# Heel up Heel Down and at which level.



## Touch Of Death (Aug 20, 2004)

I was reading the heel up heel down debate on another site and I couldn't help but notice that the general consensus is that beginners should have the heel down and black belts may experiment with the heel up and even adopt the new stance as their own provided they understand why they are doing it and have spent their whole colored belt days with the heel down. My question is, why not teach both from the get go, given both ways are usefull in different circumstances? I mean, a bracing angle is not needed when you chase and you don't need to chase when you need the bracing angle for an oncomming force. (And since you said it, Robert) why wait till Black?
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 22, 2004)

For the same reason that I do not give developmental composition students essays by Micheal Foucault to read. And, because getting the bloody heel down is difficult for beginners, because they typically lack the stretch, kinesthetic awareness, and knowledge of stances upon which any meaningful variation has to be based.

The fact of the matter is that teaching kenpo students all these variations, early on, has produced a lot of terrible kenpo and phonyism. It has little to do with teaching students--and a lot to do with the instructor's showing off how just how cool he is. And the truth is, students who aren't taught basics like this at the outset are very unlikely to go back at, say, brown belt, rip out their bad wiring, and learn the proper stance.

Then too, "heel down," should be taught first so that a basic template--an unconscious pattern--is established, and can be referred back to whatever one does later.


----------



## Rainman (Aug 22, 2004)

Heel up or heel down:

Forms: Heel down
Sets:  Heel down
Techniques:  Heel up and heel down (depends)
Freestyle:  Heel up and heel down (both because you are in transition)

So it depends on circumstance, whether you are offensive or countering.  Each has its place and each has particular advantages.  Weight distribution is still 50/50 to the contact patch.

Some things to consider:  mobility, telegraphing, strength of stance, stability of stance and application of stance.

Rainman


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And the truth is, students who aren't taught basics like this at the outset are very unlikely to go back at, say, brown belt, rip out their bad wiring, and learn the proper stance.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I agree 100%. I took EPAK for years and had to travel all over the east coast to learn (some good teachers, many not). I settled in the south and began to train with an established instructor to go from 1st brown to get to 1st black. (I had trained in a whole host of other MA styles in between). The first thing Mr. Meyer asked me to do was Long Form 1 and never looked at my hands...it was not pretty. For a long time I had to reconstruct and in many ways started over. Almost a year later I am beginning to understand the value of my foundation. I 'cheated' my stances for years because I thought it was the end game...I was wrong. I hammer into the entry belts the value of forward, reverse, horse, etc. bows. I have also changed the method of my attacks from 'arm centric' to low line attacks when I see weakened foundations. It has fundamentally changed my Kenpo for the better. (Now I get why Mr. Planas would say establish your base to most of questions...).
> ...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> For the same reason that I do not give developmental composition students essays by Micheal Foucault to read. And, because getting the bloody heel down is difficult for beginners, because they typically lack the stretch, kinesthetic awareness, and knowledge of stances upon which any meaningful variation has to be based.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that teaching kenpo students all these variations, early on, has produced a lot of terrible kenpo and phonyism. It has little to do with teaching students--and a lot to do with the instructor's showing off how just how cool he is. And the truth is, students who aren't taught basics like this at the outset are very unlikely to go back at, say, brown belt, rip out their bad wiring, and learn the proper stance.
> 
> Then too, "heel down," should be taught first so that a basic template--an unconscious pattern--is established, and can be referred back to whatever one does later.


Robert,
Thank you for answering. However, it just seems to me that waiting for black belt to learn to fight like a black belt is counter productive. As you know, many students go on to other interests before they reach black belt and may never get to the level required for "heel up". In fact almost all your students will leave before black. Its pretty safe to assume however that these people will continue to practice and even end up in a fight or two. Why shouldn't they be given the tools(information) to deal with different situations? They are going to see black belts use heel up, and they will ask why.  Who says heel down is proper? wouldn't heel up be proper for certain situations, and heel down proper for others? Heel up corrects a lot of bad habbits that beginners fight with heel down. My instructor often would call me "Dr. Duck" when my toes would veer out during a stepthrough or when steping to the rear. 
Long story short, I feel that this is one of those, "wait twenty years to learn to fight" issues. And in a system that has all of its students striving to learn that next "advanced technique" (they may never use), I don't see making a one or the other choice (given your goals) as all that complex. Chase or settle... its that simple.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 23, 2004)

Just tell 'em that they aren't black belts--provided that they even notice the differences, which they probably won't.

I repeat: when you let students leave the heel up in all their basic stances, they are far less likely to learn different options. And incidentally, there are cat stances and twists to be learned, which will certainly teach people how to get the heel up and down far more rationally.

The basic philosophical difference here lies in the fact that I'm pretty sure as a teacher that you have to respect the level you're at--and the level they're at--and teach those lessons, not the ones you're struggling with. There are such things as more and less advanced students, after all...

What is more, letting students get away with sloppy form--and c'mahn, in practice what we're talking about is sloppy form--on the grounds of, "getting them to move," is a good way to make sure that they never develop real power, good balance, and strong movement. Especially in a system whose students sometimes rush forward too fast.

No, it's not a matter of waiting twenty years for anything. A student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward; no problem there. But this willy-nilly "advancement...," nope.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just tell 'em that they aren't black belts--provided that they even notice the differences, which they probably won't.
> 
> I repeat: when you let students leave the heel up in all their basic stances, they are far less likely to learn different options. And incidentally, there are cat stances and twists to be learned, which will certainly teach people how to get the heel up and down far more rationally.
> 
> ...


How much more condescending can you be?  You assume, wrongly, that all black belts are omniscient and omnipotent -- and I, along with many many others on this site, can show you great examples to the contrary.  That's like saying "because I'm the mommie, that's why" when your child asks a question and you don't have a ready answer.  Then you state that a student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward.

So which is it????!!!!

I certainly hope you teach as wisely as you (sometimes) write (elsewhere) in this forum.  I'm disappointed, Robertson.  KT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 23, 2004)

I could go over my teaching credentials with you, explain further, but what's the point? When you've made up your mind based on air, and aren't reading what I'm writing? I can, for example, tell you that your sort of rudeness is the flip side of obsequiousness....somehow, I'll bet that if I demanded you call me "Doctor," or "Sensei," or "Kawasaki," or something, you'd hush right up.

Silly me, I guess I'm thinking that the way Mr. Parker taught, and the way he wrote about kenpo, might just be good enough. I guess I thought those generations of teachers, painstakingly trying to ensure that students leanred their basics first, knew something. I guess the endless repeating of, "Learn the basics," on these forums was supposed to be taken seriously. 

Of course, personal remarks are easier than explaining your position.  

And what this leads me to suspect is that you cannot explain your position, or that you haven't thought through why one teaches basics, such as getting the heel down.

Which I explained. And I see you successfully twisted my comment about simply making sure that the student has a good grasp of basics at their level, before pushing them forward, into some sort of contradiction...WHEN IN FACT THIS COMPLETELY AGREES WITH THE IDEA OF RESPONDING TO WHAT EACH INDIVIDUAL STUDENT DOES RATHER THAN SIMPLY IMPOSING A RIGID PROGRAM. What you want to do isn't freedom: it's the imposition of a rigid  program. It's just that it's  YOUR rigid program, which you're transmitting without thinking, so it's OK. It's YOUR set of shibboleths, so it's no shibboleths at all.

Among the martial arts basics your teachers might've taken a little time with--courtesy, and leaping to conclusions about opponents. But hey, if you want to teach and learn this way, mazeltov. Have at it. Take it as condescending, narrow-minded, stupid, ignernt, or what you will. And when your students turn out to have little respect for form, or for their Forms, and develop no power, wellp, then you'll know.

I repeat: in a forward bow, the back heel should be on the ground. For everybody. If you don't do that, it's not a forward bow. It may, after patient training, be something equally good or even better.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 23, 2004)

somehow, I'll bet that if I demanded you call me "Doctor," or "Sensei," or "Kawasaki," or something, you'd hush right up.
don't bet on it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 23, 2004)

Now, having not done my "flip side of obsequiousness", did you read what I wrote?  

Apparently not.  I was not attacking you personally.  What I asked was, if you feel that only black belts are capable of discerning the difference between heel up and heel down, then why do you say that a student who "gets" stances is given more faster?  Certainly non black belts are capable of rational thought.

And, if you ever have the opportunity to speak to any of my students (despite their lack of black belts), you will no doubt be surprised that what I STRESS is proper stances and stance changes.  What I DO NOT AND WILL NOT DO is assume that they are ignorant (your words, I believe).  

I just find it amazing that someone as obviously educated and steeped in kenpo (3rd degree black belt notwithstanding) can be so obtuse at times.  I'll say it again - I'm disappointed.  KT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 23, 2004)

"How much more condescending can you be? You assume, wrongly, that all black belts are omniscient and omnipotent...." 

And previously:

"I certainly hope you teach as wisely as you (sometimes) write (elsewhere) in this forum. I'm disappointed, Robertson."

And also: "I was not attacking you personally."

So who's this guy you're talking to? Boy, I'd be pissed, if I were he.

I can't for the life of me understand why I'm actually having to defend the radical, wacky idea that stances are the basis of martial arts training, or the radical, wacky idea that students at different levels have different capabilities, or the radical, wacky idea that martial arts training takes time.

And incidentally--in referring to, 'ignernt," I was telling you to go right ahead and leap to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm being an idiot, that I'm ignorant. Me.

In point of fact I yield to nobody at all on these forums in valuing the intellectual approach. However, if you think that the primary focus of martial arts training is the conscious, analytic mind, you might want to seriously rethink. 

And I'm still waiting to read a coherent, reasonable explanation of why you would want to throw out the way Mr. Parker taught basics, the way all the books insist upon stance basics, for this other stuff. Really--just explain. Leave off the nonsense, and just explain...something more than screaming slogans and personal insults, please. Just explain.

Because where I come from, again, screaming is usually taken as a sign of inability to clearly explain. After all, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd see that we're not even all that far apart. Surely you don't do, or teach, the forms with heels up and toes out?

For everybody else: get that heel down. First.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "How much more condescending can you be? You assume, wrongly, that all black belts are omniscient and omnipotent...."
> 
> And previously:
> 
> ...


Firstly, since I teach children's classes for the majority of my teaching time, what I teach is basics.  I emphasize stances because they are the basics in any martial art, not just kenpo.  We all know that a solid base is what we need for, among other things, balance -- hence keeping the heel down or up, as appropriate.  They also learn basic punching and kicking skills, and how to listen and, by extension, take instruction.

Secondly, because I teach children, the way I approach things is going to be different than that of someone who teaches adults.  Adults may or may not take instruction;  they will do what they feel is comfortable or just plain how they want to do it.  Children, for the most part, do not have these pre-conceived notions of what the 'right' way is.  They are little sponges who will listen  - even my four year olds - and mimic what they see me or another instructor do and absorb it all.   Also, their motor skills and coordination are not fully developed yet, so keeping it very simple and sticking to the basics is less frustrating to them and certainly appropriate.  Granted, I have one four year old who is already extremely coordinated and has a mean reverse punch as well as incredible form in his basic stances.  However, he's the exception.

Thirdly, I suffer from rank blindness.  I believe that a person knows what he knows, be it kenpo or another martial art, and the color of the belt isn't necessarily indicative of ultimate knowledge or skill.  I've met some pretty incompetent black belts.  Should I be in awe of them because of their belts despite their appalling lack of knowledge of their art?  

The whole purpose of belonging to this forum is, for me, to read the posts and learn from people who've been around in kenpo and other martial arts for a whole lot longer than I have.  After a while it becomes apparent who knows what. And where else would I be able to ask questions of some of the highest ranking kenpoists around?  It's healthy, to my way of thinking, to question.  And it's how I learn.

Questioning and personally attacking someone are miles apart, and I do not believe in jumping all over another person in the forum because I disagree with him or her.  If you interpret my questioning as attacking you, well, there's nothing I can do to change your mind, is there?  KT


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I could go over my teaching credentials with you, explain further, but what's the point? When you've made up your mind based on air, and aren't reading what I'm writing? I can, for example, tell you that your sort of rudeness is the flip side of obsequiousness....somehow, I'll bet that if I demanded you call me "Doctor," or "Sensei," or "Kawasaki," or something, you'd hush right up.
> 
> Silly me, I guess I'm thinking that the way Mr. Parker taught, and the way he wrote about kenpo, might just be good enough. I guess I thought those generations of teachers, painstakingly trying to ensure that students leanred their basics first, knew something. I guess the endless repeating of, "Learn the basics," on these forums was supposed to be taken seriously.
> 
> Of course, personal remarks are easier than explaining your position.






You know, Robert, in "The Study" I've always enjoyed your comments.  

Maybe because I was at the same end of the political spectrum as you I refused to notice how insufferably arrogant and ego-centric you really are. 

It makes me wonder about the utility of intellect without basic social skills.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 24, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You know, Robert, in "The Study" I've always enjoyed your comments.
> 
> Maybe because I was at the same end of the political spectrum as you I refused to notice how insufferably arrogant and ego-centric you really are.
> 
> ...


First of all, let me say I really like Robert and I also agree with his political views; however, when it comes to Kenpo, it seems as if as if I am dealing with a different person. I'm a bit of a relativist when it come to MAs, and have a hard time dealing with (what I consider) dogma. To be fair though, Robert is speaking to EPAK Kenpoists specificly, and I can only imagine what it must sound like to an "outsider", but adherance to the basic curriculum is not that wild of and idea. I however don't feel "anyone's" program is the end all be all of MAs, and when someone attemps to trump an argument with, "Thats the way Mr. Parker did it.", my first answer would be, "Oh yeah, what year was that?"; because, his teachings changed and devloped from year to year to the point where black belts from the sixties did not move like his black belts from the seventies. That being said unless someone asked Mr. Parker a few days before his death, we may never know his final position on the issue; because Mr. Parker, was also on a Journey.
Sean


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 24, 2004)

Mod. Note. 
  Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

  -Michael Billings
  -MT Moderator-


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 24, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> First of all, let me say I really like Robert and I also agree with his political views; however, when it comes to Kenpo, it seems as if as if I am dealing with a different person. I'm a bit of a relativist when it come to MAs, and have a hard time dealing with (what I consider) dogma. To be fair though, Robert is speaking to EPAK Kenpoists specificly, and I can only imagine what it must sound like to an "outsider", but adherance to the basic curriculum is not that wild of and idea. I however don't feel "anyone's" program is the end all be all of MAs, and when someone attemps to trump an argument with, "Thats the way Mr. Parker did it.", my first answer would be, "Oh yeah, what year was that?"; because, his teachings changed and devloped from year to year to the point where black belts from the sixties did not move like his black belts from the seventies. That being said unless someone asked Mr. Parker a few days before his death, we may never know his final position on the issue; because Mr. Parker, was also on a Journey.
> Sean




I wasn't addressing any issues dealing with Kenpo, and make no claims towards knowing anything in that field.  Whether he is speaking to a Kenpo person specifically or not is beside the point I was making.  His treatment of KT wasn't warranted.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 24, 2004)

Gee, I'll try to make sure that I agree all the time. 

meanwhile, I am still waiting to see an explanation of what precisely is wrong with teaching the basics clearly and simply.

My character, or lack of it, is irrelevant to that. And regrettably, I do not allow myself to respond in kind to this sort of nonsense: it's terrible manners.

And so is the attempt to gang up on someone who simply disagrees, and to do this by commenting personally upon thiem rather than discussing the ideas, however ill-presented.

Have we been hanging out with "Swift Boat Veterans," a little too much?Get the heel down. It's as essential as manners.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 24, 2004)

> Terrible manners



There's a Japanese term likened to that of "the pot calling the kettle black" and that is: mekuso hanakuso o warau: lit. eye mucus laughs at nose snot.


----------



## pete (Aug 24, 2004)

rather than whining over "robert" this and "robert" that, let's deal with the heel...

if the trade off of the heel-up, is gaining speed at the expense of stability, then the answer becomes simple... when a root, or connection to the ground can be demonstrated consistently in the standard stances, along with full body unity in moving between thoses stances, then guided experimentation may begin. at this point, the heel-down stance has become internalized and heel-up would become situational.  eventually, both will be internalized, and utilized appropriately.  no short cut, just hard work and hard training.

for the record, my heel is down and will be for a while... like "robert" said, i've got cats, twists, wide kneels, etc to keep my heels busy.

"pete"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 24, 2004)

Let me re-post the post that got me into trouble with all the other (besides myself, that is) sixth graders:

"Just tell 'em that they aren't black belts--provided that they even notice the differences, which they probably won't.

I repeat: when you let students leave the heel up in all their basic stances, they are far less likely to learn different options. And incidentally, there are cat stances and twists to be learned, which will certainly teach people how to get the heel up and down far more rationally.

The basic philosophical difference here lies in the fact that I'm pretty sure as a teacher that you have to respect the level you're at--and the level they're at--and teach those lessons, not the ones you're struggling with. There are such things as more and less advanced students, after all...

What is more, letting students get away with sloppy form--and c'mahn, in practice what we're talking about is sloppy form--on the grounds of, "getting them to move," is a good way to make sure that they never develop real power, good balance, and strong movement. Especially in a system whose students sometimes rush forward too fast.

No, it's not a matter of waiting twenty years for anything. A student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward; no problem there. But this willy-nilly "advancement...," nope."

Sorry, I've seen considerably worse.

I continue to await a discussion of the ideas. And I'm afraid I consider it inappropriate to respond in kind to remarks such as, "how insufferably arrogant and ego-centric you really are," delivered by people who don't know me from a hole in the wall.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 24, 2004)

From my experience and analysis, I find it is easier to push-drag from a neutral bow when the heel is on the floor. If you are pushing from the back leg, and the heel is down, you have a more solid link to the ground surface because there are less points of flex. You simply extend the knee and hip.

If the heel is up, you are relying on your calf muscles to hold the position of the ankle/foot while pushing off.

I guess the moral is the less number of places you can bend, the more rigid you are. Granted we can do a lot more than push-drags from a neutral bow, so I think the situation should dictate.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 24, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> From my experience and analysis, I find it is easier to push-drag from a neutral bow when the heel is on the floor. If you are pushing from the back leg, and the heel is down, you have a more solid link to the ground surface because there are less points of flex. You simply extend the knee and hip.
> 
> If the heel is up, you are relying on your calf muscles to hold the position of the ankle/foot while pushing off.
> 
> I guess the moral is the less number of places you can bend, the more rigid you are. Granted we can do a lot more than push-drags from a neutral bow, so I think the situation should dictate.


Heel up vs heel down = push drag vs launch.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 24, 2004)

I agree. If I might add a note, it'd be that students often seem to have real problems with keeping their heel turned out and their toes in (which makes "launching," off that back foot pretty difficult) , or b) doing a king of fencer's lunge forward, where the back foot stays in place with the toes out, and the stance elongates like crazy.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I agree. If I might add a note, it'd be that students often seem to have real problems with keeping their heel turned out and their toes in (which makes "launching," off that back foot pretty difficult) , or b) doing a king of fencer's lunge forward, where the back foot stays in place with the toes out, and the stance elongates like crazy.


That is why I think new students should be introduced to heel up. Just to be "at ready" for heel up while in a heel down stance will correct the duck syndrome.
Sean


----------



## Ping898 (Aug 24, 2004)

Personally, I learned heel down intially.  Then maybe around purple or blue belt our instructor brought in the concept of heel up (though I was one of those who noticed, but never did it because I didn't know the real behind it.)  He explained why you do it, when you do it and when practicing rear kicks or sparring it was expected of you to do it.  I don't think you should tell a student because they aren't a black belt they shouldn't do something.  If that student has the basics learned well and seems proficient enough to handle the reasons why something is done a certain way.  I think that limits a student.  Though I do believe you should be taught heel down because that is the way a majority of the stances are and the way most techniques at the beginning are taught.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 24, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Heel up vs heel down = push drag vs launch.


Sean are you asking about this in terms of throwing rear hand strikes only?  Or for any situation?  Learning how to correctly come up and maintain balance on the ball of the foot is important for situations where a soft bow or a close kneel is called for, and these stances are addressed early on in Stance Set and then Stance Set II. 

In my opinion heel down initially when learning a rear strike like a thrusting punch as it provides a stable base as part of a forward bow, and I think heel down makes sense for teaching people to lunge forward for sparring situations.  In fencing the rear foot for a lunge is kept flat to push forward using the entire surface of the foot. 

I don't think it would be harmful for people to play with it earlier but for me personally Brown I was a good time for experimenting in general, as I had developed a good foundation for stances and was ready to learn intermediate material.  Things begin to become more internalized and less mechanic and it's easier to adapt at that point.  I don't think it is too far a stretch to begin experimenting with throwing say a rear thrusting punch with the heel up at this point since balancing on the ball of the rear foot has already been learned through basic stance practice.  It's just being applied in a slightly different situation.

I would however like to hear what people think in terms of the power that a rear thrusting punch generates with the heel down as opposed to the heel up.  So, in terms of generating power, which foot position is considered most effective and why?

MJ :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 24, 2004)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Sean are you asking about this in terms of throwing rear hand strikes only?  Or for any situation?  Learning how to correctly come up and maintain balance on the ball of the foot is important for situations where a soft bow or a close kneel is called for, and these stances are addressed early on in Stance Set and then Stance Set II.
> 
> In my opinion heel down initially when learning a rear strike like a thrusting punch as it provides a stable base as part of a forward bow, and I think heel down makes sense for teaching people to lunge forward for sparring situations.  In fencing the rear foot for a lunge is kept flat to push forward using the entire surface of the foot.
> 
> ...


If you believe speed adds to power then naturaly the heel up forward bows are more powerfull. That is,you are launching your mass faster. However, you are not settling, which means you won't get the stopping power of sticking a bracing angle. Instead you end up using your target to stop your forward momentum. (see Remo Williams' floater stroke in the first few "Destoyer" novels) lack of a target can not only throw out your shoulder but propell you forward into a complete punch stepthrough. What I find fascinating is that you are verbaly in a classic deep Kung Fu or karate hardstyle stance if only for an instant. By allowing your self to "float" past the point of no return your left leg becomes naturaly positioned to deliver (Mike Tyson style) death with the left hand.
Sean


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 24, 2004)

Heel down.  Body torque to throw the punch.  Because of my size, it's not brute strength but a combination of some strength and good mechanics (i.e., practice of basics!)  I've been experimenting with up/down since I began martial arts, due to the nature of each - Japanese, Korean, and now Kenpo.  Each has its own set of 'givens', but I find that good mechanics (practice of basics) wins out each and every time.  KT


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 24, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Heel down.  Body torque to throw the punch.  Because of my size, it's not brute strength but a combination of some strength and good mechanics (i.e., practice of basics!)  I've been experimenting with up/down since I began martial arts, due to the nature of each - Japanese, Korean, and now Kenpo.  Each has its own set of 'givens', but I find that good mechanics (practice of basics) wins out each and every time.  KT


Heel up is not bad body mechanics. Its just different. Kenpo is, "The balance of being out of balance". The torque will happen just as quick with heel up;however, there is no "switch stance" back to a neutral without a target to bounce off of. Lots of torque to be had though.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 24, 2004)

Again, I don't think of "heel up," as bad body mechanics at all--nor would I consider it bad kenpo. For me, the issue is one of teaching/learning, which I think starts out with, "heel down." After all, there are stances--the reverse cat stance, for example--that teach heel up fairly early. As do some of the variations of step-throughs...


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 24, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> If you believe speed adds to power then naturaly the heel up forward bows are more powerfull. That is,you are launching your mass faster


I believe... I believe...   Thanks Sean makes sense...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 24, 2004)

If the heel is up, it isn't a forward bow. It may be something equally good, but it isn't a forward bow.

OK, let the yelling commence...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If the heel is up, it isn't a forward bow. It may be something equally good, but it isn't a forward bow.
> 
> OK, let the yelling commence...


I HATE IT WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU!!! But what should we call a forward bow without brakes?
Sean


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Aug 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I HATE IT WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU!!! But what should we call a forward bow without brakes?
> Sean


Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.

DarK LorD


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 25, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.
> 
> DarK LorD


I have a question. For those of you who would throw a rear arm thrusting punch with the heel up:

We use the close kneel for a punch to the body as in Desperate Falcons, but if the punch is to the head I wouldn't be dropping my weight that low, although the weight distribution would still be 50/50. So I'm wondering would you still consider this a close kneel in that circumstance? I think the question is, is it still a close kneel if you are not a hand span from the ground?

Thanks,
MJ :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 25, 2004)

Technically, no it's not. Or if you prefer, technically it's a really crappy close kneel...of course, the stances get modified and adapted all the time as students develop.

But again, to me the real question is one of teaching--and working out of--good basic templates. Attention stances, horse stances, neutral bows, forward bows, and all the rest (but beginning with those four) provide templates on which students can build. No templates, well, it's that whose house-built-on-sand thing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 25, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.
> 
> DarK LorD


I suppose, but once again its more verbal because you don't have to stop, but if you did you would hit a close kneel; however you just launched all of your body weight on to your front leg, and then past.
Sean


----------



## GAB (Aug 25, 2004)

I have come to this late, thats good because I get to look and see.. The first thing I noticed was, the same barbs by TW and RMacR, (are you married).

Next, I would have to say, with my background, the better your foundation is, the better for stability, but not flexability in movement, but not always. (quick huh)? 

In the early days of Kajukenbo, the stance was very strong, yet the hands were and are today very fast. In teaching those early katas they were the katas of the Okinawan lineage, along with the stance of the later Japanese, some say earlier. (depends on who you are reading), it is moot, which came first the reptile or the egg. (the egg of course)

The information that is avaliable from the Mainland is far from correct if looking for lineage, but for new systems who cares about lineage, it is only as old as the person who developed it, (in reality).

This is going to get deep so get your waders.

We start out with the one penny a day doubled and we (some) know how quick that adds up to big dough.

Well the same thing happened with Katas and Techs. Someone had one borrowed two, now they have three and got two more and added six quick techs per, then cut them back or in halve then they have ten little Katas..

Now while borrowing and taking with out permission (no copy right) we have solid stance and cat stance we mix and now we have both in varing degrees.

When turning with the upperbody you can have a strong stance and be able to deliver kicks or throws or punch's, move the right heel up and twist and you have an ability to move to your attackers left and maybe, hit, kick, throw or escape to a better position.

I really don't understand the arguement when applied to real situations...

Time in grade has some benifits, but the forms that are being used dictate what you are doing in the dojo, the fight or movement by your advisary dictates what you do in the altercation. If you have to worry about your heel in the air or on the ground you need to go back to the basics...

We can go on further and try to compensate for size and the ability to srike while in a moving position (Ali), boxer vs puncher, Ah, the western "sweet science" pretty simple. 

Go to a gym and workout with boxers, you will get a good idea about strength and movement, different styles, is it really that hard to understand? Not from where I am standing. 

Ps. if you look at EPs first book and then check his second book you will see much different thought. Why??? Different people wrote it. (No copy write) 
<(...

Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 25, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> I have come to this late, thats good because I get to look and see.. The first thing I noticed was, the same barbs by TW and RMacR, (are you married).
> 
> Next, I would have to say, with my background, the better your foundation is, the better for stability, but not flexability in movement, but not always. (quick huh)?
> 
> ...


I think you may be referring to me, KT, as TW is a tkd person and I don't think she's been in this thread other than possibly reading it.  And, no, there's no bond between me and Robertson (that's what I call him) except for kenpo and an unspoken agreement to disagree with one another frequently.  We're pretty good entertainment, aren't we?

Your comment about whether one should be worrying about heel up vs. heel down in an altercation is a good one.  (My point also.)  And that is why the applications of both should be taught as necessary, not saving it for one of those mysterious 'you get when you're a black belt' things.  Your attacker doesn't know what your rank is.  KT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 25, 2004)

For the last time: the point is one of establishing a decent template, not of freezing a student into a primitive stage for all time. 

And theoretically speaking, I'd advise deconstructing the artifically-constructed binary opposition between, "dojo," and "altercation," which only serves to reinforce the fantasy of warriorhood (enacted in contradistinction to the practitioner of mere katas) in the field of the Imaginary.

Otherwise, one ends in a discursive reinforcement of the very concept of frozen training ostensibly opposed, a reinforcement aided and abetted by the recitation of cliches. The recitation of internal contradictions then becomes apparent, insofar as the subject-presumed-to-know simultaneously advocates  a, "practicality," (in which the heel becomes irrelevant) and a repetition of the previously-despised "basics."

One must add: indeed yes, one learns the basics, and sets, and forms, so as to dispose of such concerns at advanced levels. Nonetheless, this demands a constant reinspection and recognition of the, "disposable," fundamentals.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> For the last time: the point is one of establishing a decent template, not of freezing a student into a primitive stage for all time.
> 
> And theoretically speaking, I'd advise deconstructing the artifically-constructed binary opposition between, "dojo," and "altercation," which only serves to reinforce the fantasy of warriorhood (enacted in contradistinction to the practitioner of mere katas) in the field of the Imaginary.
> 
> ...


I don't know that Gary or I are viewing fundamentals as 'disposable'. I've stated my thoughts on basics upthread and elsewhere.

People do martial arts for a variety of reasons. I won't argue with your little discourse on the fantasy of warriorhood, as I agree that there are probably a number of people who embrace it. Indeed, some people begin a martial art with that very thought in mind. 

Personally, I am more than willing to perform the 'how', provided the payoff is the 'why' at some point in my training. I have been reading (omg - books!) about kenpo as well as going back into the archives on this site. The emphasis is almost always on 'how' (thank you, Doc) - learning the tech or form, your 'interpretation' of the tech or form. Threrfore, my interpretation is that one cannot perform the 'how' unless one has the basics internalized to the point of getting them to flow without any conscious thought. KT


----------



## pete (Aug 25, 2004)

let's put aside specific belt ranking requirements for a minute, and look at it as just attaining a level of proficiency and consistency.  we don't want to dump too much material, especially seemingly contradictory material, on a student too soon.  stance set one at white belt, stance set two 3-4-5+ years later at brown-2... why don't we teach concave stances and one legged stances earlier?  'house built on sand thing", yes?  

i'll repeat, _when a root, or connection to the ground can be demonstrated consistently in the standard stances, along with full body unity in moving between thoses stances, then guided experimentation may begin_.

no, kt, the attacker doesn't know your rank or your ability... but, our curriculum teaches knife defenses at brown, and gun techs after black.  is this too late?  heck, i don't even like introducing that club attack technique we have in yellow.

mj pointed at *desparate falcons* as an example of using the left close kneel to deliver the right punch to the body.  a similar stance/strike is applied in *dance of darkness*, only this time attacking the spine using a left punch from a right close kneel (built-in mirroring? ahh, another time another thread).

why would those applications work in using the close kneel (or heel up) while delivering the strike, while say, the right punch in *attacking mace* or the left handspear in *five swords* may not...

pete


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 25, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> let's put aside specific belt ranking requirements for a minute, and look at it as just attaining a level of proficiency and consistency. we don't want to dump too much material, especially seemingly contradictory material, on a student too soon. stance set one at white belt, stance set two 3-4-5+ years later at brown-2... why don't we teach concave stances and one legged stances earlier? 'house built on sand thing", yes?
> 
> i'll repeat, _when a root, or connection to the ground can be demonstrated consistently in the standard stances, along with full body unity in moving between thoses stances, then guided experimentation may begin_.
> 
> ...


Our curriculum teaches what it does because our instructor, as you know, has choosen when he introduces things sub-Brown.  I agree with you on that club tech in Yellow to a degree.  I think there needs to be a mix of what's taught at each level, appropriate to that level.  You (that's a collective you) can say that certain things should be introduced to the 'more advanced' student as she/he is ready for it, but how're you going to know if they can handle something if it isn't there for you to observe in an embryonic form?

I would have to question what is hidden in the techs you reference to make a difference as to heel up or down.  The 'how' of each of the Brown techs is obvious, because by that point it can be assumed that one has done enough kenpo to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how the attacker is reacting.  But the 'why'...  KT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 25, 2004)

Among the reasons for drills on basics, sets, and forms is that they allow students--and instructors--to keep a running check on progress.

Students who cannot consistently hit--and employ--a forward bow in a set like Coordination Set 1 are (granted, not always, but nearly always) not in any sense prepared to start fiddling around with stances they do not understand and cannot actualize.

As for the, "whys," well, my previous post--and Mr. Chap'el's posts, additionally--suggest rather stongly that "whys," all too easily become substitutes (and I would say, defenses against) actually enacting the, "how."

But then, as is often pointed out to me, instructors had better be themselves actualizing stances and all the rest, or their students aren't going to pay them the slightest attention.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 25, 2004)

Robertson:  Students who cannot consistently hit--and employ--a forward bow in a set like Coordination Set 1 are (granted, not always, but nearly always) not in any sense prepared to start fiddling around with stances they do not understand and cannot actualize.

Where did this come from? 

I happen to agree with you (omg - TWICE in one thread - what am I thinking?!), but I think there's a lot more to that set than stances - chambering for the kick, for one.

Just out of curiousity, when is it taught in your school?  And Coordination Set II?  I'm one of those who actually enjoys both of these sets - I find them challenging and good practice.  KT


----------



## GAB (Aug 25, 2004)

Yes it is Kenpo Tiger, sorry about that. 

RmacR, As far as fantasy of warriorhood those thoughts are from you, all I can say to that remark is OK, if you say so. You keep that thought and we will both be secure in our own worlds.
Get um Tiger. Regards, Gary


----------



## pete (Aug 26, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Our curriculum teaches what it does because our instructor, as you know, has choosen when he introduces things sub-Brown.



yeah, i've found that steve's curriculum is pretty unique, yet seems to remain fairly consistent in principle with others.



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I would have to question what is hidden in the techs you reference to make a difference as to heel up or down.



i'm not thinking about what may or may not be hidden, since what may be hidden to some are more obvious to others... and vice-verse!

i'm just looking at that point in time during those techs, how i've gained positional advantage, dimensional checks, and available targets and range of motion for the next sequence. honestly, l look at those as close kneels for a reason, and not as modified forward bows... but that may very well be just my level of understanding...

pete


----------



## dcence (Aug 26, 2004)

Hey guys,

Been a while.  I just got sick of all the nit-picking and cheerleading (not that I ever did that, LOL).  But I thought I would drop in and this is an interesting topic.

To me, it (heel up or down) is a matter of degrees.  I don't always hit with the heel down, and it is neither a neutral bow, forward bow, close or wide kneel, but something in between those stances, depending upon the circumstances.

I agree with Robert, that at first we should teach good solid basic stances, neutral bow, forward bow, etc.  Later, a student should start to notice how difficult it is to shuffle forward and hit in a forward bow with the rear heel down, and they see you using a stance that isn't a true forward bow, nor is it really a wide kneel or a close kneel.  So when do you teach this modification?  When you start teaching someone to launch forward and strike with the rear hand, or when you teach them a push drag -- and to me that is pretty early.

In our association we use the terms, modified forward bow and modified neutral bow to designate those varying degrees of stance between neutral bow and forward bow.  (To me, these are neither wide nor close kneels as those stances have a different height element to them not in the neutrals and forward bows.)

So for me the spectrum is (1) standard neutral bow (both heels on the ground), (2) modified neutral bow (neutral bow with rear heel up to facilitate launching), (3) modified forward bow (forward bow with the rear heel up to facilitate speed and mobility like when you are striking with the rear hand when shuffling forward), and (4) standard forward bow (when you need the structurally reinforcement of the bracing angle).  We officially teach these nuances in Blue Belt, so a student has a good idea of how to get that bracing angle and solid stability in a standard neutral and forward bow.  But they are informally taught these nuances earlier because people start launching long before Blue.

If you are stepping back and then going into a forward bow, like in Alternating Maces, I think it makes sense to hit the standard neutral bow and forward bow, heel planted in both, but if you intend to launch forward with or without with rear hand strike, trying to plant your heel robs you of your mobility and momentum.  And, many times when you are simply pivoting in place, the modified stances come in handy without much, if any, sacrifice of back up mass, but a large increase in speed.

I mean, how many boxers do you see hit true forward bows with the heel down, and they can still knock your block off.  Just my take on the topic.

Derek


----------



## RaysOnAwaV (Aug 26, 2004)

Thank Mr. Ence, Two boxers that come too mind are Roy Jones Jr and Oscar De Loya. IMO these two boxers have excellent footwork, which results in extremely fast hands. Like you stated by rotating on the ball of the foot it allows for rotational torque, marriage of gravity, depth of penetration and back up mass. 

Salute,

Ray Maynard


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 27, 2004)

dcence said:
			
		

> To me, it (heel up or down) is a matter of degrees. I don't always hit with the heel down, and it is neither a neutral bow, forward bow, close or wide kneel, but something in between those stances, depending upon the circumstances.


In sparring situations we can find ourselves mid-way between stances when our opponent may thoughtlessly choose to attack us, or we may decide to launch ourselves with heel up down or somewhere in between as an opening arises, so I agree that practically speaking it has to depend on the circumstances in reality, and we will more likely be transitioning or doing varying degrees of all stances when fighting in terms of defense and offense.



> So when do you teach this modification? When you start teaching someone to launch forward and strike with the rear hand, or when you teach them a push drag -- and to me that is pretty early.


Yes especially when we begin training in sparring. In our school that is at blue belt.



> In our association we use the terms, modified forward bow and modified neutral bow to designate those varying degrees of stance between neutral bow and forward bow. (To me, these are neither wide nor close kneels as those stances have a different height element to them not in the neutrals and forward bows.)


 I would think that we all must engage in these maneuvers at some point, but may not all have specific terminology for the varying degrees. Sometimes in our school we will say transitional or use the term modified as well. 



> So for me the spectrum is (1) standard neutral bow (both heels on the ground), (2) modified neutral bow (neutral bow with rear heel up to facilitate launching), (3) modified forward bow (forward bow with the rear heel up to facilitate speed and mobility like when you are striking with the rear hand when shuffling forward), and (4) standard forward bow (when you need the structurally reinforcement of the bracing angle).


Thanks for sharing your understanding of all of this. Having this terminology makes it easier to convey. 




> If you are stepping back and then going into a forward bow, like in Alternating Maces, I think it makes sense to hit the standard neutral bow and forward bow, heel planted in both, but if you intend to launch forward with or without with rear hand strike, trying to plant your heel robs you of your mobility and momentum. And, many times when you are simply pivoting in place, the modified stances come in handy without much, if any, sacrifice of back up mass, but a large increase in speed.


These are good examples, and I think in doing techniques in the "ideal phase" the stances can mostly be more exacting, but in the reality of a fight they have to be more transitional or modified.  Since sparring starts at blue for us footwork must be dealt with.

artyon: 

Oops... that's leading a cheer! :wink: LOL 

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to post this!

MJ :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 27, 2004)

Nice explanations: in summary, the question is whether it's a choice, or an accident. 

I contend that if you don't train in good stances--as they're written--you cannot possibly learn the options in any meaningful fashion.

Incidentally, the backs of some technique cards often have basic sparring meaneuvers, starting at yellow belt stuff.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 27, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nice explanations: in summary, the question is whether it's a choice, or an accident.
> 
> I contend that if you don't train in good stances--as they're written--you cannot possibly learn the options in any meaningful fashion.
> 
> Incidentally, the backs of some technique cards often have basic sparring meaneuvers, starting at yellow belt stuff.


The hope would be to make it more of a choice and the more we train the more I believe that that can become actualized. I can only speak from my intermediate point of view and as much as I'd like for it all to be purposeful at this point for me alas it is not, but I would imagine that with many years of experience there are less if any "accidents". I agree about the basics, and that's interesting about the yellow belt stuff.


----------



## psi_radar (Aug 27, 2004)

We call the heel-up position an Engaged Forward Bow.

I prefer the EFB in most situations, though not all; dcence's example of Alternating Maces is a good case in point. 

I agree with a slow introduction of these modifications; even though I had a particularly hard time getting the textbook forward bow down, all the more reason I should have practiced it over and over again rather than cheating it. 

My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid. 

To explain, think of a connect-the-dots picture as a SD technique. The dots are proper stances hit and the impact of strikes at proper targets. The connecting lines (transitions) make up the majority of the picture and give it meaning, but it's the dots that define the action of drawing and therefore the end result.

Maybe I'm spouting here, but I make sense to me!


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 27, 2004)

dcence said: So for me the spectrum is (1) standard neutral bow (both heels on the ground), (2) modified neutral bow (neutral bow with rear heel up to facilitate launching), (3) modified forward bow (forward bow with the rear heel up to facilitate speed and mobility like when you are striking with the rear hand when shuffling forward), and (4) standard forward bow (when you need the structurally reinforcement of the bracing angle). We officially teach these nuances in Blue Belt, so a student has a good idea of how to get that bracing angle and solid stability in a standard neutral and forward bow. But they are informally taught these nuances earlier because people start launching long before Blue.


Along with MJ, I thank you for posting this. I skimmed through your post last night and re-read it just now. She's covered pretty much what else I would say. My only question is related to another point made upthread: do you give any sort of explanation of launching at the lower belts or leave well-enough alone? KT


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 27, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> We call the heel-up position an Engaged Forward Bow.
> 
> I prefer the EFB in most situations, though not all; dcence's example of Alternating Maces is a good case in point.
> 
> ...


Makes sense to me too.  Like the snapshot analogy.  KT


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 27, 2004)

> My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid.
> 
> To explain, think of a connect-the-dots picture as a SD technique. The dots are proper stances hit and the impact of strikes at proper targets. The connecting lines (transitions) make up the majority of the picture and give it meaning, but it's the dots that define the action of drawing and therefore the end result.
> 
> Maybe I'm spouting here, but I make sense to me!


This is a great visualization! It's not just all in your head, now it's in mine too...hee hee  oh and I see KT's too!


----------



## psi_radar (Aug 27, 2004)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> This is a great visualization! It's not just all in your head, now it's in mine too...hee hee  oh and I see KT's too!



Muhhaaahaaahaa. My plans are coming to fruition... :EG: 

I always liked that analogy too. When learning stance set two, we often said "bam" when we had the stance where we wanted it, then started the transition to the next. I still do it now and then out of habit. The "bams" are like the connect-the-dot dots. Funny to hear a whole room of people saying "bam....bam......bam.....bam...."


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 27, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Muhhaaahaaahaa. My plans are coming to fruition... :EG:
> 
> I always liked that analogy too. When learning stance set two, we often said "bam" when we had the stance where we wanted it, then started the transition to the next. I still do it now and then out of habit. The "bams" are like the connect-the-dot dots. Funny to hear a whole room of people saying "bam....bam......bam.....bam...."


Funny - I do the same thing.

The Emeril line of kenpo.  KT


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 27, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.
> 
> DarK LorD


Clyde,
I think having your heel up, and stopping would be bad form; however, passing through such a position would be proper form. But given we agree it is not a forward bow, then why not introduce this method in your offensive techs as a lesson in changing up your timming?
Sean


----------



## dcence (Aug 27, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid.



I agree, with one caveat:  I do think that hitting or moving with the rear heel up can be considered "the apex of proper motion" if you understand why you are doing that on that particular move.  In other words, it can be "ideal" to have the rear heel up, if that is what you intend to do for the right reasons.  Heel up stances don't have to be transitional (like, on the way to a "real" stance), but can be an end in and of themselves.

Once someone learns to use these heel up stances properly, they can hit harder, move quicker, be more mobile and perform with much more effect.

Derek


----------



## psi_radar (Aug 27, 2004)

dcence said:
			
		

> I agree, with one caveat:  I do think that hitting or moving with the rear heel up can be considered "the apex of proper motion" if you understand why you are doing that on that particular move.  In other words, it can be "ideal" to have the rear heel up, if that is what you intend to do for the right reasons.
> 
> Derek



I think we're on the same page--I didn't mean to confuse "ideal" with "textbook." Ultimately the stances can and should be tailored by the person to create the optimal result.


----------



## GAB (Aug 30, 2004)

Hi.
The idea, is that all moves require the body to respond a certain way.

It goes to where you want your weight, I have seen Katas where they show the heel up and they will call it the old monk or old man Kata? 
Does this make sense? Do old people walk spryly?

As you are walking the step is an act of falling forward and gravity taking over until the next step intervens and keeps you upright. 
In the military it is the heal that makes contact, heel down while riding a horse helps you stay in the saddle.

Is the heel up or down, we can go on and on, each Kata has a way of teaching and one Kata will teach one way and the other will teach a different idea, the reason for this is that each are for your information. 

The time for it to be used, while moving or sparring or fighting is based on your training or instinct, after all we have been walking a long time.

Good teachers talk about training and how you revert in time of stress. I believe that is the main issue, when the time comes to use, if you have been trained or train alot, based on your observation, (gut felling) you will use the correct or your trained tech at the moment it is needed. 

Forms, Katas, are the essence of the martial arts, if it is not in your tool kit, you need to go and get it. Talk to your teacher, read, discuss, ask questions, watch others when making the same move, is it fluid or stilted? 

If a runner is on the balls of his feet while moving forward, when he stops running he walks with the heels for support, he is tired, if you need support you need the heel down, if not it can be up. You will see that in horses when they jump the heel takes the first contact.

Sliding the foot, trying not to move it off the ground, not far from always being there for support. 
Moving quickly, the ball of the foot will be primary, if the muscle is there to help, if not, it is the heel and skeletal structure that does the job.

Last but not least, in the Yin and Yang thought process it is a way of combing the two that gets the job done.


Regards, Gary


----------



## The Kai (Aug 30, 2004)

Actually at a full run your hell strikes the ground first and then you roll through your foot.  While a Horse may land heel first, it would seem that their knees are hinged in the opposite direction!


----------



## psi_radar (Aug 30, 2004)

Horses have heels? :idunno:


----------



## GAB (Sep 6, 2004)

I was reading some of SGM EP's quotes and found this one that I thought was very good for most of the discussions regarding practice vs real time need.

" While practice locks in our knowledge of Basics, instinct is what makes it free".

Based on the situation as you interpret it, with your knowledge and training, I believe the word that we use in Kosho is very appropriate. "Conceptualize, to conceive, in the mind, to think." 

Heel up or down after learning the numerous forms that teach one way or another, then you have your pick like at a buffet for food, do you want 
eggs or a steak, or both or neither? 

Regards, Gary :asian:


----------



## The Kai (Sep 6, 2004)

Heel up or down after learning the numerous forms that teach one way or another, then you have your pick like at a buffet for food, do you want 
eggs or a steak, or both or neither? 

And if you have a heart problem, perhaps a salad would be better.  Of course there is no right or wrong - but there may be more apropriate ways.
Raising you hell even on a simple technoque like a reverse punch, changes the intention the angle, follow thru, etc..
The best way to figure out (heel raised or not) is on a Heavy bag or in sparring. As the 1st posted stated you don't need a bracing angle when chasing someone, but it is helpful when some one is charging you.
Sometimes as much as we would like to we can't have both ways
Todd


----------



## GAB (Sep 6, 2004)

Hi Kai, 

Are you saying we can't have or Kate and Edith too/also? :idunno: 

Heel up and heel down, it will be one or the other, it might not always be right, but it could be wrong also, do I have it right? :whip: 

Regards, Gary:asian:


----------



## The Kai (Sep 7, 2004)

Sure it could be right or wrong, the key is to practice and train- not spout and repete someone else's phrases.

After all all roads may led to the top of the mountain, just make sure that you are climbing and not relying on someone else

Todd


----------



## jaybacca72 (Sep 8, 2004)

tell boxers that they don't have good basics with thier heel up! you can have your heel up and still establish a good base provided you don't break your posture and bend your knees ie high wide kneel stance.
later
jay
ps i have taught two groups of students differently for an experiment regarding this issue and the heel up group could and perform techniques much more effeciently from my observations but that's just me,heel down works to but i don't wait till black belt to show it , maybe purple. artyon:


----------



## pete (Sep 8, 2004)

jaybacca72 said:
			
		

> tell boxers that they don't have good basics with thier heel up!


hey jay, maybe boxers have good basics for boxing, but a little like comparing apples and grapefruits with kenpo.  i mean, would you keep you elbows in and both fists up against a martial artist?

keeping the heel down in the forward bow will restrict your forward momentum, but provides the counter-balance necessary to defend, counter, or move laterally.  if all your momentum is moving forward with the punch, while it may be more powerful, the interception of that punch could result in you getting pulled off balance and thrown down... kinda helping him do Leap of Death to you.

the close kneel stance lifts the rear heel up, but in bringing the knee down to a hands width from the ground, the shin is becomes virtually parallel to the ground and provides the required stability, or root.

pete


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 9, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> hey jay, maybe boxers have good basics for boxing, but a little like comparing apples and grapefruits with kenpo.  i mean, would you keep you elbows in and both fists up against a martial artist?
> 
> keeping the heel down in the forward bow will restrict your forward momentum, but provides the counter-balance necessary to defend, counter, or move laterally.  if all your momentum is moving forward with the punch, while it may be more powerful, the interception of that punch could result in you getting pulled off balance and thrown down... kinda helping him do Leap of Death to you.
> 
> ...


Your absolutly right; all you weight gets thrown forward uncontrolably, but there is a time and a place for everything.
Sean


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 9, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> hey jay, maybe boxers have good basics for boxing, but a little like comparing apples and grapefruits with kenpo. i mean, would you keep you elbows in and both fists up against a martial artist?
> 
> keeping the heel down in the forward bow will restrict your forward momentum, but provides the counter-balance necessary to defend, counter, or move laterally. if all your momentum is moving forward with the punch, while it may be more powerful, the interception of that punch could result in you getting pulled off balance and thrown down... kinda helping him do Leap of Death to you.
> 
> ...


The force grows even more with this one LOL.    You're seeing things in a very good light Pete, and learning the contrasts of our art,  keep it up big guy, it'll pay off.

DarK LorD


----------



## tsunami (Sep 22, 2004)

One question. Have you ever hit a makiwara or have seen a picture of one being hit by a person with their heel up? 

With all respect to prior posts. My undertanding is this. A forward bow has the heel down. If it does not, it is not a forward bow. If you do freesyle B1a, you strike high with a forward bow. If you do B1b you do an uppercut to the ribs but due to the range of the uppercut, you have to rotate the hips and lift the heel. This is only proper motion but is still not a forward bow. 

A neutral bow is also heels down. However the system's working stance is the modified neutral bow with a lifted rear heel. You have to lift the heel to execute a push-drag or shuffle. Most "framed up" starting techs also start in this dynamic stance. (atleast that is how we do it) 

Likewise a rear neutral bow is heel down.

I point this out because although Kenpo is a very dynamic and evolutionary art, the basics are or should be carved in stone. For the same reasons as written by a few others. If you want to hit hard you must master stances and power priciples. To quote Mr. Planas, "Establish your base and don't loose it".


----------



## distalero (Sep 22, 2004)

Interesting topic. Unless I missed it, no one brought up a very real consideration: slippery or uneven terrain. It happens; very little of the rest of the world is covered in tatami mats. Would "heel down" be appropriate more often, or as a substitue for the "heel up" you'd ordinarily use, or would heel up be more appropriate. Hmmm.


----------

