and Newtonian Physics do not translate to human anatomical movement or action beyond a very superficial level, and the knowledge of human anatomical physics is almost non-existent in the martial arts. It is alive and well however in martial science. Some have taken to marketing  the term, but few actually rise to the level of understanding necessary to call what they do a true "science."

I am more than sure you are an intelligent, educated, and competent individual. But the science of human movement, especially in martial interaction is extremely specialized and emcompasses a myriad of physical sciences all connected through the unstable human body. It is so specialized it cannot be learned through traditional formal education  methods. However formal education can enhance the process.

Human dynamics deal with a complex living machine with hundreds of parts and connecting mechanisms and sensors that is/are in a constant state of flux and adjustment from one microsecound to the next. Also the body is not a solid so certain Newtonian Physical Laws applied to solid objects do not necessarily translate to human dynamics. The knowledge is passed from one to another. Take note that in professional athletics, most great coaches have no physics degrees yet have the ability to teach the dynamics of human physics at the highest level. Information accumulated over years of interaction with other teachers and coaches. The ones that excel develop the most effective methodologies.

A discussion here is like trying to tell someone how to technically perform a gymnastics "running round off flip flop to a pike and split." The variations are so great it is impossible to create "hard rules" of execution, and I've tried since the early seventies to write down my own lessons with some, albeit limited success.

Consider that the human body evolved under the weight of gravity or a constant unyielding resistence. Therefore the human skeleton and its structural integrity is inter-depedent on this resisting factor to achieve maximum efficiency and regidity.

But the human body as a machine has a unique "living" capability beyond the mechanical machine. A human body has the ability to function "inefficiently" and does so as a normal part of its everyday function. This is what allows humans to exhibit fluid movement and allows the machine to perform things "incorrectly" as well as correctly. But the human body is only supposed to momentarily slip into its inefficient mode for the sake of certain movement, and return immediately to a strong and efficent mode to prevent injury to the machine. 

Repetitive inefficient movement (improper training) produces significant injury or "breakdowns" to the machine. This is why, absent blunt force trauma and externally induced hyperextended activity, the body can function for many years without "wearing out."

Unfortunately modern martial arts have been marketed around blunt force trauma and expeditious physical movement for "quick" acquisition of some functional skills in violation of human anatomy principles creating ignorant "Counter Anatomy Applications." Most teach asthetically drawing on "how" they think something should look, instead of "how" something should be properly executed relative to human anatomy. 

The human body must dictate how all movements are executed for long term success and the ultimate development of "internal energy" and long term mechanical supremacy. Over the years I've seen so many people in and out of kenpo tear their bodies apart executing improper movements. Double hip replacement surgery, shoulder surgeries, knee and back injuries are rampant, all through improper dynamic movement that destroys rather than enhances the human machine.

This is also why when things are learned impropely, it doesn't take long for you to "lose" the ability to perform through inactivity or age. Proper anatomical movement sufficiently learned lasts a lifetime, even with extended inactivity. It is also why some "old men" seem to demonstrate significant speed and power with a minimum of movement beyond the younger more musclebound student. 

A simple experiment for you.

Stand in a horse stance
Execute an outward elbow to the side
lock it out and have someone gradually
push on it counter direction to the strike.

The results will be a gradual collapse and movement of the upper body until the stance, elbow, and upper body give way to a lack of structural integrity (for a variety of reasons).

Then let's execute the elbow again, but this time have the arm that is executing the outward elbow, "slap" the "opposite" shoulder and "slide" your arm across your body to execute the elbow.

Have someone push again. You should experience a significant increase in strength induced by proper structural integrity of the elbow and body and a directing of certain energy.

With proper training the human body responds tremendously and there is no loss of speed in the execution and efficiency and effectiveness reach maximum human potential.

The human body is stronger than steel and fragil as an egg from moment to moment. The secret is to be able to identify and create the moment you desire in yourself and your opponent and capitalize on it.

Tell me how the experiemnt goes.

Thank you for your intelligent interaction.


----------



## Dominic Jones

Wow! a long but im my opinion a great reply by Doc.

Living in Japan I have limited access to personal instruction, Doc, 
do you have any recommended texts, or subject areas that will help me improve my knowledge of anatomonically correct positions and movements.  I have gained a small amount of experiential knowledge from being shown short simple experiments such as the one you describe above.  

Also ones where: 

shifting your body to forward movement e.g by planting forward with the front leg-makes the body stronger

Using a "slap check" to increase the power of certain strikes for example a downward hammerfist

Using a "possitional check" touching the body to improve the stability of a stance 

These experiments work for me and I look for similiar situations within the kenpo sets, forms and techniques.  But I`m almost  completly lacking on the why-at the moment.

I do not believe you are teaching kenpo "magic" but that you have a higher level of knowledge than I posess.  


I DON'T want people to think that my 14 plus years of EPAK training with the BKKU has been wasted.  Far from it!! I consider Grandmaster Bob Rose and his Instructors to be excellent. 

Unfortionately being 12,000 miles away I rarely see my instructors for hands on training.

Anantomically correct positions and movement is the next exciting avenue of study for me.  Its now time for me to try to get more knowledge about the why.

Cheers Dom
PS.  As mentioned in a separate thread I am also interested in how and why different breathing techniques (applied to the martial arts) work.

:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *Well it sure sounds technical, I guess it must be correct..... *


I have to assume you are being sarcastic. I was speaking about this subject to a Kenpo freind of mine and we both agree that by bringing your hand all the way back to, at the very least, tap the return points of reference, your strikes are truer. These are also great times to make snap desiscions.(or should I say slap desiscions)
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *I am sorry but this sounds just like alot of double talk for, " we don't really know why but the "Old man" did it this way, and his example must not be questioned".
> 
> If your free hand is slapping your body how can it check an incomming attack?  Every instant your guard is not between your opponents weapon and whatever target, it is that much longer that the target is vulnerable to his attack.
> 
> What is "rebounding"?  Alignment of what?  In relation to what?
> 
> I do know something about conservation of energy, and if you are slapping yourself with enough force to alter the position of your body, that is energy you are wasting by not directing it at your opponent. *


 Just so I can be clearer, there are starting points of reference for certain strikes. These happen to be the points that we return to with such speed that a sound might occur. I would never recomend to some one that the left is only a check. Be that as it were you can check from the return point; so, it is not as if we are not checking.
Sean


----------



## MisterMike

> A simple experiment for you.



I looked at this experiment and if the position of the outward elbow is the same in both cases, I would expect the results to be the same. The route or method applied to get to the outward elbow strike should not matter.

The outward elbow strike is braced because your fist should be tight against your chest at the point of completion.

yay, or nay?


----------



## Goldendragon7

At times they are used as timing devices when practicing alone.....

:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Fair enough and your points are well taken, but consider this: The basic laws of engineering and Newtonian Physics do not translate to human anatomical movement or action beyond a very superficial level, and the knowledge of human anatomical physics is almost non-existent in the martial arts. It is alive and well however in martial science. Some have taken to marketing  the term, but few actually rise to the level of understanding necessary to call what they do a true "science."
> 
> I am more than sure you are an intelligent, educated, and competent individual. But the science of human movement, especially in martial interaction is extremely specialized and emcompasses a myriad of physical sciences all connected through the unstable human body. It is so specialized it cannot be learned through traditional formal education  methods. However formal education can enhance the process.
> 
> Human dynamics deal with a complex living machine with hundreds of parts and connecting mechanisms and sensors that is/are in a constant state of flux and adjustment from one microsecound to the next. Also the body is not a solid so certain Newtonian Physical Laws applied to solid objects do not necessarily translate to human dynamics. The knowledge is passed from one to another. Take note that in professional athletics, most great coaches have no physics degrees yet have the ability to teach the dynamics of human physics at the highest level. Information accumulated over years of interaction with other teachers and coaches. The ones that excel develop the most effective methodologies.
> 
> A discussion here is like trying to tell someone how to technically perform a gymnastics "running round off flip flop to a pike and split." The variations are so great it is impossible to create "hard rules" of execution, and I've tried since the early seventies to write down my own lessons with some, albeit limited success.
> 
> Consider that the human body evolved under the weight of gravity or a constant unyielding resistence. Therefore the human skeleton and its structural integrity is inter-depedent on this resisting factor to achieve maximum efficiency and regidity.
> 
> But the human body as a machine has a unique "living" capability beyond the mechanical machine. A human body has the ability to function "inefficiently" and does so as a normal part of its everyday function. This is what allows humans to exhibit fluid movement and allows the machine to perform things "incorrectly" as well as correctly. But the human body is only supposed to momentarily slip into its inefficient mode for the sake of certain movement, and return immediately to a strong and efficent mode to prevent injury to the machine.
> 
> Repetitive inefficient movement (improper training) produces significant injury or "breakdowns" to the machine. This is why, absent blunt force trauma and externally induced hyperextended activity, the body can function for many years without "wearing out."
> 
> Unfortunately modern martial arts have been marketed around blunt force trauma and expeditious physical movement for "quick" acquisition of some functional skills in violation of human anatomy principles creating ignorant "Counter Anatomy Applications." Most teach asthetically drawing on "how" they think something should look, instead of "how" something should be properly executed relative to human anatomy.
> 
> The human body must dictate how all movements are executed for long term success and the ultimate development of "internal energy" and long term mechanical supremacy. Over the years I've seen so many people in and out of kenpo tear their bodies apart executing improper movements. Double hip replacement surgery, shoulder surgeries, knee and back injuries are rampant, all through improper dynamic movement that destroys rather than enhances the human machine.
> 
> This is also why when things are learned impropely, it doesn't take long for you to "lose" the ability to perform through inactivity or age. Proper anatomical movement sufficiently learned lasts a lifetime, even with extended inactivity. It is also why some "old men" seem to demonstrate significant speed and power with a minimum of movement beyond the younger more musclebound student.
> 
> A simple experiment for you.
> 
> Stand in a horse stance
> Execute an outward elbow to the side
> lock it out and have someone gradually
> push on it counter direction to the strike.
> 
> The results will be a gradual collapse and movement of the upper body until the stance, elbow, and upper body give way to a lack of structural integrity (for a variety of reasons).
> 
> Then let's execute the elbow again, but this time have the arm that is executing the outward elbow, "slap" the "opposite" shoulder and "slide" your arm across your body to execute the elbow.
> 
> Have someone push again. You should experience a significant increase in strength induced by proper structural integrity of the elbow and body and a directing of certain energy.
> 
> With proper training the human body responds tremendously and there is no loss of speed in the execution and efficiency and effectiveness reach maximum human potential.
> 
> The human body is stronger than steel and fragil as an egg from moment to moment. The secret is to be able to identify and create the moment you desire in yourself and your opponent and capitalize on it.
> 
> Tell me how the experiemnt goes.
> 
> Thank you for your intelligent interaction. *


Doc, 
great post and at times it sounded just like Skip. Great minds think alike, as Ed Parker used to say.
Sean


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Doc,
> great post and at times it sounded just like Skip. Great minds think alike, as Ed Parker used to say.
> Sean *


As I know "Skip" to be intelligent and brilliant, I 'll take that as a pretty good compliment. Thank you and tell Skip I said "Hey Dude."


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *At times they are used as timing devices when practicing alone.....
> 
> :asian: *


In some schools, but not in SubLevel Four. Everything is mechanically functional. Timing is dictated by other factors, AND where's my book?


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I looked at this experiment and if the position of the outward elbow is the same in both cases, I would expect the results to be the same.
> *


*

There's your problem. You only "looked."




			The route or method applied to get to the outward elbow strike should not matter.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry sir, but you couldn't be more incorrect.




			The outward elbow strike is braced because your fist should be tight against your chest at the point of completion.
		
Click to expand...


Not  in human anatomy correctly executed for maximum efficiency and structural integrity.




			yay, or nay?
		
Click to expand...

*
A very huge, gargantuan, monumental NAY. If there was no difference, there would be no reason for the experiment. Now do your homework or i'll have to take out my red marker.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *What is the purpose of a slap-check?
> What diferentiates it from any other check?
> Thanks
> Your Brother
> John *



"Slapping" is an extrememly complicated science of alignment and energy managemnent and resistence tool (among its many uses) that all physical activities that demand maximum anatomical efficiency utilize.

A "Slap-Check" is not really a "check" although it can be used for "checking" in elementary interpretations of the art. The term "Pak-Sao" or "Slapping/Checking Hand" originated in Traditional Chinese Arts like Wing Chun, Hung Gar, and Slapping Hands. Although Wing Chun uses it as a "checking" action with other constituants like some kenpo, Hung Gar and Slapping Hands go well beyond that application.

Ed Parker used the term "pak-sao" until he converted to English Only terminology, and he changed it to a "Slap-Check" even though at higher levels it is not. To my knowledge Parker never wrote about or taught the "how' or "why" of his "Slap-Checks," and in fact purposely made no references to them and replaced them with the term "Positional Check" when he began the creation of his "manuals." The term exists nowhere, despite the obvious "Slapping" Ed Parker used in his own execution. Makes you wonder what else he held back from most. Ya think?


----------



## WhiteTiger

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Fair enough and your points are well taken, but consider this: The basic laws of engineering and Newtonian Physics do not translate to human anatomical movement or action beyond a very superficial level, and the knowledge of human anatomical physics is almost non-existent in the martial arts. It is alive and well however in martial science. Some have taken to marketing  the term, but few actually rise to the level of understanding necessary to call what they do a true "science."
> 
> A simple experiment for you.
> 
> Stand in a horse stance
> Execute an outward elbow to the side
> lock it out and have someone gradually
> push on it counter direction to the strike.
> 
> The results will be a gradual collapse and movement of the upper body until the stance, elbow, and upper body give way to a lack of structural integrity (for a variety of reasons).
> 
> Then let's execute the elbow again, but this time have the arm that is executing the outward elbow, "slap" the "opposite" shoulder and "slide" your arm across your body to execute the elbow.
> 
> Have someone push again. You should experience a significant increase in strength induced by proper structural integrity of the elbow and body and a directing of certain energy.
> 
> With proper training the human body responds tremendously and there is no loss of speed in the execution and efficiency and effectiveness reach maximum human potential.
> 
> The human body is stronger than steel and fragil as an egg from moment to moment. The secret is to be able to identify and create the moment you desire in yourself and your opponent and capitalize on it.
> 
> Tell me how the experiemnt goes.
> 
> Thank you for your intelligent interaction. *



I have analyzed your experiment, and I think I understand where your coming from here.  But in this example you are trading off other efficiencies to gain proper anatomical form.  If your weapon, at any time for any reason moves away from the target, the time you will take to get to the target will increase, as well as telegraphing your intentions.  The human body can only move so fast, when velocity is fixed, distance and time are one and the same.

I can see as the body ages proper anatomical form becomes more and more important in order to avoid injury.  As in may cases with Martial Arts applications how you deliver any one attack will depend on what you are trying to acheive.  Using this example you gain rigidity in your weapon but you sacrifice the ability marry additional forces into your execution.

I must agree with Mike however, slapping the opposite shoulder is not a prerequisite as long as you execute the elbow with the same anatomical alignment.  But I can see that slapping the opposite shoulder does aid in acheiving  this alignment.


----------



## MisterMike

> I must agree with Mike however, slapping the opposite shoulder is not a prerequisite as long as you execute the elbow with the same anatomical alignment. But I can see that slapping the opposite shoulder does aid in acheiving this alignment.



I'm going to agree with me too  

I Can see that slapping your shoulder would have to put your hand in the right chambering position to execute a proper outward elbow, since it would follow a line rather than an arc if you had chambered somewhere else.

Also, by having your hand tight against your chest you have a strong brace for the outward elbow. If it is off of your body, then the arm is free to move.

If this is the final position of your elbow, then it will be strong.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> * I understand where your coming from here.  But in this example you are trading off other efficiencies to gain proper anatomical form.
> *


*

That is incorrect.




			If your weapon, at any time for any reason moves away from the target, the time you will take to get to the target will increase, as well as telegraphing your intentions.
		
Click to expand...


That is a misconception from a flawed interpretation. Human dynamics are simply different.




			The human body can only move so fast, when velocity is fixed, distance and time are one and the same.
		
Click to expand...


Although that is true,  I told you not to bring inanimate physical principles to human interaction. Speed is a relative factor and your hypothesis doesn't take into account human traits beyond simple mechanical speed. There are intangibles like "Perceptual Speed" as well as "Mental Speed" that are major factors that come into play before "Mechanical Speed" can be addressed as an example. 




			I can see as the body ages proper anatomical form becomes more and more important in order to avoid injury.
		
Click to expand...


So alignment is not important until you begin to age? Consider that improper movement causes premature aging of the body parts. To move any other way than properly is to destroy the machine which contridicts the overall purpose of training and study.




			As in may cases with Martial Arts applications how you deliver any one attack will depend on what you are trying to acheive.
		
Click to expand...


We can agree there.




			Using this example you gain rigidity in your weapon but you sacrifice the ability marry additional forces into your execution.
		
Click to expand...


Not so, in fact proper execution assures a "marrying" of other principles and your methodology excludes them.




			I must agree with Mike however, slapping the opposite shoulder is not a prerequisite as long as you execute the elbow with the same anatomical alignment.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry but that is a contridiction, and you missed my point. You CANNOT execute this action in 2 different ways and get a singular results either way. You must make a decision relative to what level you wish to study and train. Getting the weapon there "quickly" with no alignment isolates the weapon and places you at the level of a layperson executing "Blunt Force Trauma Impact." A person can learn that in a couple of days. So why do we train for years and how do we get better? Move faster, hit harder?

The human body is capable of a tremendous amount of speed when moved properly, but a direct path is not always faster in all cases or anatomically expeditious, and certainly not taking advantage of the body subcutaneous support mechanisms as its achitecture is designed to do.

There are some that would suggest a "bullwhip" is very effective, however it take a circuitous route to its target. Why? because it is a necessity to achieve the desired effect and to harness its physical mass and speed. In fact, it cannot work another way and achieve the same results. Some human actions are no different.

The human body is a large gellatinous bag with a semi-rigid substructure and multiple articulated appendages or armatures. Those appendages are connected to the body torso via "circular ball joints" and not hinges. That should be a clue.

Because the body can move in an inefficient mode for the sake of fluid everyday movement, doesn't mean these movements translate into efficient actions beyond the simplistic. When martial application is neccessary the entire body must be aligned to utilize the architecture properly. I guarantee that anatomical movement is not only stronger but is faster as well. I always thought you "strike" with the weapon, but you "hit" with the entrie body. Your methodology contridicts that assumption.

With Newtonian Physics in architecture when certain principles are ignored, sooner or later buildings, bridges, and structures collapse castistrophically. Human anatomy being more fluid will allow you to "do things wrong" but ultimately progress ceases and collapse is imminent as well in the form of injury.




			But I can see that slapping the opposite shoulder does aid in acheiving  this alignment.
		
Click to expand...

*
I'll settle for that, but to continue to think only in mechanically expeditious execution terms without an understanding of human anatomy dictates will forever leave you at the learning stage of the "Tiger." (no pun)
I choose to follow the model that Ed Parker taught me. Considering he used it himself makes it good enough for me, and he was a big "Dragon." Thank you for the intelligent exchange. I'm truly sorry that we will have to agree to disagree. :asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I'm going to agree with me too
> 
> I Can see that slapping your shoulder would have to put your hand in the right chambering position to execute a proper outward elbow, since it would follow a line rather than an arc if you had chambered somewhere else.
> 
> Also, by having your hand tight against your chest you have a strong brace for the outward elbow. If it is off of your body, then the arm is free to move.
> 
> If this is the final position of your elbow, then it will be strong. *



At your level that probably makes sense. Perhaps one day I or others will have the opportunity to dispel some of your assumptions and elevate you to a different perspective. Good luck sir.


----------



## MisterMike

> A simple experiment for you.
> 
> Stand in a horse stance
> Execute an outward elbow to the side
> lock it out and have someone gradually
> push on it counter direction to the strike.



I think that this discussion strayed away from the experiment.

As for striking someone, you may be on to something, but the test of this experiment begins _after_ reaching your outward elbow position. Then, someone comes to push on it. Could be 10 seconds later. Could be 20, right?

The things is you are static there, so what happened up to that point, to me, doesn't bear any importance. I could slap my shoulder, or not have.

After your last lengthly response, I had to check your profile 

I had no idea it was you Dr. Chapel :asian: 

I come up to these boards for fun as I am not training in Kenpo any longer but do enjoy the discussion.


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *As I know "Skip" to be intelligent and brilliant, I 'll take that as a pretty good compliment. Thank you and tell Skip I said "Hey Dude." *


Doc, 
Much of what skip professes about this subject comes from his study of Paul Mills' system. His conclusion as I've been trying to explain is that it is more important to take your time and do each move from its starting point of origin. Nay sayers be damned but you are actualy faster in the long run. Paul Mills is, after all, a world class quick draw champion. As Skip would say these days, "why not look to the experts?". I'll be sure to tell Skip you said "hi".
Sean


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I think that this discussion strayed away from the experiment.
> 
> As for striking someone, you may be on to something, but the test of this experiment begins _after_ reaching your outward elbow position. Then, someone comes to push on it. Could be 10 seconds later. Could be 20, right?
> 
> The things is you are static there, so what happened up to that point, to me, doesn't bear any importance. I could slap my shoulder, or not have.
> *



I have a feeling you have yet to actually conduct the experiment. The test is only to demonstrate a significant difference in structural integrity by a particular methodology. There are a few out there who have been in classes and seminars with me who have had the opportunity to compare in "real" time and "real" energy. Perhaps someone will post.

In terms of expeditious striking and power, I guess I'll just have to wait until I see you to "demonstrate" what I'm saying.  

Thanks for the exchange, and I'm glad you wore a cup.:asian:


----------



## kenposikh

Hi Folks,

I would like to say my two cents worth here and that is that I personally have experienced the power and significant devastation from a technique using structural integrity principles.

You really have to try it to understand it and as SGM E K Parker said to feel is to believe, I therefore suggest that if anyone of you can get to train with Doctor Chapel then do so you won't regret it. If you can't get to him why not invite him to visit your class or to a seminar who knows.

Go in with an open mind and you will surely be impressed.

Try the test and if it doesn't work for you then ask the Doc what you are doing wrong, to question is good but to dismiss without trying is ignorance just my opinion and not intended to offend anyone.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenposikh _
> *Hi Folks,
> 
> I would like to say my two cents worth here and that is that I personally have experienced the power and significant devastation from a technique using structural integrity principles.
> 
> You really have to try it to understand it and as SGM E K Parker said to feel is to believe, I therefore suggest that if anyone of you can get to train with Doctor Chapel then do so you won't regret it. If you can't get to him why not invite him to visit your class or to a seminar who knows.
> 
> Go in with an open mind and you will surely be impressed.
> 
> Try the test and if it doesn't work for you then ask the Doc what you are doing wrong, to question is good but to dismiss without trying is ignorance just my opinion and not intended to offend anyone. *



It been awhile. :asian: Thanks.


----------



## kenposikh

As my Instructor (Master Bob Rose 10th Dan) once said to us in a class, the day I stop learning is the day I give up Kenpo.

This is so true we don't all know it all but we must be open to differing methods.

respectfully yours

Amrik


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenposikh _
> *As my Instructor (Master Bob Rose 10th Dan) once said to us in a class, the day I stop learning is the day I give up Kenpo.
> 
> This is so true we don't all know it all but we must be open to differing methods.
> 
> respectfully yours
> 
> Amrik *



I agree as well. I've been AT the arts, (not IN the arts) almost 47 years, and have never been bored with the learning process nor taken any substantial time off. When I stop learning is when I'll quit, and considering all the things I don't know, that won't be happening in my liftime. I have more ranks and degrees than I'll ever need. Growth is what I seek within the science passed to me by the Kahuna. By doing that I honor him and his memory, and keep my promise.


----------



## howardr

I wrote a longer post (but this is plenty long) but IE crashed as I was about to submit my reply. Instead of recapitulating the entire thing, I'll just say the following.

Many here seem to "analyze"  the experiment offered by Dr. Chapel but skip the crucial step of _performing_ it. After all, it is an experiment, the point is to do it! Don't just talk about it, actually try it. When I've tried this experiment (and a large number of other ones of increasing complexity) it has yielded impressive results. My opinion is that these experiments are Dr. Chapel's way of offering objectively verifiable, inductive tests to demonstrate that various methods of executing basics will produce significantly different results. So, as opposed to the idea that if the final result "looks" the same, it must have the same effectiveness, what Dr. Chapel's experiments show is that the _method_ of getting to the result will determine the level of effectiveness. Instead of him just asserting that, he is actually giving experiments that can be performed and independently verified. Analysis by itself, or "seeing" the experiment in the mind's eye, will not suffice to show why two ways of getting to the same place will produce different results. In the end, you must be willing to give the experiment an honest effort and not a half-hearted attempt (or worse still just a visualization).

I would note in conclusion that describing, grasping and performing these hands on experiments is not easy. So, I don't think it would be quite fair if a participant feels they didn't get the exact result expected, to come to the knee-jerk conclusion that the experiment failed. It may have, or perhaps it was not performed correctly. If these simple experiments are causing such a ruckus, is it any wonder why Dr. Chapel has not offered some of his more sophisticated experiments? I'm starting to see exactly why he hasn't.


----------



## kenposikh

Nice post Howard I would have loved to have read the extensive one.


----------



## WhiteTiger

> _Originally posted by howardr _
> *Many here seem to "analyze"  the experiment offered by Dr. Chapel but skip the crucial step of performing it. After all, it is an experiment, the point is to do it! Don't just talk about it, actually try it. *



My training partner and I performed it, analyzed it, visualized it, and attempted to apply this concept to a few self defense techniques with similar movement.  Perhaps it is something that one must be shown to understand, perhaps I just need another 15 or so years of experience, but when people talk about the "flow of certain energies" it usually translates to the mystic properties the chinese have attributed to Chi.

I will reserve my opinion at this time until I have further opportunity to work with this concept.


----------



## Crazy Chihuahua

Hmm.....I've been gone for quite a while, so I didn't get into this thread very early. Consequently, I've forgotten most of the huge, long posts I read over the past four pages. In any case, I felt like offering an answer if anyone cares to hear it and if you don't, well, there are tons of others in here, so here goes:

Most of you seem to practice American Kenpo, so MAYBE you have different purposes for "slapping" your own body. As many people in here like to remind me, however, the Kanzen and American systems have certain similarities, so perhaps my explanation can help SOMEBODY out there. That wasn't exactly a response, though, was it? Oh, well. Now my answer for real:

Slapping our bodies is a way to practice proper positioning for guards, (in our system, a weapon placed in readiness to counter an opponent's action or reaction to our strike is called a guard if it does not touch the opponent, and a check if it does [there are many types of checks, but that's irrelevant for now,].) By slapping yourself, you set your hand in it's proper place to counteract an attacker's action/reaction (for example, hand at the shoulder, guarding the face from an upward swinging arm as you lift an opponent from a bent-over position with a palm strike.) The slap noise is an audio cue that lets your instructor know that a guard has been placed. The feeling of slapping yourself is a self-teaching tool that reminds you that the guard is there at that time in the technique.

There you have it, for whatever it's worth...


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Crazy Chihuahua _
> *Hmm.....I've been gone for quite a while, so I didn't get into this thread very early. Consequently, I've forgotten most of the huge, long posts I read over the past four pages. In any case, I felt like offering an answer if anyone cares to hear it and if you don't, well, there are tons of others in here, so here goes:
> 
> Most of you seem to practice American Kenpo, so MAYBE you have different purposes for "slapping" your own body. As many people in here like to remind me, however, the Kanzen and American systems have certain similarities, so perhaps my explanation can help SOMEBODY out there. That wasn't exactly a response, though, was it? Oh, well. Now my answer for real:
> 
> Slapping our bodies is a way to practice proper positioning for guards, (in our system, a weapon placed in readiness to counter an opponent's action or reaction to our strike is called a guard if it does not touch the opponent, and a check if it does [there are many types of checks, but that's irrelevant for now,].) By slapping yourself, you set your hand in it's proper place to counteract an attacker's action/reaction (for example, hand at the shoulder, guarding the face from an upward swinging arm as you lift an opponent from a bent-over position with a palm strike.) The slap noise is an audio cue that lets your instructor know that a guard has been placed. The feeling of slapping yourself is a self-teaching tool that reminds you that the guard is there at that time in the technique.
> 
> There you have it, for whatever it's worth... *


I would agree with what you have just said but I'm a little hung up on the thing about the slap being a cue for your instructor. The slap is in fact a cue for yourself to make descisions based on your needs at that exact moment. You seem to be making semantic leaps and bounds with the word "guard" but if I'm reading this right I completely agree with you.
Sean


----------



## Robbo

Also,

Slaps can be used in many different ways,

1) As a auditory clue that your timing is correct.
2) As Mr. Chape`l mentioned a physical clue that your weapons are correctly aligned or on their way to being correctly aligned.
3) As a by-product of re-bounding.
4) As a means of setting the trajectory of your weapon (a upward lifting backfist should brush/slap the leg on the way towards it's target)
5) As a way of dispersing/generating power when practising alone without resistance.
6) As CC mentioned a way of knowing where your positioned checks are.
7)As a way of conditioning the body.

and I'm sure a bunch more but,

there are many different ways to execute the 'slap'.....remember to ask your instructor about the whys and hows.

Rob


----------



## Karazenpo

Okay, now I don't want to get ganged up on here, lol, I have corresponded privately and have the utmost respect for several of the members on this forum but I just want to throw this at you and get some input. I have been in law enforcement since 1977, working the streets, narcotics and bar room details in the past. I've experienced a lot of things and I have exchanged stories with others in and out of law enforcement who have also. Imho, many make fighting too complicated. Let's face it, it's really fairly simple, as some have great natural ability without any training what-so-ever! Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the martial arts and hardcore training whether a natural or not but there is only so much that can actually be used even by the most expertise practitioner. Most that do well in actual encounters from what I have seen and/or experienced do a lot of punching/striking, a little kicking, some elbows & knees and good old grappling. Please allow me to give this example. In a previous post the term Pak Sao was mentioned and how Mr. Parker changed the name to , I think what was said, positional checks. I remember the term Pak Sao block from Wing Chun Kung Fu which brought this to mind. Now, this was a while ago and I may be a little fuzzy on exact details but was it William Cheung who was giving a seminar on Wing Chun Kung Fu and a rival instructor or something like that 'crashed' the seminar and attacked him. There were some cameras clicking away at the time and it certainly didn't look like 'sticky hands' to me but more like Vince McMahon's World Wrestling Federation's 'Smack Down'! Now, this is not mean't to put anyone or style down, please believe that, my intentions are sincere but it does make one question; "How much of all this is actually used against a WORTHY opponent?" The key word being WORTHY. I know some can relate encounters where either themselves or someone else used this or that in but then again there are some trouble makers out there that pick fights that we could do a kata on and make it work, lol. I'm sure we're all on the same page when I say we all train to fight the 'ringer'and outside of movies, television, demonstrations or in the dojo, I'ver never seen all this stuff go down like it's related in practice, don't you agree? What say you? And again, Respectfully submitted.


----------



## MJS

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Okay, now I don't want to get ganged up on here, lol, I have corresponded privately and have the utmost respect for several of the members on this forum but I just want to throw this at you and get some input. I have been in law enforcement since 1977, working the streets, narcotics and bar room details in the past. I've experienced a lot of things and I have exchanged stories with others in and out of law enforcement who have also. Imho, many make fighting too complicated. Let's face it, it's really fairly simple, as some have great natural ability without any training what-so-ever! Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the martial arts and hardcore training whether a natural or not but there is only so much that can actually be used even by the most expertise practitioner. Most that do well in actual encounters from what I have seen and/or experienced do a lot of punching/striking, a little kicking, some elbows & knees and good old grappling. Please allow me to give this example. In a previous post the term Pak Sao was mentioned and how Mr. Parker changed the name to , I think what was said, positional checks. I remember the term Pak Sao block from Wing Chun Kung Fu which brought this to mind. Now, this was a while ago and I may be a little fuzzy on exact details but was it William Cheung who was giving a seminar on Wing Chun Kung Fu and a rival instructor or something like that 'crashed' the seminar and attacked him. There were some cameras clicking away at the time and it certainly didn't look like 'sticky hands' to me but more like Vince McMahon's World Wrestling Federation's 'Smack Down'! Now, this is not mean't to put anyone or style down, please believe that, my intentions are sincere but it does make one question; "How much of all this is actually used against a WORTHY opponent?" The key word being WORTHY. I know some can relate encounters where either themselves or someone else used this or that in but then again there are some trouble makers out there that pick fights that we could do a kata on and make it work, lol. I'm sure we're all on the same page when I say we all train to fight the 'ringer'and outside of movies, television, demonstrations or in the dojo, I'ver never seen all this stuff go down like it's related in practice, don't you agree? What say you? And again, Respectfully submitted. *



Excellent post!  This does bring up many good points!  You are right-  Here we are, spending many years, and lots of money to study an art to learn to defend ourselves.  Before I go on, I'd just like to say again, that we all do the arts for differnet reasons, so of course, everybody is going to have a very different outlook on this subject.  When I would teach a student a SD tech, I would tell them that this is ONE possible way of looking at the attack, whatever it may be.  I tell them that they are learning the tech. in the "perfect world" where everything is going to go as planned.  I then go on to tell them that eventually, its up to them to take the skills that they learned and move on, by looking at the "what ifs" and use their mind to create a way, using the skills that they have, to defend themselves from an attack.  Unfortunately,  some dont seem to understand.  When working a tech. line, I intentionally throw out an attack that they have never seen a defense for.  They stand there, with a very confused look.  I then say to them, "Do you know how to block, punch, parry, kick, etc.?"  The reply "Yes!"  I then look at them and say, "Well, then do it!  Dont just stand there, do something"  You can see the light slowly coming on as they realize how much sense this makes.

While we may practice to an extent, some realism in the class while doing a tech. you will still not be able to create the way a person on the street, who is hell bent on killing you or causing you some serious harm.  The example of William Cheung is a perfect example.  Emin Boztepe came out of nowhere and attacked him.  Granted, the arts DO NOT turn you into a superman, but you would think that the skills that you have would give you an edge over the average guy.  Will we in a fight, be able to do a SD tech. properly?  Probably not.  Yeah, I'm sure there are some that could get it off without a problem, but in the long run, IMO, those techs. are going to go right out the door.  It will, like you said, turn into the striking/hitting/knees/elbows/grappling, that you mentioned.  The guy isnt going to throw one punch, stand there, and wait until you do your 8 move tech.  Instead, its going to be a flurry of things thrown at you.  Are you really going to be thinking about which punch tech. you want to do, or are you going to be thinking about saving your butt?  I know what I'm going to be doing!

Mike


----------



## Crazy Chihuahua

> _Originally posted by Robbo _
> *Also,
> 
> Slaps can be used in many different ways,
> 
> 1) As a auditory clue that your timing is correct.
> 2) As Mr. Chape`l mentioned a physical clue that your weapons are correctly aligned or on their way to being correctly aligned.
> 3) As a by-product of re-bounding.
> 4) As a means of setting the trajectory of your weapon (a upward lifting backfist should brush/slap the leg on the way towards it's target)
> 5) As a way of dispersing/generating power when practising alone without resistance.
> 6) As CC mentioned a way of knowing where your positioned checks are.
> 7)As a way of conditioning the body.
> 
> and I'm sure a bunch more but,
> 
> there are many different ways to execute the 'slap'.....remember to ask your instructor about the whys and hows.
> 
> Rob *



Oh, sure, go for the multiple answers and show me up...Ha ha ha!


----------



## kenpo_cory

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *A simple experiment for you.
> 
> Stand in a horse stance
> Execute an outward elbow to the side
> lock it out and have someone gradually
> push on it counter direction to the strike.
> 
> The results will be a gradual collapse and movement of the upper body until the stance, elbow, and upper body give way to a lack of structural integrity (for a variety of reasons).
> 
> Then let's execute the elbow again, but this time have the arm that is executing the outward elbow, "slap" the "opposite" shoulder and "slide" your arm across your body to execute the elbow.
> 
> Have someone push again. You should experience a significant increase in strength induced by proper structural integrity of the elbow and body and a directing of certain energy.
> 
> With proper training the human body responds tremendously and there is no loss of speed in the execution and efficiency and effectiveness reach maximum human potential.
> 
> The human body is stronger than steel and fragil as an egg from moment to moment. The secret is to be able to identify and create the moment you desire in yourself and your opponent and capitalize on it.
> 
> Tell me how the experiemnt goes.*



I have a question about this Doc. Lets say that we're doing the outward elbow with the right arm. Wouldn't the left side of the body have a huge impact on structural integrity? What I'm asking is doesn't the positioning of the left shoulder and arm increase or decrease the effect of your alignment?


----------



## Trejo

Its all about the sound effects


----------



## Simon Curran

Trejo said:
			
		

> Its all about the sound effects


With respect, I think you have failed to read the rest of the posts here before making such a sweeping statement.


----------



## JenniM

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I looked at this experiment and if the position of the outward elbow is the same in both cases, I would expect the results to be the same. The route or method applied to get to the outward elbow strike should not matter.
> 
> The outward elbow strike is braced because your fist should be tight against your chest at the point of completion.
> 
> yay, or nay?


Having just started my journey into SL4 I can categorically state that the route/method taken in getting to the strike, whatever that strike may be IS paramount to delivering the most effective structurally sound and devastating strike - we have tested this in class over and over again and the results are unquestionable - even in the short time I have been studying SL4, I am now beginning to be able to "feel" when my body is correct in its alignment and structural integrity for the execution/delivery of a strike (although I still get it wrong sometimes!) - in effect I am re-learning correct mechanisms which over the years my body has forgotten and this is why when you are performing these moves you have to "feel" what you are doing  you may not get it right the first time but when you do youll know it!!!


----------



## JenniM

WhiteTiger said:
			
		

> I have analyzed your experiment, and I think I understand where your coming from here. But in this example you are trading off other efficiencies to gain proper anatomical form.


I think there are misconceptions about the speed of obtaining correct anatomical form and structural integrity  At the moment Im learning and feel like I am in that alphabet of motion stage again!! but Ive seen the shorthand version implementing SL4 concepts and believe me there is absolutely no trade off of other efficiencies!! 



			
				WhiteTiger said:
			
		

> I can see as the body ages proper anatomical form becomes more and more important in order to avoid injury.


Proper anatomical form is vitally important from the outset regardless of age  I know this now in hindsight having suffered with severe back problems after many years of training which hospitalised me and saw surgery in my old age  in my 30s!! When I look back now I see the trauma I placed upon my physical structure which was being caused by incorrect anatomical form  I make sure Im correct now though and hopefully its not too late!


----------



## Simon Curran

JenniM said:
			
		

> Proper anatomical form is vitally important from the outset regardless of age  I know this now in hindsight having suffered with severe back problems after many years of training which hospitalised me and saw surgery in my old age  in my 30s!! When I look back now I see the trauma I placed upon my physical structure which was being caused by incorrect anatomical form  I make sure Im correct now though and hopefully its not too late!


This is another of the reasons I find SL4 interesting, ma'am, already at the ripe old age of 29, I often feel a twinge in my hips or lower back, even though I have never really been much of a kicker.


----------



## Michael Billings

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> With respect, I think you have failed to read the rest of the posts here before making such a sweeping statement.


 Mr. Curran, I think you may have missed the humor in Frank Trejo's comment.  It was tongue in cheek.  That is when he slaps THEM, they swallow their tongue and their cheek is broken and residing on the other side of their face.

 Oss Mr. Trejo, I personally thought it was hilarious.

 -Respectfully,
 -Michael


----------



## JenniM

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> This is another of the reasons I find SL4 interesting, ma'am, already at the ripe old age of 29, I often feel a twinge in my hips or lower back, even though I have never really been much of a kicker.


Thats your body giving you a wake up call alright!!    Take heed of it now Simon and dont just do what I did and just soldiered on regardless........I have to be very careful in what I am doing now several years post op but because I am now so aware of my structure and alignment through SL4 I am able to continue to train most effectively and not aggrevate my old injury


----------



## Simon Curran

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Mr. Curran, I think you may have missed the humor in Frank Trejo's comment. It was tongue in cheek. That is when he slaps THEM, they swallow their tongue and their cheek is broken and residing on the other side of their face.
> 
> Oss Mr. Trejo, I personally thought it was hilarious.
> 
> -Respectfully,
> -Michael


 Sorry, my bad:asian:


----------



## Simon Curran

JenniM said:
			
		

> Thats your body giving you a wake up call alright!! Take heed of it now Simon and dont just do what I did and just soldiered on regardless........I have to be very careful in what I am doing now several years post op but because I am now so aware of my structure and alignment through SL4 I am able to continue to train most effectively and not aggrevate my old injury


 Yes ma'am, I will be implementing the changes we learned over with you at least for myself, and am already trying to put them into context with the beginning basics.


----------



## Seabrook

Just so that you all know, the "Trejo" posting on here is NOT Frank Trejo. It is my brown belt student, Matt Trejo. But yes, his comment was still meant as "tongue in cheek".



Jamie Seabrook

www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## dubljay

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Just so that you all know, the "Trejo" posting on here is NOT Frank Trejo. It is my brown belt student, Matt Trejo. But yes, his comment was still meant as "tongue in cheek".
> 
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> 
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


   I would hope people would have noticed that.... It clearly states he is a brown belt in the name part of his post.


----------



## KenpoTess

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Mr. Curran, I think you may have missed the humor in Frank Trejo's comment.  It was tongue in cheek.  That is when he slaps THEM, they swallow their tongue and their cheek is broken and residing on the other side of their face.
> 
> Oss Mr. Trejo, I personally thought it was hilarious.
> 
> -Respectfully,
> -Michael





I'm so confused.. I thought that 'Trejo' is someone from Canada.. Not Mr. Frank Trejo..


----------



## KenpoTess

I just had to reiterate that to Mr. Billings


----------



## Bode

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> I'm so confused.. I thought that 'Trejo' is someone from Canada.. Not Mr. Frank Trejo..


 Considering that his profile say's "Brown Belt" I think you are correct....
 Having established that I believe he was still being toungue in cheek about slap checks being for sound effects. At least I sincerely hope so. If not, we have a long thread about to start.


----------



## Seabrook

Bode said:
			
		

> Considering that his profile say's "Brown Belt" I think you are correct....
> Having established that I believe he was still being toungue in cheek about slap checks being for sound effects. At least I sincerely hope so. If not, we have a long thread about to start.


I will re-iterate, Matt Trejo is a Brown Belt of mine, and yes he is from London, Ontario, Canada. And yes, his comment was definietly meant as tongue and cheek. 

Hope that helps.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Bode

Thanks, I missed that post for some reason! My fault.


----------



## KenpoTess

...and I'm just giving Mr. Billings a hard time


----------



## evenflow1121

The way I learned the slap, was that the slap was to be used as a parry, I never heard of it done to stimulate muscles and affect speed


----------



## Michael Billings

But, but, but ... I dinna read their profile Captain.  

 My bad, but it was still funny thinking about Frank Trejo slapping someone up side the head.  OUCH!!!!

 -Michael


----------



## arnisador

JenniM said:
			
		

> we have tested this in class over and over again and the results are unquestionable


 I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.


----------



## dubljay

I fail to see how slapping one's self would increase speed and power... being a novice feel free to correct me as necessary.  In the argument of slapping your body to gain power and speed is based upon Chi/Ki it seems contradictive to how Chi is supposed to work.  I am under the impression that Chi would be disrupted by these slaps... Perhaps I am missinformed.

 To me slapping my chest or shoulder is just a timing check for me.  It serves as a double reference for my body, the sound and impact of the hand that is striking my body signifies the weapon I am striking the opponent with should be hitting the the target at the same time.  This helps me ensure that I am not over reaching the range of my weapons and keeps the flow of the technique.  The other perpuse it serves (for myself that is) is that when my hand makes contact with my body I "know" where it is.  I have a better sense of where my hand is in relation to the rest of me.  

 Slapping the opponent I view a method of controling the depth of contact.  Open handed I am not quite as concerned with penetrating too far causing harm to my opponent (dummy opponent that is  "real life" is another matter); and that is not to say that you can not have a devastating open handed strike.  It is my understanding that generally (_not always_) if you are in range to strike with an open hand, you are in range to strike with a closed fist, so there is no sacrificing of range.  Secondly slapping an opponent helps them (again this is IMO and speaking about myself) understand the placement of the strikes.  Being a good "dummy" they should be reacting to the strikes you are using, by understanding how the strikes are supposed to make the opponent react they gain a deeper understanding of not just "how" to execute the technique, but "why" the technique designed as such.

 Again this is based upon my limited and novice experience... feel free to enlighten me of my errors of judgement or fact.

 -Josh


----------



## Simon Curran

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Just so that you all know, the "Trejo" posting on here is NOT Frank Trejo. It is my brown belt student, Matt Trejo. But yes, his comment was still meant as "tongue in cheek".
> 
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> 
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


Yes sir, I noticed that it said brown belt by his profile, but made the mistake of taking the post seriously, my mistake and my apologies to Mr Trejo (either of them...)


----------



## JenniM

arnisador said:
			
		

> I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.


Ok may be I phrased my post incorrectly - let me put it another way SL4 works!!! - contest it, question it but to do this you have to have experienced it, worked it and then form your opinion - I have spent 25 years doing motion Kenpo and have been accused in the past of being too analytical, therefore learning SL4 is not an easy task for me given its complexities BUT I'm sticking with it because I've seen, it, practiced it, felt it and know this stuff works.   As for my eyesight... perfect 20/20 vision!!:ultracool


----------



## kenposikh

Trejo said:
			
		

> Its all about the sound effects




Sir,

I believe you need to chat to your instructor for the reasons why, as your statement states a clear lack of understanding


----------



## kenposikh

Trejo,

Please ignore my post for if as has been stated elsewhere your statement was tongue in cheek  then I apologise for any offence I may have caused


----------



## kenposikh

arnisador said:
			
		

> I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.




Sir,

I would like to raise a couple of points and in no way wish to cause offence.

Your statement above tends to lead me to believe that you are skeptical about the reasonings for slap check etc etc. Therefore I say to be blind is one thing for you have an excuse for not seeing, but to close ones eyes and ears to facts as presented in some of the posts is sheer ignorance. It is all well and good to question reasons for why and to find answers you need to speak vist and feel from someone who knows.

Here is a simple test for you to try

1. stand in a good horse stance and throw an outward elbow to 3 oclock

2. Have someone put there hand on your elbow and then push to see if they can put you off balance.

3. Assuming that you fist is kept close to your body as was stated in another post, this is where it needs to be to brace the strike.

4. You will find that it will be easy to push you off balance.

5. Try the experiment again this time however slap yourself on the font of your chest near to where the shoulder joint is and execute the same outward elbo from there

6. You should now find that even though your fist ends up in the same position as previously i.e. close to your chest that the effort required to put you off balance is considerably increased.

Therefore the slap check does serve a purpose and the how the outward elbow got to is's final point is important as can be seend the end result looks the same.

Herein lies the key to my response the LOOK may be the same however a blind person cannot see it therefore the FEEL is Important.

If the experiment does not work for you then I suggest you pay a visit to someone who can show you what you are doing incorrect. I suggest if you have access then you pay a visit to Dr Ron Chapel who will certainly be able to help.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I wonder about this as well. We do it in the FMA sometimes to whip around a stick/sword strike by slapping the bicep and I am not fully convinced that it makes a great deal of difference.



Not a good Idea to slap the Bicep justs cuts your strike down.

Finally please don't make stupid statements as was said to JenniM she was stating what she knew through testing and not through hearsay etc.

The fact that she has questioned the how and the why and the results she found were positive should make an intelligent person enquire as to how they can discover the results for themselves rather than being derogatory.

Once again I apologise if this causes offence although I do not believe it would as we are all intelligent people here and able to hold a debate on a subject without going to the depths of insults etc.

Thank you


----------



## Jagdish

I think one can "sense" the drills better if one has been previously  exposed to correct alignment in one's training.

I have tried the slapping check to outward elbow and the stomping once made neutral bow (advancing or retreating).

In the outward elbow drill i was amazed how quickly you got proper alignment and how the back muscles engaged to the action without execesive tension.( there is much more, of course!).

About this drill i would say that it helps to align yourself quickly and it's vey useful for beginners or people with not 100% control of his body. I know it's also useful for advance practicioners but i just to wanted to point out it' fast advantages. It take years of hard training to get proper alignment of your body in static and dynamic situations.

When stomping after retreating to a N/B it was like getting braced and having a forced that was coming upward-forward.

Yes, there are advantages to this material but once must experiment with it and it will take a long time to discover "these little wonders" without being a blind follower or an anti-slapping  positioned fighter. What i mean is the best way is to experiment without being conditioned.

Also one should (in theory) expand fron these.
TTFN

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## MHeeler

arnisador said:
			
		

> I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.


Arnisador,

Apparently, no-one from the Martial "Science" University understands the concept of "double-blindedness."  Makes me at least a little bit skeptical about the "science" involved.

Science is merely the method by which we test our database of knowledge, no matter the subject.  Think back to grade school science classes and remember the "Scientific Method."  Unfortunately, most of us left those lessons back there in our childhood.  If this method, or some variation, isn't used, then it's really not science.  We can call it science or scientific, but unfortunately, the actual experimentation and testing process is all too often absent.

Double blind refers to this testing process.  Some posters apparently took this as a reference to eyesight and/or open-mindedness.  Unfortunate misunderstanding.  Double blind simply means that both parties involved in an experiment/test are unaware of the methods of the test.  The person administering the test is not allowed to know which person gets the "real" deal and which gets the "placebo."  (In quotes because we're not really talking about drug trials, but our current topic instead.)  Also, the person receiving the technique is not allowed to know which they are receiving.  This process removes several errors inherent in the testing process, known as biases.  This is why the gold standard of scientific testing is the "double blind, randomized clinical trial."  Randomization is another topic altogether involving statistical analysis, and my math is a little rusty.

Any basic science text ought to include this information.  But, I'm sure that a little effort with a search engine could yield the same results.  

Scientist wannabe,
MH


----------



## Bode

MHeeler said:
			
		

> Arnisador,
> 
> Apparently, no-one from the Martial "Science" University understands the concept of "double-blindedness." Makes me at least a little bit skeptical about the "science" involved.
> MH


 Keep in mind that not everyone in the Martial Science university is a scientist. The name suggests a way of looking at the application of Martial Arts. A methodology. I am aware of what a double blind test is as I am sure others are. Some of the people on this forum are simply passionate about what they are learning and will defend it. Especially when the medium of communication distorts or misrepresents the point someone is trying to make. (Misunderstanding of double blind)
 The scientific method:


> Quoting some website
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.   2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
> 
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
> 
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


 Obviously it doesn't say anything about a double blind. Is a double blind always required? No. In fact, double blind is used in clinical trials or drug testing when the objectivity of the patient is required. (The only test in Kenpo this seems applicable to is nerve striking)

 Physicists don't use a double blind because they are not worried about observer bias. They propose a hypothesis, predict the existence of some phenomena, and test it. We all know that if I extend my arm straight out in front of me it will be fairly week on the vertical plane. Do I need a double blind to test that? No, it's physics. The supporting muscles are greatly reduced (deltoid is the major support muscle, Dr. Crouch?) such that it is impossible to be AS strong in that position. 

 Within our coursework we are continually hypothesising and testing (scientific method). I test on people who don't know martial arts and even those who do, but outside of my school. We are encouraged to go to other schools and test our teachings.

 If you wish to hold us to the gold standard of double blind, fine, for everything we do we will perform such a test. Then 700 years from now when all the tests are done we might actually have learned something. Point is, there is no time for this except for perhaps very contentious points (such as nerver strikes). Other tests are more in line with physics than testing drugs on human patients. 

 How many schools are you aware of that encourage such testing? Rather, many, in my experience teach a technique and say, "Do it this way...cause it works."


----------



## Michael Billings

I think the most important thing here is the ability to recreate the same conditions and render the same effect.  We can argue about whether it is applied kinesiology, SL-4, Dim-Muk, or Dillman no contact knockouts.  This is a bit specious I know.  Rather open the mind a bit, as Mr. Parker said "... it only works when it is open."  

 Do pressure points work in the back of the neck, sure they do.  Is it because I am "grounded", or my energy flow is correct, or I am maintaining the correct anatomical positioning to maximize the power of my strike, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum.  

 I can tap the pressure points, my student goes out.  In a fight, if I miss them, that is ok because Kenpo allows a margin of error.  Almost anyone falls down with a hard strike to the neck.  Although I may try for the pressure points, with a very relaxed heavy hand, if I miss them due to my own incompetence, lack of training, or just nerves and adreniline, I am fairly confident the guy will still go down.  

 SL-4's framework, from my limited understanding, and the bit I have learned and tried over the past several years, allows you maximize the structural advantages you possess, by #1 - Learning them, #2 - learning how to take advantage of other's who do not have this insight into their own body.  

 I have a great story about a student last night who may be 150 pounds on a rainy day wearing a coat.  Extremely skilled and proficient in AKKI Kenpo, BJJ, and TKD.  I had a 250 pound guy and he sparring Kenpo-style (no gloves, pads, except mouthpiece and cup) going about 50% speed so we can bring self-defense techniques (or part of them) into our free sparring and eventually get rid of the tournament style stuff all together.  The 250 pounder picks him up a few times for others to punch him (did I mention we were doing multiple opponents?), anyhow, it was way too easy.  So I worked with his hooking, then anchoring his heel, hip, and shoulder on one side, actually adding weight instead of suspending himself for the other guy to throw.  Could not get him off the ground and he still had an arm and leg for the 2nd opponent.  Part of this involves slapping your own body to activate or cue the weight distribution/balance break.

 Well, I got way off topic, not good, but it was a great class with over 3 hours of sparring or grappling.  Lots to learn about your own body and a good place to play with this is when someone else is leaning on you and you figure out how to "make" your center, immovable.

 << OK, Twilight Zone Music Inserted HERE>>

 -Michael


----------



## MHeeler

Bode said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that not everyone in the Martial Science university is a scientist. The name suggests a way of looking at the application of Martial Arts. A methodology. I am aware of what a double blind test is as I am sure others are. Some of the people on this forum are simply passionate about what they are learning and will defend it. Especially when the medium of communication distorts or misrepresents the point someone is trying to make. (Misunderstanding of double blind)
> The scientific method:
> Obviously it doesn't say anything about a double blind. Is a double blind always required? No. In fact, double blind is used in clinical trials or drug testing when the objectivity of the patient is required. (The only test in Kenpo this seems applicable to is nerve striking)
> 
> Physicists don't use a double blind because they are not worried about observer bias. They propose a hypothesis, predict the existence of some phenomena, and test it. We all know that if I extend my arm straight out in front of me it will be fairly week on the vertical plane. Do I need a double blind to test that? No, it's physics. The supporting muscles are greatly reduced (deltoid is the major support muscle, Dr. Crouch?) such that it is impossible to be AS strong in that position.
> 
> Within our coursework we are continually hypothesising and testing (scientific method). I test on people who don't know martial arts and even those who do, but outside of my school. We are encouraged to go to other schools and test our teachings.
> 
> If you wish to hold us to the gold standard of double blind, fine, for everything we do we will perform such a test. Then 700 years from now when all the tests are done we might actually have learned something. Point is, there is no time for this except for perhaps very contentious points (such as nerver strikes). Other tests are more in line with physics than testing drugs on human patients.
> 
> How many schools are you aware of that encourage such testing? Rather, many, in my experience teach a technique and say, "Do it this way...cause it works."


I apologize.  I wasn't trying to make a back-handed statement about the MSU.  It just struck me as silly that the original poster's meaning was so misconstrued.  However, it is precisely this methodology that I question.  There are accepted standards of research that all institutions of higher learning must abide by.  Not to mention, the very idea of scientific testing implies reproducibility and falsifiability (I may have just invented a word here  ).  

No, double blind settings are not always used or required.  And, they are not explicitly implied by any definition of the scientific method.  I never said they were.  However, through several decades of experimental experience, it has become accepted that double-blinding and randomization are keys to reducing errors in the scientific process.  These are used not only for drug trials, but also many types of scientific testing, from psychological to marketing and sales.  In addition, double blinding is used not only to ensure the patient's objectivity, but also the tester's (i.e., reducing confirmation bias and positive outcome bias).

Physicists, while they may not utilize double blinding, DO very much have to worry about observer bias.  All experimenters do.  This is why studies are repeated both by the original experimenter as well as many others, and at other universities.  This ensures that error alone does not account for any significant findings.  And, I further propose that, if it would be feasible to do so, double blinding would enhance the accuracy of all tests, including physics.  For the most part, it would seem to me that physicists are unable to utilize double blinding for the sole reason that the experimenter MUST know something about the method and purpose of the test in order to correctly interpret what happens.  Most lay people are not able to accurately observe esoteric scientific data without some prior training.

Which brings me back to "martial science."  What we do does not require much higher learning.  As the head of MSU often states, you can quite easily learn what to do and how to do it without knowing why it works.  And no, I'm not holding you to any standard.  Furthermore, I personally haven't seen any martial arts instructors engage in testing their teachings either.  However, when you proclaim yourself to be a university, and that you are teaching a science, you put yourself in league with other such institutions who hold themselves to high standards.

Thanks,
MH


----------



## arnisador

kenposikh said:
			
		

> Not a good Idea to slap the Bicep justs cuts your strike down.


  Hmm, perhaps Filipino martial arts practitioners don't understand stick-fighting very well. I'll look into it.



> Finally please don't make stupid statements as was said to JenniM she was stating what she knew through testing


 It isn't tested unless it's tested in a double-blind study, as your post eminently demonstrates. If it's good enough for her, though, that's great.



> we are all intelligent people here and able to hold a debate on a subject without going to the depths of insults


 I didn't insult anyone. I made a standard objection. Yet, you've described my statements as stupid and derogatory, and accused me of being insulting. I _do_ find your post rude and insulting. It's also ignorant (look this word up; it doesn't mean what you think it means). See e.g. *MHeeler*'s post.


----------



## arnisador

Bode said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that not everyone in the Martial Science university is a scientist.


  Ah, I didn't realize it also offered liberal arts majors!



> Is a double blind always required? No.


 True. But even a single blind testing protocol is a step up. Grab 20 people off the street. Do a (safe) technique on them. Do it the SL-4 way half of the time and the "classical" way half of the time, randomized. Have unbiased observers rate the effectiveness of the technique. Not perfect, but it starts to approach a scientific method. Better would be to train 10 volunteers in the SL-4 way of doing one technique, 10 the classical way, and have them perform the technique on other volunteers, and have the results rated. Hard? Yes. But strong claims, like someone at a "science university" claiming that a technique is unquestionably superior to another, merit strong proof.






> If you wish to hold us to the gold standard of double blind


 No, that isn't always necessary. But I didn't put Science and University in the school's name...are you arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for your own labeling? That you don't believe your own hype? Is it a scientific approach, or just a very specialized approach? Specialization does not a science make.



> How many schools are you aware of that encourage such testing? Rather, many, in my experience teach a technique and say, "Do it this way...cause it works."


 Ah, OK. So, ignore the "Science University" part and just reckon it as yet another commercial school with an unusual marketing campaign? Shall I infer from your comments an opinion about its degrees as well? Fair enough. I am convinced by the logic of your argument!


----------



## arnisador

JenniM said:
			
		

> Ok may be I phrased my post incorrectly - let me put it another way SL4 works!!! - contest it, question it but to do this you have to have experienced it, worked it and then form your opinion


 I'm glad you like it and I have no problem with that. I'm sure it's every bit as good as other forms of Kenpo. Who knows, maybe it's better! But, if only acolytes can form an opinion, group-think is always a danger. Yet, I wouldn't try to form an opinion of any art without seeing it demonstrated live. I've had experiences with many Kenpoists but never, to the best of my knowledge, an SL-4 practitioner. I actually find the approach as described interesting and am not trying to deride it as being less effective than some other form of Kenpo--I'm discussing it as best I can on a web board. That is why we're here, no?


----------



## Simon Curran

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Well, I got way off topic, not good, but it was a great class with over 3 hours of sparring or grappling. Lots to learn about your own body and a good place to play with this is when someone else is leaning on you and you figure out how to "make" your center, immovable.
> 
> 
> 
> -Michael


 For what it's worth, sir, it doesn't look to me as if you strayed from the topic, you showed anecdotal evicence for a principle.:asian:


----------



## Doc

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> Here's an article I found this morning.. what are your thoughts and comments?
> 
> Amazing how EPAK crosses into other Systems
> 
> *Author*
> Jeremy Bays is an experienced martial artist and writer who holds a black belt in Chun Do Kwan Taekwon-do,
> Chinese Kempo jiu-jitsu, and is currently working in Kali and Jeet Kune Do. He lives in Farmland, Indiana with his wife and two daughters.
> 
> 
> Slap! Slap! Slap! This is a sound that you will hear upon entering into an American Kenpo, Shaolin Long Fist, or various other styles of karate and kung fu's class. People seem to be slapping themselves while performing the techniques of this system. Have you ever wondered what they were really doing? Have you ever wondered if the martial artists themselves knew what they were doing?
> 
> In this article I will attempt to give ONE possible explanation f or this odd looking movement. Please understand that there are as many more explanations as there are stars in the heavens. This is not THE ANSWER for this rebounding motion, but instead it is MY ANSWER.
> 
> The Technique:
> 
> Observe a high ranking American Kenpo stylist and you might notice this person will appear to slap themselves, usually on the chest area, while performing the various hand techniques of the art. One hand will go out to strike the opponent, then rebound off their body and go out and strike the attacker again. This process gets repeated at very high speeds in a movement. Please understand that there are as many more explanations as there are stars in the heavens. This is not THE ANSWER for this rebounding motion, but instead it is MY ANSWER.
> 
> The Technique:
> 
> Observe a high ranking American Kenpo stylist and you might notice this person will appear to slap themselves, usually on the chest area, while performing the various hand techniques of the art. One hand will go out to strike the opponent, then rebound off their body and go out and strike the attacker again. This process gets repeated at very high speeds in a
> 
> To rebound the technique off the body
> To minimize the harm done to the attacker (training partner)
> To indicate where the technique will land on the attacker by striking yourself in the same spot
> To ensure that the strike is given in a relaxed, whipping manner
> Some people I spoke with had not idea why they did this motion in their forms.
> 
> My Reason for Slapping Myself:
> 
> I tend to view the martial arts from a TCM (Traditional Chinese Medical) viewpoint. I find value in the theory of Chi (Qi, Ki, parna, life-force, energy). I believe that there are several locations on the human body where the Chi can be affected. These areas are commonly called pressure points and the art of manipulating these areas can do by many names including: kyusho, dim-mak, vital point applications, hyul-dul, and a host of other names. It is from this tradition that I draw the following theory in regards to slapping yourself.
> 
> Try this simple experiment with a partner:
> 
> First, locate the pressure point called Lung One on yourself. This point is located where the arm and shoulder meet. It lies about one inch under the clavicle (collar bone) towards the arm. Press around with light, finger tip pressure until you find a painful spot. Now find the same pressure point on your partner using the same method of light, fingertip pressure.
> 
> Next, strike your partner in this area VERY LIGHTLY!!!! This strike is not a full cocked punch but instead more of a heavy push. Just give your partner a little tap and then ask them to remember the amount of pain they felt.
> 
> The next step is now to strike yourself in Lung One with a slapping motion and then rebound off that slap and strike your partner in Lung One. Again, please PLAY NICE and go not hit them hard. Ask your partner to remember the results of this strike and compare it to the first one. If you were on target the effects of the second strike (with the self slap) should be much greater.
> 
> This is due to the fact you are doing several things with this technique:
> 
> You are maintaining a 'soft body'
> You are executing a whip-like strike
> You are attacking a pressure point on the body (a cluster of nerves in this case)
> You are 'programming' in your mind the exact location of Lung One on your partner by first striking there on yourself.
> Try this out with several of your techniques to is if your results are not greatly improved. Remember, this technique is not for everyone or for every situation. This movement is greatly telegraphed if the attacker can see you slapping yourself or knows what you are doing. Only use this technique when you have the attacker in a position where they can not see you due to some obstruction in their line of sight or some movement of deception you have preformed.
> 
> Here is a good technique to try this combination on. It is the classic Delayed Sword: from American Kenpos curriculum.
> 
> Attacker reaches out with the right hand to grasp the collar or lapel of the defender. Defender steps back to perform a right inward block (strike) to the attackers radial nerve area.
> 
> Defender then steps into a cat stance and executes a low front snap kick to the attackers exposed abdomen, bladder, groin, or femoral artery region. This action will double the attacker over, obstructing the vision, allowing the time needed by the defender to perform the 'self-slapping' motion before the follow-up strike. The defender then executes the self-slap and strikes at a target of opportunity.


Rubbish.


----------



## kenposikh

arnisador said:
			
		

> I didn't insult anyone. I made a standard objection. Yet, you've described my statements as stupid and derogatory, and accused me of being insulting.



Sir,

I am not a scientific person and have done as you suggested, I therefore Apologsie for my comments which caused you offence.


----------



## arnisador

kenposikh said:
			
		

> I am not a scientific person and have done as you suggested, I therefore Apologsie for my comments which caused you offence.


 Thank you, sir. I accept this, and understand your good intent. It's all about learning for all of us here! I'm enjoying learning some of the philosophy behind the SL-4 approach, which appeals to my scientific mind.


----------



## Bode

> Ah, I didn't realize it also offered liberal arts majors!





> Ah, OK. So, ignore the "Science University" part and just reckon it as yet another commercial school with an unusual marketing campaign? Shall I infer from your comments an opinion about its degrees as well?


 Statements like that make this seem more like a personal or directed attack, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt given your other posts.

 First, Martial Science University, is, and I said this earlier, an approach to the arts. I have an Masters of Science in Computer Science. Does that mean I have very formal training in every aspect of the scientific method? No. The MS in Computer Science suggests that my degree is founded on logical thought and clearly defines how we approach computers. In a scientific logical way. 
   You are trying to argue semantics with me and we are not on the same page. 
   Computer Science. 
 Replace computer with Martial and you have Martial Science. Same thing. It's an approach to a particular subject, which in this case is all subjects Martial. 
 In computer Science I could have a focus or area of expertise. Artifical Intelligence for instance. In Martial Science it just so happens to be Kenpo.

 The University part of Martial Science implies an institution of higher learning. Many schools (not kenpo specific) are black belt factories. I think everyone agrees on this. And of course, there are exceptions. Karate or Martial Arts is so ubiquitous now that there is no way to differentiate ours from the Take Your Do school down the street. These Take Your Do type schools are so common that people go, "Martial arts don't teach you how to fight, it's a sport." 
 In addition, a university often offers a range of courses. We have, under MSU, JuJitsu, Kenpo, Aikido, and Iiado... right now. 



> Ah, OK. So, ignore the "Science University" part and just reckon it as yet another commercial school with an unusual marketing campaign?


 Commercial. No. Commercial schools accept everyone with a paycheck and a decent attitude. Marketing, no. Our school doesn't market. We have a very small number of students and no specific school location. (We use another schools). You will never find a pamphlet, flyer, or otherwise saying, "Come on down and learn SL4." Everyone who visits is given prior approval. Everyone who wants to join is subject to a background check. People are often turned away. 
 The goal is to change the approach to the martial arts. Human anatomy dictates how certain movements should be performed, just as physics dictates how a bridge can be built to achieve peak structural integrity. 

   Do we offer a liberal arts degree? You must be joking. Seems like and antagonistic comment. 



> But strong claims, like someone at a "science university" claiming that a technique is unquestionably superior to another, merit strong proof.


 I don't remember anyone saying that. You have your way, we have ours. I am williing to bet that anyone on this board will defend their art's methods with great enthusiasm, as do the people on this board defend SL4. 
 When I post I try to discuss my reasoning in a very logical way, which is a requirement for SL4. In the end do I believe in my school more than others, yes. Does that make me bad? No. I can learn a lot, and have, by going to other schools or seminars. I appreciate all the arts as should anyone. I talk about SL4 in all my posts because it is what I know. Maybe I have knowledge in a few others areas, but SL4 is my focus. 
   Read this article
   For a good summary of how logical and scientific our approach is.


----------



## arnisador

Bode said:
			
		

> First, Martial Science University, is, and I said this earlier, an approach to the arts. I have an Masters of Science in Computer Science.


  My understanding is that your school offers college degrees. That is what led me to ask. As an aside, the 'science' in 'Computer Science' is often helpd by computer scientists to be misleading. It's more akin to engineering--in fact, it's not accredited through ABET, and witness also the rise of Software Engineering programs. In my experience, computer scientists don't see themselves as scientists per se, though you are right that the M.S. degree or a variant is generally the degree of choice.

 As to being antagonistic, that's not my goal. University programs is a subject with which I am familiar and in which I take a particular interest.



> The goal is to change the approach to the martial arts. Human anatomy dictates how certain movements should be performed, just as physics dictates how a bridge can be built to achieve peak structural integrity.


 Is it that simple? Two pitchers throw the ball in different ways. Each achieves good effects. Should everyone be emulating Tom Seaver? It's not clear to me that there's a single ideal sports technique everyone should be using.

 There are standard programs in kinesiology, sports performance/medicine/etc., biphysics/biomechanics, physiology, etc., that seems to cover these issues. However, having one with a focus on martial arts sounds good to me! I'm told they exist in for example Korea, but less so here.



> For a good summary of how logical and scientific our approach is.


 The link is interesting, but I think you're confusing 'logical' and 'scientific' with 'pedantic' and 'detailed'. It's argued like a humanist taking a position, not like a scientist supporting one.

 In any event, Martial Science University seems an inflated name for a group that has no physical school, a free web site, lacks a cohort of academically trained staff (correct me if I am mistaken here--it's not clear from the web pages), doesn't grant degrees or if it does they have "no indication of skill, knowledge, or ...ability" (from the web page cited above), and so on. It's great that you take the martial arts seriously, but that doesn't make for "an institution of higher learning" as you say.

 If you like it, great. It actually has an appraoch I find interesting. But wordiness is not the same as science, and I find the certainty inspired by the pseudo-philosophical tracts as on the link you gave to be grossly unsupported. But if it's just an unscientific personal belief, I have no beef with that.


----------



## eyebeams

> I have an Masters of Science in Computer Science. Does that mean I have very formal training in every aspect of the scientific method?


Uh, it does where I live. Having a philosophy degree does as well. Naturally, no discipline covers every form of experiment, but frankly, if you don't use the scientific method, you aren't using science. Similarlly, if you don't get a degree at an accredited college, it isn't a real degree by any reasonable standard.

Perhaps it comes as a shock to people that cherished buzzwords do, in fact, have actual meanings and standards.

What SL-4 advocates promote is that there is an interpretation to kenpo that was never written down that works in a certain way. It's "scientific," but which has no associated double-blind experiments or even videos of the concepts in action. It decries traditional approaches while describing elements in patently pseudoscientific terms ("circuits" that have no anatomical existence, for instance).

Here's an analogy.

The Ford motor company gets broken up into smaller companies. One of these companies claims that Ford secretly tested a 500 mpg car. If you qualify, you might be allowed to buy it. The car looks exactly like a 10 year old Escort, and every part looks like an Escort, but they claim it's been redesigned at fundamental levels (you can't see). Also, there is no proof the car goes 500 mpg aside from testimonials from folks still making their payments, and you are not allowed to look at the car in action or see the specs ahead of time.

I wouldn't buy the Ford SL-4 in a million years, plzkthx. It might work, but I already have a car that works.

About slapping, though:

In CMA, slapping usually helps to develop a little bit of explosiveness while setting up for a trap. The key is to realize that the distancing involved would, IRL, rarely allow the slap to continue. But the time palm meets bicep (for example), the forearm the bicep is attached to is already going through the opponent. The slapping hand also develops tactile response so it is a living guide instead of a static block. A hand should never be just positioned, but considered an actor in the technique. The sudden resistance trains you to momentarily apply force to that hand, but only in response to what you feel.


----------



## Doc

eyebeams said:
			
		

> What SL-4 advocates promote is that there is an interpretation to kenpo that was never written down that works in a certain way. It's "scientific," but which has no associated double-blind experiments or even videos of the concepts in action. It decries traditional approaches while describing elements in patently pseudoscientific terms ("circuits" that have no anatomical existence, for instance).


While I thank you for your opinion, it would appear you've already made several judgements about the efficacy of something you have neither seen or felt and its practitioners, and are just on the road to semantical bickering and arguments. This, I don't do. 

You actually don't know what experimentation has been done over the years, what codification if any, (and there is plenty), and you make an assumption that someone should supply you with a video for your personal examination when if it existed, (and it does), you wouldn't know what you were looking at anyway. We just don't happen to sell these things, so perhaps you'll find what you seek in the videos of those that do. 

Your statement that, "It decries traditional approaches..." is also strange, unless you have decided your methodology is somehow "traditional" and therefore is different considering "traditional" hasn't been clearly defined by anyone in this thread. Perhaps you meant "conventional" as within the realm of your understanding. I happen to think it is very "traditional." 

Either way I thank you for you comments and the exchange, but I am neither looking to "prove" something to you or anyone else in this universe, and your responses mirror others who sign up for a few posts here on MartialTalk and put nothing in their own profile for public view. Criticism comes easy anonymously from the sanctity and safety behind a keyboard.

You may take it with a grain of salt sir (or madam), however my highly educated advanced degree students who have taken the time to investigate, examine, feel, and even double blind test it themselves have reached a different conclusion and are satisfied with the results, as well as my "claims." 

As a teacher, they are all that matter and neither I nor any of my students were soliciting your approval or your participation, and we will leave you to your premature, ill-formed, and unknowledgeable position on this subject.

KMA628 Clear.


----------



## arnisador

Doc said:
			
		

> You actually don't know what experimentation has been done over the years, what codification if any, (and there is plenty), and you make an assumption that someone should supply you with a video for your personal examination when if it existed, (and it does), you wouldn't know what you were looking at anyway. We just don't happen to sell these things
> [...]
> we will leave you to your premature, ill-formed, and unknowledgeable position on this subject.


 Well, unknowledgeable seems to be the only option left, unless one wants to join the group and is accepted into it. This seems like playing "I've got a secret" which, though I'm sure you do have secrets, doesn't lead to useful discussions. And, MartialTalk _is_ for discussion of the arts. You may not wish to discuss certain things, but I don't think others should be discouraged from speculating and wondering. No one can judge the efficacy of the system from here. However, one _can_ judge the rhetoric and the consistency. As this is a discussion board on the web, discussion of that is surely appropriate on it.

 Universities are generally associated with open experimentation and wide dissemination of their results. Some classified or propietary research is often done, but it's always looked at skeptically by the school. Once again, I feel it's the name "Martial Science University" that seems to be leading to expectations different from what your intent seems to be. It's a mixed message.

 I assume by "highly educated advanced degree students" you mean those receiving degrees from Martial Science University, who have done research as part of their degree programs? Or do you mean that they have degrees froma different source?


----------



## Shortay

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, unknowledgeable seems to be the only option left, unless one wants to join the group and is accepted into it. This seems like playing "I've got a secret" which, though I'm sure you do have secrets, doesn't lead to useful discussions.





			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I personally have tried to openly describe my SL4 experiences, share 'the secret', on these boards before and been confronted with "That simply cannot be true" in response. If we do start chatting about SL4, we are told by those with no direct experience of the techniques that it can't happen like that and if we don't elaborate on what we mean, then we are accused of keeping secrets.
> 
> Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Click to expand...


----------



## arnisador

Shortay said:
			
		

> I personally have tried to openly describe my SL4 experiences, share 'the secret', on these boards before and been confronted with "That simply cannot be true" in response. If we do start chatting about SL4, we are told by those with no direct experience of the techniques that it can't happen like that and if we don't elaborate on what we mean, then we are accused of keeping secrets.


 I believe you. Yet, other people describe their experiences with various arts across this board every day. I'm not a Kenpoist...is the problem a historical rivalry, or something else?


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. I tend to agree that as an "outsider," the SL4 stuff actually looks extremely traditional. 

2. I have a lot of problems with groups that aren't colleges and aren't universities awarding advanced degrees. This is partly pettily personal: I worked extremely hard and gave up a lot for my degrees, and I tend to resent organizations that just make this stuff up. It is also partly reflective of a class bias--colleges and universities just made this stuff up, too, but they did so starting about a thousand years ago. It is also partly reflective of a suspicion that such awards have a lot more to do with marketing than they do with anything else.

3. I should very much like to read an experimental design for a, "double blind," test of a basic SL4 principle, inasmuch as, "double blind," means that neither the researcher nor their experimental subjects knows whether what they are doing is the real thing or a placebo.

4. Self-slapping may be linked to some of the Polynesian arts, which also have practitioners whacking themselves to build fighting spirit.

5. I agree--if you slap yourself in the fashion described in Delayed Sword, you will bounce a hammer-fist, ridge-hand or hand-sword off your own neck. This seems like an inherently bad idea, though it may save your life when your attacker falls down laughing and hits his head on a fire hydrant.


----------



## Bode

> My understanding is that your school offers college degrees.


 I suspected this was the problem after re-reading some posts. What you are looking for is a nationally accredited program in Martial Arts. Now, I am not the owner or even on the board of MSU, so I could be speaking without knowledge, but I will attempt to clarify. Accreditation is difficult and often contentious. Accreditation has nothing to do with disseminating results of studies, but rather, of some larger body which decrees that a college has the appropriate teaching standards and policies. It forces the school to stay up to date and offers people the ability to transfer credits. Can you imagine some larger body being formed and actually agreeing upon how to teach the martial arts? Much less Kenpo! The ATAMA tried to do this and is still forging forward, but I find it unlikely that you will ever see a thriving institution. 
 There are great accredited schools as well as crappy ones. Each one can turn out good students or bad students. One of the best and brightest at my work (major Aerospace corp) does not even have a degree, yet people look to him for answers. So, do I trust a college degree... not always. Do I believe they at least offer some clue as to determination, yes. The end result is dependent upon the individual. Accreditatioin or otherwise. 


> Is it that simple? Two pitchers throw the ball in different ways. Each achieves good effects.


 If good effects are what you want then fine. I agree. But if you want to achieve the best possible effects, human anatomy must be considered. Why has the upper limit on fastballs not been improving since the 50's? Because no one can exceed the confines of human anatomy. All fastball pitching that exceeds the upper limit of about 100MPH I bet throw identically. Curve balls are thrown differently because they need to achieve a different effect. 
  So, if there is not a correct anatomical way to perform complex sports moves, why is this guy a record holder? And why do NBA stars seek him out to teach them how to shoot? Because human anatomy dictates fundamentals of movement!


> The link is interesting, but I think you're confusing 'logical' and 'scientific' with 'pedantic' and 'detailed'. It's argued like a humanist taking a position, not like a scientist supporting one.


 The article was written by someone who is a chiropracter for a bulletin board full of novices. It was his attempt to disseminate information to the general public. Logical? I call describing the synergist/antagonist muscles involved logical. Perhaps you don't. Were Dr. Crouch to explain in every minute detail he would lose everyone. He is that knowledgable. If you really want that information, ask him, he will share. Does that get you anywhere? No, knowledge without application is useless. We learn application first. 


> In any event, Martial Science University seems an inflated name for a group that has no physical school, a free web site, lacks a cohort of academically trained staff (correct me if I am mistaken here--it's not clear from the web pages), doesn't grant degrees or if it does they have "no indication of skill, knowledge, or ...ability" (from the web page cited above), and so on.


 We have space that is leased from other schools. We don't own property. Big difference than having no "physical school." Changing my words doesn't make your case. Cohort of academically trained staff? Trained in what? What do you want from MSU? Apparently you want people who have accreditation from some university you have never heard of and are unlikely you find. I assume that would make a difference for you. That's like arguing that someone knows about the martial arts simply because they have a blackbelt. 
  The people in MSU are trained in Martial Arts (Science). Are they academically trained, absolutely. 


> Or do you mean that they have degrees froma different source?


 Every single person that I know that trains with us either has a bachelors degree or MS. A few have PhD's? does that change anything now that you know this? Likely not. You seem to be looking for ways to discredit our people. In hopes of humoring you here are some of the degrees I know of: Chiropractic, Kineseology, Computer Science, Engineering (Electrical, Aerospace, and perhaps others), Poly Sci, Business adiminstration, and others. 
 When someone is looking to go to college what do they do? They go to the college and check them out! You are evaluating us without even setting foot on campus. 



> I find the certainty inspired by the pseudo-philosophical tracts as on the link you gave to be grossly unsupported


 Perhaps you should ask Dr. Crouch. He would gladly explain the science behind what he does. 


> The Ford motor company gets broken up into smaller companies. One of these companies claims that Ford secretly tested a 500 mpg car. If you qualify, you might be allowed to buy it. The car looks exactly like a 10 year old Escort, and every part looks like an Escort, but they claim it's been redesigned at fundamental levels (you can't see). Also, there is no proof the car goes 500 mpg aside from testimonials from folks still making their payments, and you are not allowed to look at the car in action or see the specs ahead of time.


 This anaology fails. Our students look different than every other Kenpo school out there. Guaranteed. Whether or not we look better or worse is your decision, but we are not trying to hide the secrets in any way. Doc just gave seminars in England and Ireland with the sole purpose of disseminating these "secrets." And as the board has been showing, many came and learned a lot of these "Secrets." Did Doc even charge an arm and a leg? No, because for Doc it's about the knowledge. If you want to argue, learn your facts and find a good analogy. Have you seen us move? Likely not. As such the anaology is unfair. 


> It decries traditional approaches while describing elements in patently pseudoscientific terms ("circuits" that have no anatomical existence, for instance).


 Explaining the science of something online is difficult. Terms are often used that create visual representations of compled processes. The term CHI is used often when in fact it is simply a physical process. Chi is just a well understood term to communicate and idea. If you want terms and extremetly detailed explanation I suggest you seek them directly, instead of in this public forum where the exchange would be long winded and misinterpreted easily. 


> And, MartialTalk _is_ for discussion of the arts. You may not wish to discuss certain things, but I don't think others should be discouraged from speculating and wondering. No one can judge the efficacy of the system from here. However, one _can_ judge the rhetoric and the consistency.


 I agree. Rhetoric and consistency can be judged and I think the rhetoric has been very consistent. Speculation is great, I encourage it. But there comes a point when you have to experience. We could talk for hours about the biomechanics behind movement, but would that teach you how to improve your punches? Probably not. Would it make you wiser, yes, but the physticallity is needed. 
 Doc has given many examples of how to test our practices, such as the slap check. Some have chosen not to try them and others have. I haven't heard one person say it was useless and didn't work. 
 The slap check is complicated. Do I know all the biomechanics behind it? No. Can I teach it, yes. The basics of why it works involves activation of synergist muscles and de-activation of antogonist muscles. In addition, humans seek symetry. When walking your right arm moves in time with your left leg. Symetry. 
  Perhaps an experiment for you is in order. Something simple that can be wriiten. Right now I have other things to attend to.


----------



## Bode

> I have a lot of problems with groups that aren't colleges and aren't universities awarding advanced degrees.


 Having earned my degrees from accredited institutioins I agree. However, I don't think MSU ever declared themselves an accredited institution. I could be wrong. Equating belt levels to degrees is simply saying that you have learned a lot. It's a way of communicating concepts. 
 Perhaps some rhetoric change is in order to better communicate the ideas. 


> . I should very much like to read an experimental design for a, "double blind," test of a basic SL4 principle, inasmuch as, "double blind," means that neither the researcher nor their experimental subjects knows whether what they are doing is the real thing or a placebo.


 I was wondering the same thing. How would you design and experiment? If someone can design an experiment perhaps I can see if, given time, it is possible for me to perform it.


----------



## arnisador

Bode said:
			
		

> Explaining the science of something online is difficult.


  Nonsense. Scientific journals have been around for centuries. Some of the other points that you make are well taken, however.

 I do understand that you're not an official of the school. I'm not trying to hold you accountable for its name. I'm trying to understand why it's so named, what it does, and why that's attractive to people.



> Equating belt levels to degrees is simply saying that you have learned a lot.


 Equating it to a B.S. degree says a lot more. It says, as a rule, that you took the equivalent of 120 semester hours of graded courses from a variety of instructors, with minimum requirements to be met in mathematics through college algebra, English through rhetoric and composition, and if it's in an Arts and Sciences discipline (as opposed to, e.g., engineering), a foreign language (at least one year), plus distribution requirements including at the least 2 years each of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities; met certain minimum GPA requirements; and completed a course of study in a particular discipline.

  Equating it to a Ph.D. says rather more yet.

  By the way, I outlined a simple idea for an experiment above:




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> But even a single blind testing protocol is a step up. Grab 20 people off the street. Do a (safe) technique on them. Do it the SL-4 way half of the time and the "classical" way half of the time, randomized. Have unbiased observers rate the effectiveness of the technique. Not perfect, but it starts to approach a scientific method. Better would be to train 10 volunteers in the SL-4 way of doing one technique, 10 the classical way, and have them perform the technique on other volunteers, and have the results rated.


 
 It's not perfect, and 20 may not be the magic number--one should consult a statistician prior to an experiment, not just afterward!--but it's a start.


----------



## howardr

Note: this is my own opinion. I don't speak for MSU.

Several participants have questioned the science behind MSU. For instance, we've seen the claim that "double-blind" studies must be produced in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the MSU material. If such studies (and the like) are not brought forth, it is said, then whatever is taking place at the MSU can't be science. Well, I don't think that's an accurate depiction of what the MSU is about, nor are such formal studies necessary or advisable within the context of the martial arts.

I'd like to first say that _double_-blind studies, as has already been noted, seem inapplicable and unrealistic when applied to the material of the martial arts (from what I've seen of SL4). What I've seen suggested by skeptics, so far, is wholly unworkable and wouldn't prove a thing. Is there some other possible means of implementing a double-blind study as suggested? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical of such an undertaking. One reason, off the top of my head, is that I don't think a "blinded" (non-biased) researcher would be able to adequately explain the material without being instructed in its proper employment, thus "unblinding" him, so to speak. (At least that's my impression after exposure to the material.) Does that mean that what MSU is doing is somehow unscientific? I don't think so. Let me offer an abbreviated indication why.

Double-blind studies are the gold standard within a certain realm of scientific inquiry. For example, they may be especially useful in isolating causal factors when investigating the effects of chemical elements on the human body. There a researcher can easily provide exact dosages of chemical combinations and measure physical results against a control group. However, the metaphysical and epistemological base of the experimental method in science is also found in other methods not limited to double-blind experimentation. In fact, the double-blind study itself is simply one implementation of a particular scientific method out of several valid methods of identifying causal factors.

The fundamental methods themselves were first codified explicitly by John Stuate Mill in his _System of Logic_. These methods _are_ the base of the scientific experimental method. However, it's my impression as a philosopher rather than a scientist (but one who converses with scientists and has an amateur interest in science) that scientists themselves aren't typically versed in the philosophical origin and basis of the scientific method, and its corresponding experimental methods. They are intimately knowledgeable of the details of how to perform the methods but aren't typically interested in their underlying justification or genesis.

Now, several of Mill's methods aren't particularly useful in the context of the martial arts, and so I won't mention them. However, two methods can be utilized and are at the MSU. The first (and foremost) of Mill's "experimental methods" used at the MSU in validating the efficacy of a particular physical action is _the Positive Method of Difference_. This is what is often called the "laboratory method" or method of "controlled experiment." (Ruby, _Logic_, 1960). Again, to quote Ruby (quoting Mill), "If a case in which an effect occurs, and one in which it does not occur, are exactly alike except for the presence or absence of a single factor, the effect occurring when that factor is present, and not occurring when it is absent, then that factor is probably the cause." That is Mill's definition of the Positive Method of Difference.

How is this applied in the martial context? I'll offer a very brief and broad sketch of how this may work (much more detailed examples have been offered on this board a number of times). Suppose one executes an extended outward block as commonly done in Kenpo from point origin. Once executed, the block is tested against resistence from the angle which the block is intended to resist. The block as normally executed (non-SL4) will yield to mild pressure quite easily. However, the same block, i.e., the same block in its resultant position, executed via SL4 mechanisms will not yield when tested against the same pressure. It will not yield when tested against much greater pressure. The variables are (roughly) the same. Same practitioner in the same environment executing what ends up being the same block (at least in outward appearance). The difference is in each instance the block's terminal position was arrived at in a different manner (this is the factor being isolated: the SL4 mechanism). So, the only difference is that in one case when executing the block in a particular manner, we observe the result of a significantly weaker block as compared to a stronger block achieved by means of the SL4 manner of execution.

Further, _the Method of Concomitant Variation_ (both _direct_ and _inverse_) is employed quite routinely to demonstrate that a variation of degree in applying the various SL4 mechanisms will either _increase_ or _decrease_ the solidity and strength of the various blocks, strikes and stances.

For the above reasons (among others, such as the crucial and fundamental fact that the grounding of the entire MSU enterprise is human anatomy, physiology and kinesiology rather than abstract "motion"), I would argue that the MSU approaches the martial arts scientifically. I think I've at least offered some reasonable and plausible arguments for my position.


----------



## kenpoworks

I  like the the way arnisador is challenging what is posted it gives a "healthy feel" to this thread.
But, proving "stuff" in the MA is a "mine field", what does and does not work "is specific as well as random", which anyone who has been in more than one actual situation will tell you. 
Does it work for real... yes it does.... and .....sorry no it don't....for real.
Richard


----------



## Bode

> Nonsense. Scientific journals have been around for centuries.


 I conceed. You are correct. However, I am not certain the forum is the place to post such a document. Perhaps a link to the document and mention to what it describes would suffice. Most people on the board probably would not care how biomechanics make a more effective punch. My experience is that people just want to be shown so they can perform it effectively. I'll see what I can do in terms of such papers. Though I find it unlikely there are many. You see, researching takes time, which means time away from practicing, which is of greater importance. Our classes are 4 hours long at the very least. Combined with my day job and other hobbies, I have little spare time. 

 Another part of the problem is the economics of researching martial art biomechanics. There really isn't any money to be made doing it... if there were I am certain more scientists would choose to research proper martial mechanics. The choice has to be made... do I spend time practicing or writing papers? The moment the market decides that money can be made in this research is the moment you get people with the sole focus of paper writing and not practicing. 



> Equating it to a B.S. degree says a lot more. It says, as a rule, that you took the equivalent of 120 semester hours of graded courses from a variety of instructors, with minimum requirements to be met in mathematics through college algebra, English through rhetoric and composition, and if it's in an Arts and Sciences discipline (as opposed to, e.g., engineering), a foreign language (at least one year), plus distribution requirements including at the least 2 years each of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities; met certain minimum GPA requirements; and completed a course of study in a particular discipline.


 It does say a lot. Which is exactly what we want. We (more like me, since I don't necessarily represent the school) believe that the rank of black belt is a very important and distinguished position. At this point the person should have learned a great deal. Each Course (which is what we call them instead of belt levels) requires a minimum number of hours of study. In addition there are academic's required. Each course requires a final exam. Question and answer, essay, etc... 
  By equating them to Courses we have made it clear, no matter how good you are, that you must have taken the pre-requisites. 
 In terms of GPA. Our GPA is essentially the evaluation of movement and the ability to explain a technique, form, etc... If someone cannot perform the basics well (equivalent to having a low GPA) then they will NOT be moved upward. It is a requirement. If they cannot answer, with clarity, certain questions, they fail. If we promoted people solely out of respect and time spent in class then we wouldn't deserve peoples respect. 

  Regarding the test. 
 I think their might need to be some modifications to the test in order to actually do it. It would be very difficult to control all the variables. For instance, if we only considered on strike and had 10 practitioners of SL4 and 10 non-SL4 perform the strike on 20 people then had them rate the effectiveness it would be unfair. You cannot control all of the variables. What if some people hit a little harder than others? What about size advantages? We would have to make sure that we had equivalent body sizes on both sides. It's really impossible to do that test, but at least it is an attempt. 
 I have a hard time, and believe me, I am trying, coming up with a fair test. Often I find the simplest one is to show a martial artist how their technique, Kenpo or otherwise, can be improved through a few simple changes. (You see, most of what we do can be applied across all arts. Human anatomy dictates movement, which is the foundation we adhere to)
 I do this all the time and people thank me. I am not trying to get them to switch to SL4. I just want people to consider some possibilities. I am not saying that other instructors couldn't do the same (improve someones movement). As a matter of fact I could name a few.

 There are various other tests which illustrate how body mechanics can assist in structural integrity, which I have performed on countless people. Each and every one is amazed. There are people I have known for five minutes that have no inherent bias either way. As a result I have come to believe that we do in fact test our theories before utilizing them. Were I to meet you I could run you through twenty of them in the course of an hour. We would both learn something. 
 Writing them down would probably take a year. That is where it becomes difficult to give you what you want. Time. All of us at MSU need more! And you probably wish you had more as well. 

  I hope I clarified some things.

  PS> Seminar in San Diego on May 28th... Doc will be there sharing his "secrets"


----------



## Bode

howardr said:
			
		

> Note: this is my own opinion. I don't speak for MSU.
> For the above reasons (among others, such as the crucial and fundamental fact that the grounding of the entire MSU enterprise is human anatomy, physiology and kinesiology rather than abstract "motion"), I would argue that the MSU approaches the martial arts scientifically. I think I've at least offered some reasonable and plausible arguments for my position.


 Thank you. You said it much better than I.


----------



## arnisador

howardr said:
			
		

> Several participants have questioned the science behind MSU. For instance, we've seen the claim that "double-blind" studies must be produced in


 This is common in medicine and psychology, which seem relevant here. However, other methods could certainly be viable. The current method seems to be "anecdotal evidence" which isn't terribly scientific--that might suggest an area of inquiry, not end it.



> One reason, off the top of my head, is that I don't think a "blinded" (non-biased) researcher would be able to adequately explain the material without being instructed in its proper employment, thus "unblinding" him, so to speak. (At least that's my impression after exposure to the material.) Does that mean that what MSU is doing is somehow unscientific?


 Yes, absolutely. If it can't be studied by a disinterested scientist, but only by someone taught to see it in a certain way, then we've left the realm of science and entered...what? Religion, where believers only are welcome?

 Of course a double blind study is only one possible approach...but given the power people have to see what they want, it seems very appropriate here. But, I'm open-minded.



> So, the only difference is that in one case when executing the block in a particular manner, we observe the result of a significantly weaker block as compared to a stronger block achieved by means of the SL4 manner of execution.


 So, train 10 undergraduates the SL-4 way, 10 the classical way. Don't tell them what or why. Run your test. It's not perfectly blinded because the instructors know what they're teaching and may talk up one method over another, but it's a start.



> For the above reasons (among others, such as the crucial and fundamental fact that the grounding of the entire MSU enterprise is human anatomy, physiology and kinesiology rather than abstract "motion"), I would argue that the MSU approaches the martial arts scientifically.


 But, wouldn't you agree that many pseudo-scientists also start from a solid grounding in "normal science" (Kuhn)? Need I adduce examples to demonstrate that one can start with a true premise and reach a false conclusion, via faulty logic? Blinding helps with that.

 I'm not sure why you quote Mills' outdated language. The scientific method is now well understood. I'd think Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the true issue here at this point--do the SL-4 practitioners agree that there could in principle be experiments that would falsify their claims of superiority? If so, and if they are scientists...the path is clear. Sports scientists, phsyiologists, kineseologists, etc., have developed ways to study these types of issues. If there's no science in martial science--if it's not in the sense of the natural sciences--fair enough.


----------



## arnisador

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> But, proving "stuff" in the MA is a "mine field", what does and does not work "is specific as well as random"


 Yes, I'm not suggesting a scientific appraoach would be best. To the contrary, I see it as a matter of martial _arts_, not martial _sciences_. So, someone taking a scientific appraoch to the arts takes a different approach than the one I take, and that interests me! But, I'm unconvinced that this is a truly scientific approach, or even that the people at the MSU anticipated being taken so literally in this regard. I am receiving mixed messages on that, I think.

 No offense is intended. Science means what it means...I'm asking about that.


----------



## arnisador

*Bode*, I agree with much of what you say, though not that it's fair to call it a B.S. degree. (Would you call every college graduate a black belt? It'd be absurd. Should every civilian professor at West Point be made a military officer? No, there's more to it than that. And so, there's more to a B.S. than being a good Kenpoist, even with exams.) Further, a Ph.D. is essentially a college's agreement that the person is capable of performing independent research. I'm not seeing evidence that a MSU "degree" would serve that purpose.

Wow, 4 hour classes! That's hard-core. I respect that!


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. The multiplication of terminologies in response to challenge is, I am afraid, characteristic of all pseudo-sciences.

2. In the absence of ANY outside, independent study of, "SL-4," there can be no legitimate claim of scientific status for such a methodology and/or theoretics.

3. Mr. Parker, too, claimed to be building a science, not merely an art. I remain skeptical about that; among other things, I cannot see how a serious study might be constructed.

4. It has been my experience that, in the martial arts, feeling is very often not believing.


----------



## Fastmover

I have to say I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. I have learned a lot!!!!!


----------



## eyebeams

Ah, Doc.



> While I thank you for your opinion, it would appear you've already made several judgements about the efficacy of something you have neither seen or felt and its practitioners, and are just on the road to semantical bickering and arguments. This, I don't do.


Actually, I have no idea whether or not they work. Your stuff might work like a charm and I said as much in my last post. From a scientific standpoint, one should doubt that it works, though.



> You actually don't know what experimentation has been done over the years, what codification if any, (and there is plenty), and you make an assumption that someone should supply you with a video for your personal examination when if it existed, (and it does), you wouldn't know what you were looking at anyway. We just don't happen to sell these things, so perhaps you'll find what you seek in the videos of those that do.


Y'see, in science, sharing experimental results for critique is a part of the process. If the counter-statement you just made were to be applied to any recognized scientific discipline, it would be rejected as categorically invalid.

Yes, it's quite unfortunate that at times objective research does not lend itself to hoarding knowledge so that it can be sold on the seminar circuit. That's a cross folks who claim a scientific underpinning for something have to bear.



> Your statement that, "It decries traditional approaches..." is also strange, unless you have decided your methodology is somehow "traditional" and therefore is different considering "traditional" hasn't been clearly defined by anyone in this thread. Perhaps you meant "conventional" as within the realm of your understanding. I happen to think it is very "traditional."


By traditional, I refer to numerous statements by yourself and other SL-4 folks differentiating what you do from similar-seeming techniques that are used by other arts. In the link provided SL-4's pressure point approach is specificaly distanced from the approach used by George Dillman. I don't like Dillman's stuff either, but to be honest, neologisms do not suddenly make what you do different from what he does.



> Either way I thank you for you comments and the exchange, but I am neither looking to "prove" something to you or anyone else in this universe, and your responses mirror others who sign up for a few posts here on MartialTalk and put nothing in their own profile for public view.


If you have no desire to prove anything, drop the pretense of science.



> Criticism comes easy anonymously from the sanctity and safety behind a keyboard.


My real name is Malcolm Sheppard. I live just north of Toronto. Anyone who wants to know anything more about me is free to PM me. Actually, I'd be more forward here, but you never know when somebody's going to do something rash. If anybody wants to challenge my "safety," I'll be happy to use the 911 technique.



> You may take it with a grain of salt sir (or madam), however my highly educated advanced degree students who have taken the time to investigate, examine, feel, and even double blind test it themselves have reached a different conclusion and are satisfied with the results, as well as my "claims."


Show me a double-blind test, then. I note you were remarkably silent when it came to me thread on protocols for PP experiments. One would think that as a man of "science" you would already have several such experiments worked out.



> As a teacher, they are all that matter and neither I nor any of my students were soliciting your approval or your participation, and we will leave you to your premature, ill-formed, and unknowledgeable position on this subject.


What? My opinion that SL-4 may or may not be all it's cracked up to be, but nobody has any way of knowing? You have no widely disseminated, checkable proof, sir. You ony have anecdotes. You use the term "science" as if it's going out of style, but you do not reveal your results for public scrutiny.

I freely admit that I'm ill-informed about the scientific validity of your methods -- or mine, for that matter. Only one of us is making scientific claims and only one of us is claiming to have testable scientific knowledge. Consequently, only one of us has brought down the eminently scientific burden of proof upon themselves.

Hint: It ain't me.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo

> Doc
> ...............



Why do people call you Doc?  Is it because you are a Ph.D. prof. at your university or are you a medical doctor?


----------



## dubljay

Kenpo Yahoo said:
			
		

> Why do people call you Doc? Is it because you are a Ph.D. prof. at your university or are you a medical doctor?





			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Those who know me personally began calling me that when I received my Ph.D. 6 years ago. It stuck.


  This is from this thread
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24180&page=1&pp=15


----------



## Fastmover

Kenpo Yahoo said:
			
		

> Why do people call you Doc?  Is it because you are a Ph.D. prof. at your university or are you a medical doctor?



Man..........your a knucklehead, where have you been? 

Try this link to another discussion to answer your question:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24180

Hope this helps??????


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo

Guess I missed that thread...  I've been on frickin jury duty for what seems like an eternity.  I guess I can find some solace in the fact that we got the chance to crucify a serial child molester but that's a bit off topic.

As far as the slapping thing, I've always approached it purely from a physics standpoint.  During the execution of a back-knuckle, for instance, we know what we are trying to do and our opponent does not (that is unless your opponent is your training partner and you just called out the name of the technique you are about to do  :uhyeah: ).  Since we know what we are trying to do and have hopefully trained so that we can effectively execute this back-knuckle, in this case as a follow up strike,  we may create an elastic collision against our own bodies by utilizing the infamous kenpo grunts and groans (i.e. breathing) to take advantage of the natural elasticity of our skin and muscles to create a trampoline type effect off of our own body.  We may absorb a little bit of the force as is evident through small little bruises, but from here we direct the "rebounding" energy into our opponent in the hopes of creating an inelastic collision (i.e. all power is transferred to the target, our body movement via hips and so forth is what keeps our strikes in motion after point of contact should this be required).  This allows us to build speed and power and redirect it back towards our specific targets in hopes of damaging their structural integrity.  For those who may not understand the physics but like movies.  I submit the scene from Armageddon where they "slingshot" around the moon in order to build up speed and redirect their movement towards their target.  They merely used the moons intrinsic gravity field the same way we use our bodies intrinsic elasticity.  While not a perfect example, it certainly was the only one I could come up with that was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer   :armed: 

If you never used the principle of rebounding then you would be putting a tremendous amount of strain on your muscles and ligaments (i.e. generating a large moment of force, or torque, in an extremely localized area) as you internally tried to start and stop each movement.  Combine this with the fact that most people, despite their overwhelming insistance, are not moving in a very efficient anatomical manner then you have a recipe for all sorts of fun joint and tendon injuries.

I also find that it helps me with targeting via tracking and point of reference.  In this case the rebounding seems to help me harness the fast twitch and muscle memory reactions that go along with repetitive practice and execution of movement.

 :deadhorse   :deadhorse  :deadhorse  :deadhorse  :deadhorse


----------



## kenposikh

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, absolutely. If it can't be studied by a disinterested scientist, but only by someone taught to see it in a certain way, then we've left the realm of science and entered...what? Religion, where believers only are welcome?


Sir,

I agree and understand where you are coming from with this and this is why myself and JenniM have a hard time with SL4 we both find it hard to take things on face value and generally strive to find out why. This is why I sometimes try things out on friends of mine I don't tell them what I'm trying to achieve or what the result will be but ask if they notice a difference and if so what.

I think however that we have stayed from the original topic and maybe need to start a new thread on Experimentation and studies of methodology or something do you agree.


----------



## JenniM

MHeeler said:
			
		

> Some posters apparently took this as a reference to eyesight and/or open-mindedness. Unfortunate misunderstanding.


I think a dual misunderstanding has occured here - my comment on eyesight was meant "tongue in cheek" to lighten the  post somewhat - obviously failed!! :shrug:


----------



## JenniM

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm glad you like it and I have no problem with that. I'm sure it's every bit as good as other forms of Kenpo. Who knows, maybe it's better! But, if only acolytes can form an opinion, group-think is always a danger. Yet, I wouldn't try to form an opinion of any art without seeing it demonstrated live. I've had experiences with many Kenpoists but never, to the best of my knowledge, an SL-4 practitioner. I actually find the approach as described interesting and am not trying to deride it as being less effective than some other form of Kenpo--I'm discussing it as best I can on a web board. That is why we're here, no?


Yes!! Not easy to discuss complex issues on a web board but unless we can all get together, its the next best thing - it'd be a boring world if we were all the same and hey SL4 seems to be the "hot topic" of the moment and the subject of lively debate and that's a good thing and very interesting to hear non-SL4 practitioner's perspectives on what they have read about it - keeps us on our toes and hopefully one day you will experience working with an SL-4 practitioner and them with you - until then web boards it is


----------



## Simon Curran

I can not speak in terms of science, or pseudo-science, since I am not a scientist.
 I can not speak of the validity of various types of university degrees, since I do not have one.
 I can not speak of MSU's right to call themselves thus, because I don't understand the criteria necessary for accreditation.
 In short, I can only trust, and therefore speak of, my own experience.

 The original topic of this thread was in regards to slapping in EPAK, personally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, up until recently, I didn't really have any idea as to it's application, beyond rebounding, as has already been mentioned numerous times.
 I was, however, recently exposed to some of the teachings of Doc, and his SL4 Kenpo approach in a seminar setting, including one application of a slap check.
 I found, through my perhaps less than scientific experimentation, that in the particular example to which I was exposed, the slap check did perform a function, which improved the particular basic to which it was being applied.
 Can I explain how or why? No I can't, I just know what I experienced.
 Can I replicate the results? Yes I can, and have been trying to adjust my methodology in performing said basic since.

 Like I said, this is just my less than qualified, but rather "enlightened" opinion, based upon my personal experience, once again anecdotal evidence, but at some point there must come a time where anecdotal evidence is also construed as admissable, granted just because more people say it is so, doesn't necessarily make it so, but at some point we have to start taking people on their word.

 Thanks, 
 Simon


----------



## MHeeler

JenniM said:
			
		

> I think a dual misunderstanding has occured here - my comment on eyesight was meant "tongue in cheek" to lighten the post somewhat - obviously failed!! :shrug:


Yep.  I just re-read the post, and you're right (well, that's obvious, as _you're_ the only one who knows your intent).  I guess I'm not nearly as smart as I like to fantasize.  In response to your "tongue in cheek," consider me "foot in mouth."

MH


----------



## MHeeler

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> I can not speak in terms of science, or pseudo-science, since I am not a scientist.
> I can not speak of the validity of various types of university degrees, since I do not have one.
> I can not speak of MSU's right to call themselves thus, because I don't understand the criteria necessary for accreditation.
> In short, I can only trust, and therefore speak of, my own experience.
> 
> The original topic of this thread was in regards to slapping in EPAK, personally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, up until recently, I didn't really have any idea as to it's application, beyond rebounding, as has already been mentioned numerous times.
> I was, however, recently exposed to some of the teachings of Doc, and his SL4 Kenpo approach in a seminar setting, including one application of a slap check.
> I found, through my perhaps less than scientific experimentation, that in the particular example to which I was exposed, the slap check did perform a function, which improved the particular basic to which it was being applied.
> Can I explain how or why? No I can't, I just know what I experienced.
> Can I replicate the results? Yes I can, and have been trying to adjust my methodology in performing said basic since.
> 
> Like I said, this is just my less than qualified, but rather "enlightened" opinion, based upon my personal experience, once again anecdotal evidence, but at some point there must come a time where anecdotal evidence is also construed as admissable, granted just because more people say it is so, doesn't necessarily make it so, but at some point we have to start taking people on their word.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon


I think, at the least, that there has been much miscommunication.  I don't think that anyone here is trying to imply that your personal experience is in any way invalid.  Likewise, no-one is saying that any SL-4 student is _wrong_ in stating his/her opinion.  This IS only an internet forum.  We're all here spouting off about our own personal experiences and opinions.  If we weren't allowed to do so, this site, and several others, would be completely without purpose.

I think the issue in contention is referring to the MSU's name and the "degrees" it is conferring.  The word university usually carries with it the connotation of "higher learning."  When you hear of Harvard University, you don't need to have been there to have some idea of what it is, what it's like, the people you may find there, etc.  When you call yourself an university, it implies all of these things, and more.  This is not even getting into the topic of degree accreditation.  This term carries quite a bit of weight in itself.

The word science itself has been misconstrued and misapplied, not just on this forum, but in society at large.  It's often been used to justify/validate erroneous and fallacious claims _ad nauseum_.  However, science _means_ something, and it implies a lot more.  To refer to your post, anecdotal evidence is *never* admissable in scientific inquiry.  Sorry.  By its very nature, anecdotal evidence has no scientific value whatsoever.  For a full discussion, I'll refer you to one of my favorite websites, The Skeptics Dictionary: http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html.  Now, this is not to say that your statement has no value.  I'm sure that people who know you and trust you value your opinions quite highly, as I do of people I trust and respect.  It just doesn't hold water when it comes to science.

Regards,
MH


----------



## jonah2

Are people just getting to indepth about titles here

*science*

_ noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject._ 



*university*

_   noun (pl. universities) a high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done_



*degree*

_   noun 4 an academic rank conferred by a college or university after examination or completion of a course.  _ 

sounds good enough for me. If you dont like the system he is using talk to him directly or sign up for the course or attend a seminar and find out more. People whos reputations I trust implicitly have, and they have no arguments. If its true knowledge you seek, then seek it. If you discredit after seeking it out, well that of course is a different matter.

Any way, all this is alittle off thread

Respectfully

Jonah


----------



## arnisador

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> I can not speak in terms of science, or pseudo-science, since I am not a scientist.
> I can not speak of the validity of various types of university degrees, since I do not have one.
> I can not speak of MSU's right to call themselves thus, because I don't understand the criteria necessary for accreditation.
> In short, I can only trust, and therefore speak of, my own experience.
> 
> The original topic of this thread was in regards to slapping in EPAK, personally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, up until recently, I didn't really have any idea as to it's application, beyond rebounding, as has already been mentioned numerous times.
> I was, however, recently exposed to some of the teachings of Doc, and his SL4 Kenpo approach in a seminar setting, including one application of a slap check.
> I found, through my perhaps less than scientific experimentation, that in the particular example to which I was exposed, the slap check did perform a function, which improved the particular basic to which it was being applied.
> Can I explain how or why? No I can't, I just know what I experienced.
> Can I replicate the results? Yes I can, and have been trying to adjust my methodology in performing said basic since.
> 
> Like I said, this is just my less than qualified, but rather "enlightened" opinion, based upon my personal experience, once again anecdotal evidence, but at some point there must come a time where anecdotal evidence is also construed as admissable, granted just because more people say it is so, doesn't necessarily make it so, but at some point we have to start taking people on their word.



I think this is great. It's how most of us proceed. I've learned some enlightening things about stick-fighting recently that I'm trying to work in to my repertoir.

I do question whether the body's elasticity is the real explanation--to the contrary, I'd guess it's fairly inelastic for these purposes. You don't get the size of bulge that you do in a basketball hitting the floor, for example. But you can get a rebound inelastically (think billiard balls). Indeed, more energy is transferred to motion that way as less goes to deforming the elastic body.

Someone knowledgeable could make a model and do the calculation--this is within the realm of science.


----------



## distalero

Ooo, deja vu. Much of this thread re visits, with much better focus and specificity, a past dicussion on whether or not the term "science" could be used in the discussion of Martial Arts; I can't add much to it other than to say that it's been enjoyable to read, so thanks. My only point (in a calm, quite voice and a friendly tone): those who are only weakly grounded in some of the basics of scientific pursuit (perhaps because they stand outside of them) will see them as easily argued away. They won't see that this arguing away belies their understanding of the rigors of the method. Think "pseudo", if you must, you critics (and kudos to you, by the way) but by all means, follow the other mandate of the method: investigate. If it's a big deal to ya, show up and get your Official-Member-of-The-Method lab smock dirty .


----------



## Michael Billings

====================
  Mod. Note. 
  Please, keep the conversation on topic.  

  -Michael Billings
 -MT S-Moderator-
  ====================


----------



## Dan G

Good question from the thread starter. Would have been interesting to hear some explanatations on "slap checking" from non-kenpo people. I have seen some interesting "slap checking" from traditional silat practitioners, and when I asked what they were doing was told that:

1. It is a good way of distracting an attacker.

2. It optimises body alignment and energy.

The explanation was somewhat vague, but the execution was convincing. Interestingly the explanation also shared common ground with Doc's martial science (from my very limited knowledge). So what's my point? Had I not previously seen Doc in action I would never have noticed the subtlety of motion in the silat demo, and I wouldn't have thought to ask questions. It would be interesting to get an SL4 analysis of some of the advanced motion in other systems - e.g. Aikido.

By way of background I am not a student of SL4, and have only met Doc in person twice. However, I personally consider him, and his students Mr. Angell and Perez to be phenomenal martial artists, and exceptional instructors.

My view is that Doc (like his instructor SGM Parker) has undertaken an immense project in creating a martial educational system that has:

1 - a defined and coherent terminology.

2 - a body of concepts and principles that can be communicated, tested, and replicated.

3 - highly advanced content, including (in the case of SL4) rational and testable explanations for "chi" type effects.

4 - first class students that do credit to his system and his instruction.

5 - a system that works at an optimum level of effectiveness.

Even from the very small amount of SL4 material I have been exposed to I can see that Doc has created a model (models?) that enable a practitioner to conceptualise, replicate and communicate advanced martial arts/science principles. 

If the system works (and it does) and it can be replicated (and it can) what more is required? The test of a model or hypothesis is in replication/prediction of results.

Some posts seem to speculate that Doc and MSU is in some way creating an artificial air of mystery for some unspecified commercial gain. I am positive that this is not the case, but if anyone has doubts I would encourage them to meet Doc or his students face to face, rather than speculate and insinuate online. They are good people with skill and integrity - it is immediately apparent upon meeting them.

Other posts seek to place a burden on Doc to either prove or disseminate his knowledge if he wishes to refer to SL4 as a martial science. Doc is actively teaching, does seminars, and he contributes to discussions such as this thread. Nonetheless, neither he nor any other martial artist or scientist, or whatever is under any obligation to the world at large to share their knowledge. What happened to the idea that martial arts/science tuition was a privilege to be earned? 

It strikes me that the posts doubting Doc come from people that have not yet met the man. That is a shame, but understandable as SL4 has to be experienced to be fully believed. Doc has convincing explanations for the utility of "slapchecking" and that is just the tip of the iceberg. SL4 is a significant development in martial arts/science education. Irrespective of style or system it is worth learning more about it. 

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## howardr

First, I'd like to say that I neither have the sort of time nor the interest to engage in a continual back and forth, as you apparently do. Nevertheless, I'll try to address this once more under the assumption that I haven't been sufficiently clear and that you are honestly trying to understand the issue.

Second, I won't be reiterating the main thrust of my prior post since, as far as I can tell, that's been ignored by you. Instead, I'll limit myself to addressing the comments you made in response to my last post.


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> This is common in medicine and psychology, which seem relevant here. However, other methods could certainly be viable. The current method seems to be "anecdotal evidence" which isn't terribly scientific--that might suggest an area of inquiry, not end it.


Yes, I acknowledged that double-blind studies are useful in certain contexts. And I'm glad you recognize the viability of other methods as well. However, I'm unclear why you suppose that the method of validating SL4 is by means of anecdotal evidence. I don't recall, but I'm certainly open to correction on this, that any SL4 proponent, much less instructor, has claimed that the objective validity of SL4 is established (primarily or otherwise) by anecdotal evidence. (As you yourself mention, such testimony may motivate investigation, however, it does not scientifically prove the truthfulness of those claims.) Therefore, barring evidence to the contrary, I must conclude that your claim here is a strawman.


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> If it can't be studied by a disinterested scientist, but only by someone taught to see it in a certain way, then we've left the realm of science and entered...what? Religion, where believers only are welcome?


Again, in my mind, this is a distortion. Who said anything about SL4-testing requiring learning "to see it in a certain way?" That's an additional inference of your own that I don't believe is contained within my statement. Nor do I see how you would get this proposition from what I wrote. SL4's a religion? Come on. You're really stretching credulity here. Do I really need to spell it out for you? I simply made the relevant point that the laboratory itself includes someone who is capable of accurately relaying the SL4 material. To jump to your conclusions of "religion" and "believers," seems, to put it mildly, irresponsible.


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Of course a double blind study is only one possible approach...but given the power people have to see what they want, it seems very appropriate here. But, I'm open-minded.


and


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> So, train 10 undergraduates the SL-4 way, 10 the classical way. Don't tell them what or why. Run your test. It's not perfectly blinded because the instructors know what they're teaching and may talk up one method over another, but it's a start.


What myself and others have been laboring to get across to you is that, in essence, that sort of "experiment," in a variety of fashions, has been performed already by many more individuals than you suggest. There have been dozens upon dozens of "classically trained" Kenpo practitioners who, skeptical of SL4, were given physical actions to perform without foreknowledge of their intended purpose or expected outcome, and who have with great consistency observed a successful conclusion as predicted by SL4 principles. To anticipate a likely objection: to my knowledge (and I may be wrong) such data has not been formalized or documented for peer review. Could it be? I'm sure it could. However, as already mentioned by another, there is a finite supply of time and energy. I for one am quite satisfied to have an _active_ head instructor rather than one who exclusively writes for the martial arts public.


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> But, wouldn't you agree that many pseudo-scientists also start from a solid grounding in "normal science" (Kuhn)?


No, actually I wouldn't. Certainly not as stated. I don't subscribe to Kuhn's shifting paradigms of knowledge.


			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why you quote Mills' outdated language. The scientific method is now well understood. I'd think Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the true issue here at this point--do the SL-4 practitioners agree that there could in principle be experiments that would falsify their claims of superiority?


Outdated language or not, that doesn't affect the veracity of Mill's principle. But in truth, the language seems perfectly clear to me (and fundamental to the method of science). In fact, that was partly why I quoted Mill; the other reason being that Popper's criterion of falsifiability _is itself unfalsifiable_. It's the attempt by the positivists to salvage a comprehensible theory of meaning in the wake of their failed verifiability theory. Unfortunately, for positivists, among other mortal blows to the criterion of falsifiability is its inability to handle particular-affirmative categorical propositions (e.g., some swans are white). See Blanshard, _Reason and Analysis_, 1962. But I think that gets us a bit off track.


----------



## arnisador

I do like Popper (but don't disagree with the criticisms above), but yeah, it gets us off track. Besides, I'm not sufficiently well versed in Feyerabend's thoughts to defend the matter further.

You argue against anecdotal evidence, but in saying that "that sort of "experiment," in a variety of fashions, has been performed already" (and what follows), you clearly are prepared to accept it. It isn't just the after-analysis that's missing. One needs to consult the statistician _prior_ to the experiment. At the least, you have left yourself open to the Fallacy of Positive Instances. This is no form of proof; it's just the sort of casual reasoning science guards against. I see you understand the issue, so I assume you mean it's good enough for you. It's good enough for me as a martial artist...but not as a scientist. But, I'm unclear how scientific MSU seeks to be.

When I said "see it in a certain way" I was rephrasing your comment from your earlier post: "I don't think a "blinded" (non-biased) researcher would be able to adequately explain the material without being instructed in its proper employment, thus "unblinding" him". I'm not sure what you mean by needing an SL-4 interpreter as it were, but surely you can't be arguing for an (intentionally) biased researcher? In the stage of setting up the experiment, quite possibly...but if it can't actually be run by disinterested physiologists (or what have you--experimental psychologists are actually very good at this sort of thing), I find that suspicious. Can you be more specific about why and how an SL-4 experimenter would be needed?

I'm surprised that you would disagree that many pseudo-scientists begin their arguments from widely-accepted scientific principles. We must be meeting different types of quacks. I've had an angle trisector barge into my office and I assure you that he knew his geometry very, very well. Alexander "let's blow up the moon and move the Earth to a better orbit" Abian certainly knew his math. and physics.

Perhaps to heed the call for topicality, further discussion should be moved to The Study or The Great Debate, as appropriate.


----------



## Jagdish

Dear Sir:

I was just wondering if you got further applications of slapping (to oneself or  to the opponent) through years of experience or were all learned from Master Parker? Also the same question applied to Master Parker.

Thanks in advance,  :asian: 

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Doc

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Dear Sir:
> 
> I was just wondering if you got further applications of slapping (to oneself or  to the opponent) through years of experience or were all learned from Master Parker? Also the same question applied to Master Parker.
> 
> Thanks in advance,  :asian:
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Jagdish


No, I actually began the process under my first teacher Ark Wong, so Mr. Parker and I had similar roots (at different time periods) for some of the information. But study in those days was difficult because for most teachers, English was their second language. Although I had my own interpreter in my school mate Douglas Wong, (Ark Wongs nephew), it was only when I met Ed Parker did he began to explain things I had learned it terms I could truly begin to understand. He continued learning and understanding applications as I have since he passed away.


----------



## Jagdish

Sir:

1.-Do you think if someone eliminates the slapping part of Master Parker's art it could/would affect his effectiveness and /or his completeness?

2.-Which is the brother art? Are we talking about twin brothers or of a Big Brother?

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Doc

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Sir:
> 
> 1.-Do you think if someone eliminates the slapping part of Master Parker's art it could/would affect his effectiveness and /or his completeness?



It is actualy more complex than that. The elimination of the "slapping" in the context of how he used it in his personal method, would seriously violate basic physical principles of efficient anatomical movement. Without it you don't have Ed Parker Kenpo at its best, but instead a derivative of lesser content.


> 2.-Which is the brother art? Are we talking about twin brothers or of a Big Brother?



Depends on who is teaching and their understanding of applications on both sides of the fence. Some interpretations of FMA, as well as some interpretations of Silat, are examples.


----------

