# The Neutral Bow for Transition



## Touch Of Death (Jan 7, 2008)

When executing techniques do you eliminate the neutral tranitions for speed? If so, which techniques have you rui... I mean, altered?
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jan 8, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> When executing techniques do you eliminate the neutral tranitions for speed? If so, which techniques have you rui... I mean, altered?
> Sean


 
Not sure if this is the answer you're looking for, but here goes. 

When I do techniques, I adapt the technique to me, not the other way around.  We're all built differently, therefore, adjustments are going to have to be made.  I'm not going to put myself into an awkward position just to keep the technique pure.  

Some will disagree with this and thats fine.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 9, 2008)

MJS said:


> Not sure if this is the answer you're looking for, but here goes.
> 
> When I do techniques, I adapt the technique to me, not the other way around. We're all built differently, therefore, adjustments are going to have to be made. I'm not going to put myself into an awkward position just to keep the technique pure.
> 
> Some will disagree with this and thats fine.


The stance is a safety measure, not a position of awkwardness!
Sean


----------



## Blindside (Jan 9, 2008)

Could you give an example?  

How do you move if you don't transition through a neutral?

Lamont


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 9, 2008)

Blindside said:


> Could you give an example?
> 
> How do you move if you don't transition through a neutral?
> 
> Lamont


That is a very good question! The question is why would you skip a basic transition point that should be in-bedded in your basic motion anyway. The answer is... I don't know but here are two examples:
Launching back to 4:30 directly into a forward bow as per "Thrusting Salute"

Or

skipping the neutral after the block in "Delayed Sword" to speed the kicking process in both cases.
Sean


----------



## MattJ (Jan 9, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> skipping the neutral after the block in "Delayed Sword" to speed the kicking process in both cases.
> Sean


 
Definitely don't skip the neutral bow on Delayed Sword. Without stabilizing yourself against the punch, you will simply get knocked over as you try to kick.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 9, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Launching back to 4:30 directly into a forward bow as per "Thrusting Salute"
> Or
> skipping the neutral after the block in "Delayed Sword" to speed the kicking process in both cases.


 
Well fortunately, I know those AK techs. 
On Thrusting Salute, if you are moving with speed your back leg will be weighted at least 60%, I use that bent back leg as a shock absorber, then push off as I transition through the neutral and into the front kick.  If you step directly to the forward bow, your leg cant push off into the kick, so you cant push forward into the kick, and you dont have a hip pivot, it turns you into just a leg kicker.

With Delayed Sword, I am assuming the stance transition you are referring to is as you step down from the kick, and when you do the handsword.  If you land in a forward bow you lose the defensive positioning of the forward leg, and the hip torque of the handsword.  It turns you into an arm puncher, albeit an arm puncher with MOG.

It doesnt feel comfortable to me, and really not something I want to ingrain in my students at early ranks.  But Im just a Tracy guy, what do I know.

Lamont


----------



## Danjo (Jan 9, 2008)

What is the neutral bow stance? Is it a sort of high horse stance? If so, Choki Motobu thought that was the stance for real fighting. 

"Twisting to the left or right from the Naifuanchin stance will give you the stance used in a real confrontation." 

and 

"The position of the legs and hips in Naifuanchin (the old name for Naihanchi) no Kata is the basics of karate." 

---Choki Motobu


----------



## Blindside (Jan 9, 2008)

> What is the neutral bow stance? Is it a sort of high horse stance? If so, Choki Motobu thought that was the stance for real fighting


 
http://www.amkenpokarateassociation.com/Ed_Parker.htm

Fourth picture from the bottom.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 9, 2008)

Blindside said:


> http://www.amkenpokarateassociation.com/Ed_Parker.htm
> 
> Fourth picture from the bottom.


 
So the answer is "yes" it's a sort of high horse stance wher you twist to face your opponent.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 9, 2008)

Danjo said:


> So the answer is "yes" it's a sort of high horse stance wher you twist to face your opponent.


 
Well you know how geeky kenpoists get about describing something....

I figured a pic was worth a bunch of words.


----------



## SL4Drew (Jan 9, 2008)

Danjo said:


> So the answer is "yes" it's a sort of high horse stance wher you twist to face your opponent.


 
Not the way I do it.  The "twist" with the upper body is bad.  It is a horse stance, but the whole body is angled toward around 10:30.

I'm not sure I'd say that eliminating the neutral bow for speed is either desirable or good.  Sometimes I'll use 'other' stances, but I wouldn't call that eliminating the neutral bow.  I wouldn't call the Thrusting Salute example eliminating the neutral bow, it is just choosing a different stance. 

And for me 'speed' is not the paramount concern.  Having a stable lower platform and abiding by anatomical constraints are more important.  This way you get both speed and strength through optimal physical performance.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Jan 9, 2008)

SL4Drew said:


> Not the way I do it. The "twist" with the upper body is bad. It is a horse stance, but the whole body is angled toward around 10:30.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say that eliminating the neutral bow for speed is either desirable or good. Sometimes I'll use 'other' stances, but I wouldn't call that eliminating the neutral bow. I wouldn't call the Thrusting Salute example eliminating the neutral bow, it is just choosing a different stance.
> 
> And for me 'speed' is not the paramount concern. Having a stable lower platform and abiding by anatomical constraints are more important. This way you get both speed and strength through optimal physical performance.


 
My understanding of the NB is it is identical to a horse stance for the lower half, with the following exception (for a right stance in this example):
Horse = Toe/Toe line, head aligned to 12:00, whole body except head would face 9:00. Both toes would touch the 12:00/6:00 line.
NB = Toe/Heel line, head aligned to 12:00, whole body except head would face 10:30, right toe on right side of 12:00/6:00 line, left heel on left side of 12:00/6:00 line.

Essentially a NB for the lower half is a horse stance split by a toe/heel line instead of toe/toe. The upper half of the stance varies upon who teaches it and for what purpose.


----------



## SL4Drew (Jan 10, 2008)

IWishToLearn said:


> My understanding of the NB is it is identical to a horse stance for the lower half, with the following exception (for a right stance in this example):
> Horse = Toe/Toe line, head aligned to 12:00, whole body except head would face 9:00. Both toes would touch the 12:00/6:00 line.
> NB = Toe/Heel line, head aligned to 12:00, whole body except head would face 10:30, right toe on right side of 12:00/6:00 line, left heel on left side of 12:00/6:00 line.
> 
> Essentially a NB for the lower half is a horse stance split by a toe/heel line instead of toe/toe. The upper half of the stance varies upon who teaches it and for what purpose.


 
Yes, I do it that way. A properly execute neutral bow is a horse if you turn your head to 10:30. And from a neutral bow if you turn head to 1:30 you'd be in a side horse. But I'd say that your upper body for a neutral bow needs to essentially be in the position it was when you are in a horse. That's why the 'twist' is incorrect. For example, if you execute a braced index and have someone apply forward pressure you'll find the twist weakens your ability to resist forward pressure.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Jan 10, 2008)

I'm glad we have the same understanding as we had the same instructor show us that stance.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> The stance is a safety measure, not a position of awkwardness!
> Sean


 
You're right, the stance is there to make the moves stable.  However, considering we're not all robots, we may need to, on an individual basis, make a modification in our 'stance.'


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 11, 2008)

MJS said:


> You're right, the stance is there to make the moves stable. However, considering we're not all robots, we may need to, on an individual basis, make a modification in our 'stance.'


Thats not the only reason but... What are some reasons that justify skipping it?
Sean


----------



## Doc (Jan 12, 2008)

IWishToLearn said:


> My understanding of the NB is it is identical to a horse stance for the lower half, with the following exception (for a right stance in this example):
> Horse = Toe/Toe line, head aligned to 12:00, whole body except head would face 9:00. Both toes would touch the 12:00/6:00 line.
> NB = Toe/Heel line, head aligned to 12:00, whole body except head would face 10:30, right toe on right side of 12:00/6:00 line, left heel on left side of 12:00/6:00 line.
> 
> Essentially a NB for the lower half is a horse stance split by a toe/heel line instead of toe/toe. The upper half of the stance varies upon who teaches it and for what purpose.


Of course you need to make a distinction between a "training horse," and "side horse" stance. But to put it simply, Ed Parker described a neutral bow to me as simply "a horse stance viewed and utilized from a different perspective." This becomes clearer and more important with the realization that, ALL stances are a physical and/or perspective derivation of the training horse.


----------



## Doc (Jan 12, 2008)

MJS said:


> You're right, the stance is there to make the moves stable.  However, considering we're not all robots, we may need to, on an individual basis, make a modification in our 'stance.'



Actually sir, that's true only on a limited basis. One of the things promoted in the commercial system is the concept of tailoring to allow flexibility for short term results. This is a major departure from "Old World Concepts" that taught for the long haul, over quick skills that diminish quickly as well. The business requires this perspective as customers are looking for immediate results, sometimes to their own physical detriment. Back, hip, shoulder, rotator cuff, elbow, and knee problems abound.

While it is true we all have different physiological geometrical differences, the base structure of human anatomy is the same for everyone. The underlying skeleton, the placement of various viscous materials of muscle, ligament, tendons, all organs, etc are all the same. Human anatomy is an exact science, with primarily only dimensional variances. A Medical Doctor will tell you essentially all humans ARE all built the same. Simplistically, much like two buildings utilizing the same platform, although one has more floors than the other, and therefore is taller, or one being broader at its base therefore "fatter." While they have different geometrical proportions, they share an underlying architecture that is the same. What does that mean? Well it means in one building the elevator may reach higher up than the other, and in another you may take up more space on the ground, but they're still the same.

The base movements of all martial art activity should be anatomically the same no matter the style, or preference, for maximum efficiency and longevity. What corrupts these things are "philosophical, cultural, or conceptual differences of execution." The "everybody is built different" is a "business concept" not found in the traditional martial arts for a reason. It doesn't sell well.

However, I do agree that because of anatomical, geometrical discrepancies, between individuals forced by circumstances, to interact with each other, that adjustments must be made for effective execution. Or simply "if the building is so tall you can't hit the top floor, strike a lower floor instead." But, when you do so, you should be striking with the same foundation sir.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 13, 2008)

Doc said:


> Actually sir, that's true only on a limited basis. One of the things promoted in the commercial system is the concept of tailoring to allow flexibility for short term results. This is a major departure from "Old World Concepts" that taught for the long haul, over quick skills that diminish quickly as well. The business requires this perspective as customers are looking for immediate results, sometimes to their own physical detriment. Back, hip, shoulder, rotator cuff, elbow, and knee problems abound.


 
Doc, 
I have taken notice of the fact that many of the old-time Karate and Kung Fu practitioners such as Motobu, Kyan, Funakoshi, Wong etc.,  practiced well into their 70s and even 90's without stopping. Now, we have modern Karateka getting their hips and knees replaced by the time they're 60 (Bill Wallace and Chuck Norris come to mind, though I've read of many others). I'm sure this has to be related to what you're saying here.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Doc,
> I have taken notice of the fact that many of the old-time Karate and Kung Fu practitioners such as Motobu, Kyan, Funakoshi, Wong etc.,  practiced well into their 70s and even 90's without stopping. Now, we have modern Karateka getting their hips and knees replaced by the time they're 60 (Bill Wallace and Chuck Norris come to mind, though I've read of many others). I'm sure this has to be related to what you're saying here.



Yes sir it does. While the normal wear-and-tear on the human body takes its toll from day-to-day living, (the act of simply walking causes wear after 50/60 years on knees, ankles, and hip joints), oddly enough old school practitioners could still move very well and rarely had joint injuries, and maintained speed and power.

Today's modern artists skills diminish quickly just like the sport model counterpart their training is philosophically based on. There is a reason there are no old gymnasts, or acrobats. Time erodes those skills quickly that are inappropriate proper anatomical movement, and rewards those who work with the body instead of against with longevity.

Parker was often derided for his "lack of kicking skill." He refused to do the round off flip flop, spinning high-jinks, pratfall super-split kick. But he was a legend for the kicks he did perform with speed and power. He predicted while watching others do what he called "unnecessary fancy kicks," "Those guys are going to have joint replacement surgeries without fail if they don't stop doing that." I watched all of my friends and teachers have significant joint surgeries from the Korean and Japanese Arts, while Ark Wong and Ed Parker motored along. Few would argue Sifu's Wong or Parker had lost any upper body speed before they passed. Sifu Wong at 88, and Professor Parker at 59.

The Takahashi Brothers, Gene and George from Shotokan, Sea Oh Choi from Hapkido, Chuck Norris from Tang soo do, Bill Wallace, a plethora of prominent kenpo Stylists, and the list goes on.

And lets not make the mistake of thinking its only the non-traditional and sport arts. The same thing happened to the Korean and Japanese Stylists, as well as others, while the original Chinese just kept moving along doing those inefficient movements well into their eighties, with no joint problems.

Unfortunately commercialism has caught up with the martial arts all over the world. It is a prominent in all countries as it is here in America. The Chinese now have "performance art" Wushu and their Shaolin Monks staged show at the monastery daily, while all the "masters' seem to be in their thirties. More recently they have a form of competitive kick boxing that is getting popular. Indonesian Arts have sprung up with belts and competition, and so have the Filipino Arts been likewise corrupted. Anywhere you go you can find a "version" of the art "for sale" and/or where you can "compete" and be awarded rank. 

I've watched with fascination shows like "Fight Fest," and "Human Weapon," where to ordinary athletes train with martial arts masters all over the world in different styles for a week, than have a "match" at the end of their training. The funny thing is these guys do pretty well with their weeks worth of training, and not because the training works but because they're athletes engaging in athletic contests. 

Recently they went to Japan to study Kyokushinkai. The first day they had one of them set up a stack of about 10 roof tiles to break. The guy broke all but three with one strike. Than he did a traditional demo where he broke boards in a circle with a punch, elbow, front kick, and a spinning back kick. The only one that gave him a problem was the spinning back kick. That took three tries. Not because he didn't have the power in his newly learned kick, but he had to find the range to be accurate. Same thing in China doing "Chinese Kickboxing." They held their own and even knocked guys down and got in good shot with the "champions." I think the worse was in France where they fought a Savate Champion at a secret training facility. They kicked that guys but.

No, the real arts don't have massive numbers or followers because it doesn't appeal to the masses either physically, or more importantly intellectually. They're more "quiet" and harder to find. Since when is it when you find the best of anything, is it a lot of people? There may be a lot of people doing something, but the best is always a couple of guys over in the corner quietly doing their thing. You know, like Ed Parker while everyone else is trying to duplicate what he did, with what he sold them. You can't have both. Massive sales and participation leads to mediocrity, at the best. Mostly just a lot of people with belts, whistles, sparkles, and titles. Let's not forget the titles.

McDojo is a worldwide phenomenon, not just down the street at the strip mall. We just do it bigger, better, and for more money. It's the American Way.


----------



## MJS (Jan 13, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thats not the only reason but... What are some reasons that justify skipping it?
> Sean


 
Well, please don't take my post as saying totally rearrange every single little thing.  I'm simply saying that each technique is designed in a certain way.  Of course, we should do our best to adhere to the tech. as 'written' so to speak, but we shouldn't, IMHO, be bound by it.  Things may happen too quick, not allowing us time to transition perfectly, as written, therefore, an adjustment may need to be made. 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 13, 2008)

Doc said:


> Actually sir, that's true only on a limited basis. One of the things promoted in the commercial system is the concept of tailoring to allow flexibility for short term results. This is a major departure from "Old World Concepts" that taught for the long haul, over quick skills that diminish quickly as well. The business requires this perspective as customers are looking for immediate results, sometimes to their own physical detriment. Back, hip, shoulder, rotator cuff, elbow, and knee problems abound.
> 
> While it is true we all have different physiological geometrical differences, the base structure of human anatomy is the same for everyone. The underlying skeleton, the placement of various viscous materials of muscle, ligament, tendons, all organs, etc are all the same. Human anatomy is an exact science, with primarily only dimensional variances. A Medical Doctor will tell you essentially all humans ARE all built the same. Simplistically, much like two buildings utilizing the same platform, although one has more floors than the other, and therefore is taller, or one being broader at its base therefore "fatter." While they have different geometrical proportions, they share an underlying architecture that is the same. What does that mean? Well it means in one building the elevator may reach higher up than the other, and in another you may take up more space on the ground, but they're still the same.
> 
> ...


 
Doc,

As always, you go above and beyond in your replies.  Thank you.   Points taken, however, rather than sidetrack this thread with the questions I would like to ask, I think I'll start another thread.  I look forward to your replies there.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> Doc,
> 
> As always, you go above and beyond in your replies.  Thank you.   Points taken, however, rather than sidetrack this thread with the questions I would like to ask, I think I'll start another thread.  I look forward to your replies there.
> 
> Mike


I look forward to it sir.


----------

