# Dead Space.....



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 5, 2003)

In techniques that utilize an elbow sandwich, why do many students insist on opening up their center and creating so much "dead space" before the smash?


----------



## Seig (Nov 5, 2003)

It seems to me, that even though they are violating point of origin, they seem inclined to believe that by opening up and then striking that they are increasing their force/velocity.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 5, 2003)

Since the sandwich contains 2 basics, the heelpalm and the elbow, if you do them correctly you won't be opening yourself up more than necessary.

I think students get carried away when executing it and go outside the rim. (Of course it isn't as bad when you're doing it from behind  )


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 5, 2003)

I think the dead space question could be asked for alot of things not just elbow sandwiches.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo12 _*
> I think the dead space question could be asked for alot of things not just elbow sandwiches. *



that was just a starting example.......
:asian:


----------



## Rainman (Nov 5, 2003)

I pick timing today!  How 'bout snapping twig...  I think the heel palm should hit the head and push the head over into the inward elbow to the maxilary hinge.  Rarely do I think about simultaneous contact, I don't rule it out either though.  


:asian:


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 5, 2003)

My instructor emphasized keeping motion "small"; in other words, going more than necessary is a waste of energy and time with motion.  I can't remember what that particular principle is called. Maybe ya'll can jog my memory there.  

He mentioned that most of the energy is concentrated in major joints (ie. hips, etc) and utilizing these joints will eliminate the erroneous idea of having to "go big for maximum power" that many lower ranked students seem to hold.

- Ceicei


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 5, 2003)

If you prefix outward motion with inward motion, and convert outward motion back in, you'll have a lesser chance of "dead space".

If you overextend yourself, you'll open yourself up.

I think....


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Nov 7, 2003)

What about in techniques that just use an elbow to the body?  Do you find that your students swing there elbows past their centerlines?  Also do you see your students coming "around the barn" as opposed to taking a more direct path?  

This is something that I was (probably still am) guilty of, but that I tried to remedy a while back.  Now I'm beginning to see this in alot of other students as well.  

Something that has helped me tremendously with the dead space issue is tightening my circles, you really only need two to three inches to hit hard (if you do it right).  Unfortunately, I have learned to tighten my circles on a number of techniques but not all of them.  On some techniques that old muscle memory kicks in and I find my arms extended well beyond my periphery.... bad... bad.... bad.  This not only increases flight time, which attributes to dead space, but doesn't result in any higher returns in regards to power.

Something else that I've begun to notice is that in order to facilitate these tighter moves I have started to make circles on the back end of my movements (i.e. if I'm hitting with my elbow I circle and drop at the wrist, shoulders, hips, knees, and ankles).


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *
> Something else that I've begun to notice is that in order to facilitate these tighter moves I have started to make circles on the back end of my movements (i.e. if I'm hitting with my elbow I circle and drop at the wrist, shoulders, hips, knees, and ankles). *



I think doing these tighter moves actually increases the power (if I'm understanding your point) by having the hips, knees, ankles help in pivoting, etc.  That should eliminate the tendency for larger movements with upper extremities.

- Ceicei


----------



## Rainman (Nov 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *I think doing these tighter moves actually increases the power (if I'm understanding your point) by having the hips, knees, ankles help in pivoting, etc.  That should eliminate the tendency for larger movements with upper extremities.
> 
> - Ceicei *



Larger to smaller spiraling elipses are accelerators, joint to joint are whips, whips are generally 3rd class levers-  whips can have larger movements.  Time and place for most things I think, fusing the body's joints during rotation generally gives you centrifugal force and can still be a whip.  

Depending on how the movement is tightened- power can be lost especially if the body parts are working against each other. Alignment is a tricky thing because it can be manipulated and is manipulated in the form of adjustment.    Sometimes adjustment is needed when a target is struck too hard or too soft and the movement of the opponent is greater or less than expected.  That would be your ASOM in application to AK self defence techniques.  Adjustments in acceleration depend on a lot of variables such the size and mass of opponents and skill.  Larger circles are only bad if used incorrectly at in oppertune moments using an incorrect plane- then you are apt to pay the price.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Depending on how the movement is tightened- power can be lost especially if the body parts are working against each other. Alignment is a tricky thing because it can be manipulated and is manipulated in the form of adjustment.
> 
> Adjustments in acceleration depend on a lot of variables such the size and mass of opponents and skill.  Larger circles are only bad if used incorrectly at in oppertune moments using an incorrect plane- then you are apt to pay the price. *



Very well put.  I appreciate your insight.  I suppose these can be perfected though awareness, practice, and experience.

- Ceicei


----------



## Rainman (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *Very well put.  I appreciate your insight.  I suppose these can be perfected though awareness, practice, and experience.
> 
> - Ceicei *



Interesting observation sir, how do you suppose awareness detracts from dead space?


----------



## Doc (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *
> ... power can be lost especially if the body parts are working against each other. Alignment is a tricky thing ...
> 
> ... Larger circles are only bad if used incorrectly ... *



Absolutely correct in my opinion.

The "big circle" being synonymous with "bad" is a knowledge level misunderstanding. In reality students should be taught "big circles" as a body training mechanism, focusing on the end of the appendage to season the connecting tissue. As skill and knowledge grow, the circles become smaller and smaller until in some applications, they are imperceptable in execution at the higher levels.

In commercial Kenpo the "shortcut" to reasonable self defense skills eliminates the "big circle concept" of training seen in "old world" Chinese teaching. But the "shortcut" lays no foundation for long term skills or efficient and proper body alignment development.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 16, 2003)

Just to map out a couple of areas of my agreement with Mr. Chapel, I think that some of the posters here are confusing a) how to learn and to teach, b) how to stay close and small on some techniques, c) how to maintain control/cover one's centerline, d) how to monitor rather than repeat the same thing helplessly.

I think that the point he raised was exactly correct: if you teach these small circles from the start, you'll end up with a student who has no power and no way to make the techniques work effectively at first--if, indeed, they EVER learn to make the technique work effectively. What is in some ways worse, you end up with a student who thinks that ONLY the "small circle," method is correct--and this, of course, is in its way just as bad as a student who thinks that only the big circle method is correct.

Take Snapping Twig. I was originally taught this technique with a left stepback into a neutral bow, and two inward blocks, one to the attacker's hand and wrist, one to the elbow. Then, there was the pivot to the right forward bow, with the left hand-sword and the right pulling back to the right ear; theen the right inward hammer, bringing that fist all the way to your left hip; then shuffle in as necessary, collapsing the arm into a right elbow.

Now what does this achieve? First off, effective control and damage of the attacker's push. Second, real power in the strikes. Third, the beginnings of a sense of where the patterns of the weapons are those of a closing spiral (see also Circling the Horizon). Fourth, reinforcement  of the proper way to start out with (and continue) a technique such as Thundering Hammers, in which the single commonest set of mistakes I see all revolve around the failure to bring the fists up high enough, so that the strikes are cut short and the defender relies on muscle rather than good stances, leg checks, and shuffles.

 I suspect that this prematurity is related to the reasons that you sometimes see bizarre changes in techniques and forms--somebody's been trimming too much out, loses half of what made the darn thing effective, and then has to start fidddling around with what would've worked if they'd just left it alone in the first place. I know this is related to the fascination with the cool, the, "more-advanced," and with the way that instructors sometimes forget that there's a helluva big difference between what they need to work on and what their students need to work on.

Those circles have their uses. Students neeed to learn to write big before they work on writing little, to use big broad strokes before they fiddle with finesse. And they need the idealized template that these big circles (like chambering punches and kicks in practice) provide.

And why not just leave it till, say, Second Brown? If you look at techniques such as Dance of Darkness, Circling the Storm or Glancing Lance, don't they teach shortening circles in ways that students can extend to other material for themselves?

Mr. Chapel's right.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Just to map out a couple of areas of my agreement with Mr. Chapel, I think that some of the posters here are confusing a) how to learn and to teach, b) how to stay close and small on some techniques, c) how to maintain control/cover one's centerline, d) how to monitor rather than repeat the same thing helplessly.
> Mr. Chapel's right. *



I am not confusing anything.  Staying close and staying small has to do with pinpoint accuracy and regulation of power- and I would say it is predetermined through cause and effect interacting with zone cancellation.  Can you paint it with a large brush and say techniques?  No.  Techniques without basics are crude and may or may not work how they are supposed to.

Your whole body is vital- wren and du are just 2 more areas to be exploited or covered.  Nothing more and nothing less.  The femoral artery, carrotid sinus, are not centerline targets yet they are just as damaging as anything in the centerline when struck with purpose.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm sorry, sir, but I don't think I understood your post. However, let me make my basic points clear: a) there is a difference between what we need to know at different levels of expertise in kenpo; b) it is as incorrect to say, "small circle always better," as it is to say," big circle always better;" c) there is an enormous amount of information tucked away in those big circles, and merely getting rid of them means that you never get that information; d) trimming those circles too early in one's training means a loss of power; e) it is far better to  let thee basics simmer for a while and then trim away at them slowly and carefully; f) one of the reasons that some instructors "jump the gun," has to do with issues in their understanding of the art, not what students need.

I'd ask: if those big circles are useless, why are they there in Ram and the Eagle? Why is there a difference in the radii of the circles in, say, Snakes of Wisdom and Marriage of the Rams?


----------



## Rainman (Nov 16, 2003)

I'd ask: if those big circles are useless, why are they there in Ram and the Eagle? Why is there a difference in the radii of the circles in, say, Snakes of Wisdom and Marriage of the Rams?


Different planes and different applications that is why they are different.  And point of reference of the plane changes the radii of the circle (if you really want to call a multi demensional elipse a circle) as well.  That is determined by target, which in a self defense technique is already predermined... if you follow some particular guidelines.  The radius and circumferance are just as predetermined as the combination and targets in the ideal phase of a self defense technique.  If the ideal phase is done ideally then what do you need "what if "for?  

What if is a kenpo tool for cultivation in a higher realm of consciousness-  THE ZONE


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm afraid that my point, however, was this: if you look at Ram and the Eagle, that, "unnecessary," big, flat circle becomes a way of attacking the front guy's arm and carrying the attack back into the fella grabbing from the rear. If you look at Snakes of Wisdom, you see a smallish circle (actually a flattened circle, as you mentioned) to the groin, while the companion technique uses relatively-big flat circles to attack the opponents' faces and arms. 

And my point is, of course, that this same employment of, "useless," circles can be seen through the system. Look at the leg buckles and double factors in short form 1, for example...


----------



## Rainman (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I'm afraid that my point, however, was this: if you look at Ram and the Eagle, that, "unnecessary," big, flat circle becomes a way of attacking the front guy's arm and carrying the attack back into the fella grabbing from the rear. If you look at Snakes of Wisdom, you see a smallish circle (actually a flattened circle, as you mentioned) to the groin, while the companion technique uses relatively-big flat circles to attack the opponents' faces and arms.
> 
> And my point is, of course, that this same employment of, "useless," circles can be seen through the system. Look at the leg buckles and double factors in short form 1, for example... *




I use 3 of 4 points of an infinity symbol on a #4.  No big flat circles for me on ram and eagle.

Snakes of wisdom.  Not a flattened circle at all.  An elipse on a #7.

Double factors in the forms.  It makes no sense to me to try to deflect an incoming weapon twice.  One movement may redirect one strikes.  One siezes, one controls.  Double factor= using both arms not drawing flat circles because someone told you to.

What is a leg buckle?  hip, knee, ankle, or snap the bone?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 16, 2003)

1. An infinity sign...a lemnulus (sp?) is two flattened circles.

2. Double factors does not mean only blocking twice.

3. Look at the, "step," up from the downward blocks in Short 1.

My point is, again, that sometimes small circles are good, sometimes big ones are. The trick is to learn the spectrum between "small, " and, "big," in a meaningful fashion, and to apply the choices correctly.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *1. An infinity sign...a lemnulus (sp?) is two flattened circles.
> *


 
Says who?  Not the infinite insights.



> 2. Double factors does not mean only blocking twice.



Right, it never means that unless you want to be hit.





> 3.
> 
> Look at the, "step," up from the downward blocks in Short 1.



You assume too much.  I use an open ended triangle to a side cat and slide into a horse stance and into meditation.



> My point is, again, that sometimes small circles are good, sometimes big ones are. The trick is to learn the spectrum between "small, " and, "big," in a meaningful fashion, and to apply the choices correctly



The thing about looking at circles big and small is it leaves too much room for interpretation- that leads to mistakes and ultimately can enhance your chances of losing or even being bested.   In my world they are predetermined by way of the universal pattern... it shows intersection points.  What is known about alignment enhances this further, then structural intergrity, and pinpoint accuracy.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 16, 2003)

If you think an infinity sign isn't two flattened circles, you're using some kind of weird non-Euclidean geometry.

Sorry too, but that double-factor really does include (among other things) breaks.

And that side-cat...hmm. I disagree.

Let me repeat: sometimes, small circles are appropriate, sometimes large. In you're at an advanced stage in your training, the mistake lies in insisting that only one or only the other is correct. If you're teaching, I think that the mistake is to project your own training onto the student's.

As for the Ideal phase--I agree with the late-lamented Clyde that at very advanced levels, matters resolve themselves into their original simplicity.

It's like that old Zen thang:
"When I started studying Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. After I studied Zen for a while, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers any more. Now that I understand, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers again."


----------



## Rainman (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *If you think an infinity sign isn't two flattened circles, you're using some kind of weird non-Euclidean geometry.
> 
> Sorry too, but that double-factor really does include (among other things) breaks.
> ...



Can't really have this conversation- you have not been taught how the universal pattern works.  You have not read your II's lately either... or at all.  Try page 176 volume 4.  Nothing flat there at all and nothing weird.  Just plain ol' info right out of a book for all to see.

Neither large or small circles are efficient, arcs and elipses connected by lines are.  

You don't have to repeat anything- 

The zen thing without the flowery chinese meataphors= 1000 times slow for one time fast.  

Clyde has only part of the information if that is what he truely thinks.  The art manifests itself the way it was practiced-  When angles/targets are not optimum you have not cancelled the opponent.  

I'll spell this out for you as well- cats are transitional unless you like posing in them.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Nov 17, 2003)

There is a problem with arguments that suggest that one such notion, in this case big circles vs. small circles, is better than another.  What should be noted is that there is such a thing as circles that are too big and circles that are too small.  Neither are good and both represent a serious lack of understanding on the part of the practitioner.  

It has been my experience that the majority of people who have a problem with this topic fall into the big circle category.  This also seems to be a prevailing method among the older generation of kenpoists.  However, I have also seen those who go too far the other way and become T-Rex kenpoists (you remember the T-rex with its short arms).   It is possible to hit and do serious damage with 2--6 inches of movement instead of 24 inches of movement however this requires an understanding far beyond the basic and should be addressed in a progressive nature in order to facilitate understanding and execution.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 17, 2003)

Rainman: been taught perfectly well, thanks. Didn't say jack about cats being transitional or not. Also didn't mention Clyde's teaching me anything about circles, ellipses, or tesseracts. Let me suggest that when you discuss things with others, you avoid the patronizing tone of, "can't discuss..you have not been taught." I mean, hell, I suspect you wouldn't care for it IF I were to say: "Can't discuss this with you...you haven't been taught decent sentence structures, and your syntax makes your meaning impossible to decipher." Have nothing further to say on the subject until someone else chooses to comment.


----------



## jeffkyle (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> As for the Ideal phase--I agree with the late-lamented Clyde that at very advanced levels, matters resolve themselves into their original simplicity.
> 
> ...



Very well put!


----------



## jeffkyle (Nov 17, 2003)

Everything should be in a straight line...straight forward and backward!  :shrug: 

Hey...it works for some people!


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 17, 2003)

I understand your discussion of "Circles", but another way of saying what I think you are arguing is *"Pieces of Circles"*, or "Arcs or ellipses". 



> Orig posted by Rainman
> 
> *In my world* they are predetermined by way of the universal pattern... it shows intersection points. What is known about alignment enhances this further, then structural integrity, and pinpoint accuracy.
> 
> Re: Efficiency - "arcs and ellipses connected by lines are (efficient)"



Even I missed your description of :



> Rainman posted
> *
> I use 3 of 4 points of an infinity symbol on a #4. No big flat circles for me on ram and eagle.
> 
> ...



Since I do not know what the #'s you reference are, and I do not have Infinite Insights here at work to try to interpret your description.  We are talking the same language, but not sharing the same dialect.  Help out here, and please don't insult my instructor also.  I do not mean this sarcastically at all, but in all seriousness.  Your teacher has chosen to interpret things in a way that most of the Kenpo community does not share ... I get around, I know!  But I like what he, does, especially with levers and fucrums.  Given that I respect and somewhat understand where you are coming from, it is you that has a little different interpretation of things, that does not make it the best or only.  Others do the same things, they just do not put it in the frame of reference you use.  So it is not always a safe assumption that they are necessarily disagreeing with you ... first they have to understand you.  What is simple for you, due to your having done it for so long and it's introduction to you they way you had it, may need more explanation if you want to have a good discussion and it not just go the way of the wind the way this one did.  

I think you are conveying good knowledge, but in a way that is not being clearly understood, or there would not be as much disagreement.  Put aside "how it is being communicated" for right now, I want to understand it, given I do understand Arcs, Ellipses, and Open-Ended Triangle (where the ends of the open-ended triangle could be connected by an arc (in either direction)) or a straight line, depending on circumstances required for self-defense at that instant.  

Now I do not get your definition of an Infinity Sign at all.  Robert defines it as I know it, say "a flattened figure 8 on it's side", just to have a visual representation.  Where are you going with this?

Thanks,
-Michael


----------



## Rainman (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *I understand your discussion of "Circles", but another way of saying what I think you are arguing is "Pieces of Circles", or "Arcs or ellipses".
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing is flat.  The universal pattern is only drawn flat.  This is not new information everything I said is referenced in book 4.    

There is no insult... notice I said truely- which is an idication that he gave his student as much as he could handle at that particular point in time.   It is up to the student to grow and not just sit on information... there is always more.

I don't have an argument for large or small circles I use elipses and some are tighter than others by way of where I reference the 9 planes.   

I would say with your knowlegde of  contact manipulation you have a pretty good idea of dimensions and ranges.   That being said I need you to have a point of reference and I provided one.    The importance is how the figure is drawn,  look and tell me what you see.

3 of 4 points- look at the universal patch on your arm, see the elipses?  They have a dividing line, 3 or 4 parts may have been easier since I don't have a mirror to draw on.

We have a different way of looking at things:  I dunno, to me it is normal.   If you read The Mad Kenpo Scientists post that is pretty much how I look at movement.   I pretty much have used the same theme throughout this thread, I just refined some of the terms.  Round off the corners and elongate the circle.  I don't use that sort of slang because it is too vague.   I prefer elipses, arcs and planes.   Add targets to that- exact targets as I have seen you write about and now we get to- oh, say precision.  Of course we are human and precision of movement is something that is strived for...  Not the best I can be but better than yesterday.  

Where am I going with this?  How far do you want to go?


----------



## Rainman (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Rainman: been taught perfectly well, thanks. Didn't say jack about cats being transitional or not. Also didn't mention Clyde's teaching me anything about circles, ellipses, or tesseracts. Let me suggest that when you discuss things with others, you avoid the patronizing tone of, "can't discuss..you have not been taught." I mean, hell, I suspect you wouldn't care for it IF I were to say: "Can't discuss this with you...you haven't been taught decent sentence structures, and your syntax makes your meaning impossible to decipher." Have nothing further to say on the subject until someone else chooses to comment. *


 
Another assumption on your part, never said anything about quality, I referenced quantity.    Don't believe you said anything I haven't heard too many times before anyhooot.  You have no information I have not come across years ago, in fact I write something and you repeat it later on- you will see this if you go back and read all the words in all the posts.   Well thanks for the advice on my sentence structure I'll take a look at it.:moon:


----------



## Brother John (Nov 17, 2003)

what's the point?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 17, 2003)

Yeah, I'm pretty baffled too, and I especially don't understand what the necessity is for the tone of the comments. Maybe it's just me, but they look like...well...bad manners.

I'm afraid, too, that I don't quite get what the need is to explain stuff like, "the universal symbol isn't flat." Of course not; it's a more-or-less two dimensional representation of a sphere, and I thought most folks got that. I know I do, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Billings does.

It looks to me, though, as though we have large areas of agreement and just some terminology differences. So could I ask about one thing--a translation of the following phrase:  

"Snakes of wisdom. Not a flattened circle at all. An elipse on a #7."

I apologize if the disagreement is partly my fault; I certainly hadn't meant to single out your post for any criticism. And I do want to get your point--so, an explanation, please? Just of the comment on Snakes of W., if you don't mind.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yeah, I'm pretty baffled too, and I especially don't understand what the necessity is for the tone of the comments. Maybe it's just me, but they look like...well...bad manners.
> 
> I'm afraid, too, that I don't quite get what the need is to explain stuff like, "the universal symbol isn't flat." Of course not; it's a more-or-less two dimensional representation of a sphere, and I thought most folks got that. I know I do, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Billings does.
> ...




Did you examine the infinity symbol?  Look at the thickness and dimension drawn into the sybol on the page I listed.  It is not drawn flat in this particular case.  It is not drawn with circles in this particular case.  We are not talking particulars but particulates.  As it relates to AK, refinement.  "Kenpo perpetually refines itself".  In order to be functionally self correcting and take anything and turn it into AK-meaning you have to see as many things as possible in the diagram.  That is why I gave the reference.  You should've seen path, line, ellipses, dimension and some others.  So much more than 2 flat circles joined together. Tell me what else you saw... what part of snakes- and what part did you not get?

bad manners is open to interpretation- ever get irritated with someone because they didn't do their homework but "knew" the answers anyway.   How to build on something without the foundation I need to build upon?   

On agreement- yep there never was disagreement-  me whys- you whats.  I was wondering when you were going to catch on, but you didn't so I had some fun!  BTW my stone face has cracks in it now.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 17, 2003)

OK, well, if pranks and poor manners interest you more than simply explaining your ideas, that's certainly your prerogative. However, I'm afraid I'm left with the impression that you cannot in fact explain what you mean: I feel sure that this isn't actually true, but it looks like double-talk from here.

I had hoped to learn something from you, honestly. Thanks, then, but I think it best for me to let it go.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *OK, well, if pranks and poor manners interest you more than simply explaining your ideas, that's certainly your prerogative. However, I'm afraid I'm left with the impression that you cannot in fact explain what you mean: I feel sure that this isn't actually true, but it looks like double-talk from here.
> 
> I had hoped to learn something from you, honestly. Thanks, then, but I think it best for me to let it go. *



You have learned... you thought ellipses were flat.  No pranks- pieces.  I gave you why's and you answered with what.   If you do not tell me exactly what you see when I ask you to look at something I can only give clues which won't do anything but amuse myself.  In my mind I have given away much material and many clues to expand on that material.  In your mind there is nothing learned or so you say.   So there is where I see the humor. 

I gave you a simple exercise and the best you can do is make accusations of double talk and use the old reverse psychology tactic of -I can't explain- and- I'm not talking to you anymore.  You couldn't even follow through with the exercise and attempt to learn from it.  I gave you more answers and you stand there with your hand out and complain.    When I was given ideas and exercises by folks I  went out and did them and reported my findings.  I didn't blow off the experiment and decide the conversation was about me and what I wanted.   The things I speak of are universal not system wide.   Lastly universal means that they are applicable to all movement as it relates to humans... not sure about animals because I am not so much concerned about being attacked by four legged creatures.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 18, 2003)

Oh, for crying out loud. I honestly can't think of how to respond to this sort of nonsense in any useful way--or even any polite way, given the extraordinary nature of this response to a simple inquiry. Fortunately, the tone of voice, interpretations, attitude, and intellectual content of this last post speak for themselves.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

I generaly feel that teaching the concept of filling in the dead space is done too soon. An eye whip, before any given tech is usefull; however, the base tech is complex enough without inundating the student with advanced material. Strong basic motion is much more important than methods to aid it. I've said my peice.
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Oh, for crying out loud. I honestly can't think of how to respond to this sort of nonsense in any useful way--or even any polite way, given the extraordinary nature of this response to a simple inquiry. *


No offense Robert
But this thread died Several posts ago
SO why DID you respond at all?

When the pigs wallow, don't wallow with them...
it only makes the pigs smile
and makes you muddy.

No offense Rainman... not callin you a pig, just that the last several posts have seemed pointless.

Callen'm like I sees'm
Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I generaly feel that teaching the concept of filling in the dead space is done too soon. An eye whip, before any given tech is usefull; however, the base tech is complex enough without inundating the student with advanced material. Strong basic motion is much more important than methods to aid it. I've said my peice.
> Sean *


and a good piece it was.
Agreed: filling the spaces in shouldn't be taught/done too soon. There's lots of opportunity to do so... and the main portion of the technique has plenty to teach w/out working in the gaps; but don't you think that teaching your students to identify and fill those gaps eventually leads to better understanding of sophisticated/refined motion???

I do.


Your Brother
John


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bro John _*
> Agreed: filling the spaces in shouldn't be taught/done too soon. Your Brother John *



Is this Motion Kenpo ideology?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *and a good piece it was.
> Agreed: filling the spaces in shouldn't be taught/done too soon. There's lots of opportunity to do so... and the main portion of the technique has plenty to teach w/out working in the gaps; but don't you think that teaching your students to identify and fill those gaps eventually leads to better understanding of sophisticated/refined motion???
> 
> ...


Oh yeah sure I do, but its adouble edged sword. I feel the hardstylists have a hard time comming out of the simplistic mentality they are originaly taught; where as many soft stylists are lost in the totality of what they are being taught. I've said this before and caught hell but I feel delayed sword should be taught as a block jab or jab jab (just like boxing or karate) and the kick should be added later as an insert or to stay on topic to fill in the dead space. Delayed sword to a beginner is so complex that I pitty the yellow belt that tries to use it in a fight. On the other hand it is the alpha and the omega of techs as far as I'm concerned, but its a big bite to chew.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Is this Motion Kenpo ideology?
> 
> *


Perhaps, as soon as someone explains that term, this mentality might fit. 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 18, 2003)

hard to disagree with much in the last few posts...including BroJo's "why, R., why?"...except with the crack about "motion kenpo ideology," which I assume was meant facetiously...if it wasn't, I'd tell you unequivocally that, "respect the level you're on," is fundamental to any teacher worth their uniodized salt.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *No offense Robert
> But this thread died Several posts ago
> SO why DID you respond at all?
> ...



Plenty of points.  Circles are not flat neither is the infinity sign. What do you think is more pointless opening a book and looking at the diagram or espousing your intellectual superiority?   I cited my sources, so you see, there was a gross contradiction there with the assumption being circles are flat but the universal pattern is not.  The Infinity sign is flat but the universal pattern is not.   When movement is flat it is monodimensional.   When this occurs people stop to change direction.   This is, in part, where dead space lives.  There are many contributing factors not to mention just natural progression through the art and the mechanical stage of learning.   

Instructors very, some people are mechanical to the end, some never were.  You have to look at muscle tension as well.  So, too long and too hard for too long  contribute to dead space because it forces you to stop especially when changing direction.   Not all directions mind you just some and they commonly related to structure, alignment and targeting which has to do with your "angles".   

More than one way to look at dead space- You really have to understand the student  and what plan you are using to teach that individual.   People who have dead space in their forms at 3rd black are just a paycheck to someone.  

Your picture was food to me.  I would think of food as a life source so slaughter the rabbit and mop up the gravy with the pancake.  Oh no, you mean you actually have to do something to eat instead of just buy it at the store?!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

I thought we had moved passed all this. I live in a service economy. I pay people that pay people to kill my food. Rabbits are a little gamey for me. 
Sean


----------



## Brother John (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Is this Motion Kenpo ideology?
> 
> *


I don't think so, it's just my ideology.
I think that things like filling dead-space, grafting and the use of formulation should be preceded first by really ingraining the base technique to a high degree of competency. To incorporate these things is GREAT, but it's not so hot to be done before you've really digested all that the base has to offer. Not that you stop 'digesting' the base movement once you begin these things either, but if you aren't Very grounded in the base then the student begins to "not see the forest for the trees". 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I thought we had moved passed all this. I live in a service economy. I pay people that pay people to kill my food. Rabbits are a little gamey for me.
> Sean *



Where you live?  People still have cows painted on the sides of their Peterbuilts parked on the lawn:rofl:


----------



## Brother John (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Oh yeah sure I do, but its adouble edged sword. I feel the hardstylists have a hard time comming out of the simplistic mentality they are originaly taught; where as many soft stylists are lost in the totality of what they are being taught. I've said this before and caught hell but I feel delayed sword should be taught as a block jab or jab jab (just like boxing or karate) and the kick should be added later as an insert or to stay on topic to fill in the dead space. Delayed sword to a beginner is so complex that I pitty the yellow belt that tries to use it in a fight. On the other hand it is the alpha and the omega of techs as far as I'm concerned, but its a big bite to chew.
> Sean *



Hey Sean
I see what you are saying by the 'double edged sword'. Infact I think we are saying the same thing, just with different words.
How very Kenpo of us.

Interesting to look at Delayed Sword as a 'jab' type tech. 
I never really thought it was that complicated.
Why do you see it as such?

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Plenty of points.  Circles are not flat neither is the infinity sign. What do you think is more pointless opening a book and looking at the diagram or espousing your intellectual superiority?   I cited my sources, so you see, there was a gross contradiction there with the assumption being circles are flat but the universal pattern is not.  The Infinity sign is flat but the universal pattern is not.   When movement is flat it is monodimensional.   When this occurs people stop to change direction.   This is, in part, where dead space lives.  There are many contributing factors not to mention just natural progression through the art and the mechanical stage of learning *


Hey Rainman: Glad you weren't too peeved about the pigs comment.

Listen, I personally think that you are using lots of words to say some simple concepts. I wasn't taking the time to really read ALL of your previous posts because of the twisty-tie nots you make with your words. I mean you know offense, and though perhaps my brother Robert was expressing some steam while he said it, he had a good point about your 'syntax'. 

Try to say your main points without so many words. It will lead to less confusion I'd think.

For instance:


> Instructors very, some people are mechanical to the end, some never were. You have to look at muscle tension as well. So, too long and too hard for too long contribute to dead space because it forces you to stop especially when changing direction. Not all directions mind you just some and they commonly related to structure, alignment and targeting which has to do with your "angles".


Do you see what I mean?
I don't mean to lecture...sorry. I do this myself sometimes.
Only passing on my own lessons.
Your Pedantic Brother
John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *Hey Sean
> I see what you are saying by the 'double edged sword'. Infact I think we are saying the same thing, just with different words.
> How very Kenpo of us.
> ...


First of all let me state that I disagree with you about the waiting to teach the equation formula because that is what you need to actualy pull off a real fight on the street from the get go, and the basics and tactics in any given tech are what you need to draw from even at a beginning level. 
Ok now for your question, Jab jab stay neutral is easier than block, settle, carfully pull back into a cat stance on the return motion of your first strike, kick, choose a target based on kicking results, chop , and cover out. One is usefull right away the other is usefull down the road. No big whoop.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Where you live?  People still have cows painted on the sides of their Peterbuilts parked on the lawn:rofl: *


At least we have lawns there Mr. Nevada. 
Sean


----------



## Rainman (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *Hey Rainman: Glad you weren't too peeved about the pigs comment.
> 
> Listen, I personally think that you are using lots of words to say some simple concepts. I wasn't taking the time to really read ALL of your previous posts because of the twisty-tie nots you make with your words. I mean you know offense, and though perhaps my brother Robert was expressing some steam while he said it, he had a good point about your 'syntax'.
> ...



Okay name a simple concept I used too many words on.   Then answer why you didn't look in book 4 and come up with something.   The visual aids are a large part of the ideas.  Without the beginning there is no need for the middle.   

He expressed steam for not doing a simple task.  Do you not see how weak that argument is?   To me that is akin to people who don't study for a test and get angry when they fail.

Sorry but I also call em as I see em


----------



## Kenpomachine (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Plenty of points.  Circles are not flat neither is the infinity sign. What do you think is more pointless opening a book and looking at the diagram or espousing your intellectual superiority?   I cited my sources, so you see, there was a gross contradiction there with the assumption being circles are flat but the universal pattern is not.  The Infinity sign is flat but the universal pattern is not.   When movement is flat it is monodimensional.   When this occurs people stop to change direction.   This is, in part, where dead space lives.  There are many contributing factors not to mention just natural progression through the art and the mechanical stage of learning.    *



I don't know about the geometry you learn, but circles ARE flat, if they'd had a volume, they'd be sferes. If you live in a 2D world, then an ellipse may be described as a flattened circle.  

When movement is flat, it is two dimensional, not unidimensional. A straight shot is unidimensional, an arced shot is bidimensional (it follows a plane and not a straight line, unless you're watching the movement from the *edge* of the plane).

It is difficult to understand everybody in this thread if you keep jumping from a 2D description to a 3D world and back and reverse. It's not the same having 2 axis of reference as 3 axis, as in the circle example.



> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Instructors very, some people are mechanical to the end, some never were.  You have to look at muscle tension as well.  So, too long and too hard for too long  contribute to dead space because it forces you to stop especially when changing direction.   Not all directions mind you just some and they commonly related to structure, alignment and targeting which has to do with your "angles".
> 
> More than one way to look at dead space- You really have to understand the student  and what plan you are using to teach that individual.   People who have dead space in their forms at 3rd black are just a paycheck to someone.  *



I think we can all agree in this part, uh?


----------



## Kenpomachine (Nov 19, 2003)

I've reread my answer and it came out a little bit direct and somewhat rude. That was not my intention.

And Rainman, forgive me if it came as a direct response to you, it wasn't (except the last paragraph). It was a general response.


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 19, 2003)

Just to add to Kenopomachine's post: (nice analogy by the way, line of motion, path of motion)

A line of motion that does not stay on the same plane is an Arc, i.e. a hooking punch.

A path of motion that does not stay in the same plane, becomes three dimensional, and follows the outside of the imaginary construct (universal pattern), e.g. the path of motion found in the first moves of Snaking Talon (at least the way I do it now), or any stike which follows an arcing path (think of your right arm starting from a thrusting inward block postion, then you anchor the elbow as the inward downward forearm blocks and uppercut, or strikes the radial nerve along the inside of the right arm in a "scooping" kind of motion.  

Hard to convey in words, but easily understood since the joints of the body allow for rotational and hinged movements.  More confused    

-Michael


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 19, 2003)

Yeah, I agree: a lot of this lies in a reluctance to unpick the terminology, so that, "dimensional zones," "dimensions," "planes," and a few other things remain all smooshed together. 

Another issue, of course, lies in the question of whose terminology we're willing to use: I'm using Mr. Parker's terms that I got through Larry Tatum, which seem pretty straightforward to me--as I assume other terminologies do to those employing them.

If we go back to page 1 of this thread, though, this started out as a question of dead space. I argued in terms of good teaching practices; others argued in terms of understanding kenpo, or perfected self-defense, or kenpo theory. It might also help for us to keep separating among those different approaches.

And last, there's always the question of how much language and theory one really needs. I absoutely agree that difficult matters need specialized language to make them easier to understand--question is, when are the theoretical languages necessary and when are they just goofy, if not deliberately mysterious? 

Same thing happens in literary studies all the time...


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 19, 2003)

... and you know it gets tough to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

You and I do share the same terminology due to our respective lineages.  The "dead space" I try to fill, is primarily the void located between my two ears.   

-Michael:asian:


----------



## Brother John (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Okay name a simple concept I used too many words on.   Then answer why you didn't look in book 4 and come up with something.   The visual aids are a large part of the ideas.  Without the beginning there is no need for the middle.
> He expressed steam for not doing a simple task.  Do you not see how weak that argument is?   To me that is akin to people who don't study for a test and get angry when they fail.
> Sorry but I also call em as I see em *



Rainman-
Please, don't get'm up in a bunch over this.
As I said, I didn't mean you any offense, and if it seems I was coming down hard on you for something, bear in mind... as I said, I do it too.

Who says I didn't look in book 4? I didn't say I don't understand what you are saying. I do.
I disagree with what it appears you think "dead-space" is... but that's another matter. I could be wrong.

I don't need to defend Robert. Personally I feel he's a good person who's passionate about his art...but tends to 'express steam' a little too often. Gets in the way of better communication. If I defended him each time he 'expressed steam' yet still had a good point.... I'd be busy. He's a passionate, intelligent, opinionated... passive-aggressive Kenpoist.
Kinda reminds me of me. 
Kinda...
:asian: 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *The "dead space" I try to fill, is primarily the void located between my two ears.  *



Spacle.

Your Bro.
John


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 19, 2003)

Quick-Set; sometime the ideas just seem to bounce off.  Other times they find a little niche all their own.

-Michael


----------



## Rainman (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *Rainman-
> Please, don't get'm up in a bunch over this.
> As I said, I didn't mean you any offense, and if it seems I was coming down hard on you for something, bear in mind... as I said, I do it too.
> ...



I am saying about 20 different things at once because these concepts, theories and principles, are all working simultaneously.   There is no one thing that will put an end to dead space and there are many causes and many patches to fix the holes.   

Dead space is a pause in action for no reason with both hands, the left hand, the right hand etc.  

Peeved?  At what?  Some ol' fart calling me names then getting himself all in a tizzy going back and re-editing his post for more nonsense.   I'm the smiling pig remember?   Pig means pretty intelligent guy doesn't it?  :shrug: 

You still haven't told me what you see.  Not one person has done the exercise... I have heard every excuse in the world- somehow *DUCK* I was gonna say everything but the kitchen sink but it just sailed over my head.    This is not a geometry lesson Kenpo is a psuedo science.  Not that it isn't real but humans are in a constant state of flux so we are constantly adjusting.  

A particular point I will make is the kind of ellipses, circles, and or infinity symbols used while perfoming kenpo have depth.   You don't have to change planes because planes are not flat either unless the technique you are using asks you to do so.   When you try to make these shapes flat and change direction you get a pause because a corner has been made.   That is why I say circles are not flat-  This is a Kenpo board so I would have thought  that everyone knew a hard  science such as geometry can only be used to an extent.  Humans have dimension so why even use one dimensional models when talking to other teachers?


----------



## sumdumguy (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Just to add to Kenopomachine's post: (nice analogy by the way, line of motion, path of motion)
> 
> A line of motion that does not stay on the same plane is an Arc, i.e. a hooking punch.
> ...



Howdie Mr. Billings:
I am curious about the application of snaking talon here? Is it not true that as you move in depth executing the inward and outward of the arm (path or line) doesn't matter at this point, that the "figure eight" used is no longer a flat 1 dimensional geometrical shape? 
For example: Snaking talon, as I execute the right inward downward handsword, that handsword (block as you described it) is in fact moving toward you and away from your opponent, continuing or elipsing to change planes and now follow an upward and outward plane back into the depth of the opponent there by again changing the dimension of the figure eight. Or is the figure eight still one dimensional but simply executed in part on one plane and another part on another plane?

no my syntax's are not good neither is my grammer, thus the reason I do not post very often and have an editor..... 
Mr. Billings, you know me well enough to know that this is an honest question and I really am just trying to clear something up for myself, well maybe.
Todd   :asian: :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 19, 2003)

YES!  I understood exactly what you said.  I think I was thinking of it as separate planes, even though there is no pause in the motion, rather a path as the orbit changes.  I can easily think of it as a figure 8, that is on a sheet of light plastic, like the folder covers students use.  The plane is then flexible and in more than 2 dimensions, even though the path was "drawn" on what "was" a flat surface previously.  

Are we talking the same thing here?  We are at least getting closer.

Thanks,
-Michael


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 19, 2003)

Elastic would be a better term for the geometry of the plane as it is "adjusted" to meet the attack.

-Michael


----------



## sumdumguy (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Elastic would be a better term for the geometry of the plane as it is "adjusted" to meet the attack.
> 
> -Michael *



Well I guess what I am getting at is that if you step back and look at it from a distance it looks one dimensional, but when you look at it from all views it takes on a new form, thus changing perception of what was and what is.


----------



## Rainman (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *YES!  I understood exactly what you said.
> Thanks,
> -Michael *



I don't think you did-



> The plane is then flexible and in more than 2 dimensions, even though the path was "drawn" on what "was" a flat surface previously.



Height, width and depth.  3 dimensions.  There never was a flat except in your earlier years or what was drawn on a piece of paper.  Kenpo is at least a 3d art all the time whether you know it or not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 20, 2003)

Well, I'm starting to understand the use of the name, "Rainman."

One of the issues here is that we gotta use words to talk to one another, and to explain, and to learn. It's pretty old information, really, but it might help if I mention it: our words are at best analogues of reality, models of what's real, and shouldn't be confused with reality itself. Even the Universal Pattern is such a model. 

But this doesn't mean that we should throw out these models, or that we should throw in more and more arcane language, more and more elaborate models just for the hell of it. That's theory run amuck--and I write this as somebody who's read his share of Derrida...

"Circles," "flattened circles," "ellipses, "infinity signs," "figure eights," "planes," are perfectly good models. I think it's quite correct to use them, and quite correct to note that of course one doesn't move in single dimensions. But see good old, "Flatland," by E.A. Abbott, for more...but avoid doubletalk, and language that serves to exclude rather than include students.

A useful analogy in thinking of Snaking Talon is Mr. Parker's old, "squeegee," comparasion. That's theoretical language that enables students to learn--to start finding one of the many, infinitely many, things in martial arts that can't be explained or modeled all that well.


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 20, 2003)

The way I look at Kenpo is always in 3-Dimensions.  What I thought the disagreement, or rather misunderstanding, was of the way we fill the space.  I clearly understand what Robert is saying. as I heard Mr. Parker use this analogy on more than one occassion.  

I "see" interlocking planes, and that is how I have always thought of movement.  Then there are patterns on those planes which may be "paths" of motion, or "lines" of motion.  Either way, there is height, width, and depth throughout the "path" of your motion, whether and enongated circle, or an arc following the "heart" shape, so that even movement on the plane involves all 3-Dimensions.  

I am not sure where this discussion is going at this point, and I am open to the dialogue, but Rainman, I am not getting your analogy, whereas I thought I understood Mr. Durgan's.  Granted he and I have spoken in person, and it is easier to understand when demonstrating in person.  

And ... by the way, I think I did get it.  The one dimension was an exercise in logic, not an application of movement.

-Michael


----------



## sumdumguy (Apr 17, 2004)

Mr. Billings, 
When you apply the figure eight in Snaking Talon, is it one, two, or three dimensional? What makes it ????? (your choice here).
 :asian:


----------

