# SL-4 Seminar



## MJS (Apr 23, 2007)

I came across a few SL4 seminar clips.  I was unsure of what was being worked on.  Can someone explain?

Clip 1

Clip 2

Clip 3


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 24, 2007)

Thanks for sharing...


----------



## Jdokan (Apr 24, 2007)

your guess is as good as mine......I can't figure it out...


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2007)

Jdokan said:


> your guess is as good as mine......I can't figure it out...


 
This is why I posted them.  I also posted over on the KN in hopes to get some discussion going.  50+ views, but no clear cut explaination.  Hey, what can I say...I'm trying to get a better understanding of this SL4 method...if nobody wants to comment, I can't control that. 

Mike


----------



## Bode (Apr 24, 2007)

The videos in question were posted specifically next to SL-4 videos on YouTube by Clyde OBriant purposely in an effort to discredit, or demonstrate that what was being discussed "didn't work." Everyone else at the seminar, like at the many other seminars we have done all over the world, had success with the simple exercises. They were not self-defense techniques but simple demonstrations of Proprioception Neuromuscular Facilitation and how it, or the lack thereof affects human structure. If you are really interested in experiments I suggest starting a new topic, ignoring this one, and asking Doc directly. (Don't worry, I don't blame you for asking, but the videos truly show nothing of value since they were not shot to be instructional). 

Clyde was so intent on trying to convince his partners that nothing was working, he never listened to what the actual exercise was, or how to perform it properly. Other students who attempted to help him with the experiment became frustrated because he wasn't listening and was more interested in discrediting the teacher than the actual experiment, so everyone eventually left him alone to brood.

His behavior was completely boorish, and juvenile, and he showed up to a seminar of a teacher whom he had already publicly stated "had nothing to teach him." Therefore his only purpose for being there in uniform was to cause trouble and convince others to his point of view. He even refused to take the group picture at the end of the day. Such behavior at a seminar with a 1st generation student of Ed Parker should not be tolerated by the Kenpo Community. If you don't like the person, it is very simple to not attend. I'm told he also did the same thing at a Paul Mills seminar to discredit him as well.

You would think that he could make better use of his time. As a 7th degree under Larry Tatum he consistently dishonors himself, his instructor, and his association. Any discussions should be about Clyde's intolerable behavior in our community. I'm sure if someone did this to Larry tatum, he wouldn't like it.


----------



## kenposikh (Apr 24, 2007)

As much as I do like Clyde and I really do, the videos seemed to show that he was not actually learning from what was being taught.

I have personal first hand Experience with Clyde and have gone through some of the resitance tests and he has actually stated that it worked for him and later on a blind test was carried out where no one was informed of what was beneficial or not and the students all came up with the same conclusion a definate improvent in strength and resistance.

Clyde was happy, I was happy that I didn't let my instructor or his instructor Doc down


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 24, 2007)

Bode said:


> The videos in question were posted specifically next to SL-4 videos on YouTube by Clyde OBriant purposely in an effort to discredit, or demonstrate that what was being discussed "didn't work." Everyone else at the seminar, like at the many other seminars we have done all over the world, had success with the simple exercises. They were not self-defense techniques but simple demonstrations of Proprioception Neuromuscular Facilitation and how it, or the lack thereof affects human structure. If you are really interested in experiments I suggest starting a new topic, ignoring this one, and asking Doc directly. (Don't worry, I don't blame you for asking, but the videos truly show nothing of value since they were not shot to be instructional).
> 
> Clyde was so intent on trying to convince his partners that nothing was working, he never listened to what the actual exercise was, or how to perform it properly. Other students who attempted to help him with the experiment became frustrated because he wasn't listening and was more interested in discrediting the teacher than the actual experiment, so everyone eventually left him alone to brood.
> 
> ...


 
As much as this is an old story of the battles between CLyde and SL-4 I am reminded of the Matrix both here and on KenpoNet.

Neo: "You haven't answered my question"

I understand that there are harsh feelings towards Clyde....but...Mike has asked on at least two forums I've read today for specifics of what was worked on.  Both times he's gotten an anti-Clyde rebuttal and a proclamation of "our stuff works" but very little that actually addressed his question. Can you be more specific about what you mentioned in the underlined part...as that's the only part that came close to answering Mike's question..unless it's not for group consumption as I can understand and respect that.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 24, 2007)

MJS said:


> I came across a few SL4 seminar clips. I was unsure of what was being worked on. Can someone explain?
> 
> Clip 1
> 
> ...


 
I've been to a SL4 seminar like this one.  I didn't recognize Clips 1 or 2, but we did do the same exercise as shown in clip 3.

Probably the MOST important thing you have to undersand about the SL4 stuff is that everything matters, down to some very precise details.

So when I look at clip 3 I see a couple of things going on:

Ideally, the student would step into a side horse stance, BAM their lower platform by slapping their far-side leg with the far hand, drop the chin and turn the head, and BAM the far shoulder on the way to the elbow strike.  That is the exercise as I remember it.

This video shows that the look, step and elbow all were done together (not in sequence), and he did not do the lower BAM, and his feet are not properly aligned (heels are not out far enough).  So, basically, he was sloppy in his execution of what was being demonstrated, and that was why it didn't work.  

After the initial contact from his partner, he adjusts his feet, any testing after that doesn't matter because the point of it is, "how you get there matters" and so after he moves his feet and turns his head a couple of times he is "somewhere else".

Anyone can make a technique fail, and it doesn;t take much acting skill to make it fail while looking like you are trying to make it work.  But to say that is what he is doing would require me to read his mind through video LOL.  All I can really know for sure is this 61 seconds of behavior: it shows sloppy execution leading to failed technique.  Also In video 2 with the crossed hands if you look closely he is not doing what he is shown.  It's close, he ends up in the same spot, but that's not the point... "how you get there matters".


When we did this test I was working with Dave Mondo from Des Moines.  Dave is quite a bit bigger than me - he's well over 6 ft and at least 250 lbs or more.  Dave "Mongo"!!!  he was leaning his weight against my elbow and couldn't move me.  I wonder if I have any video of that...


----------



## Bode (Apr 24, 2007)

> I understand that there are harsh feelings towards Clyde....but...Mike has asked on at least two forums I've read today for specifics of what was worked on.  Both times he's gotten an anti-Clyde rebuttal and a proclamation of "our stuff works" but very little that actually addressed his question. Can you be more specific about what you mentioned in the underlined part...as that's the only part that came close to answering Mike's question..unless it's not for group consumption as I can understand and respect that.



Silly me. I thought 





> They were not self-defense techniques but simple demonstrations of Proprioception Neuromuscular Facilitation and how it, or the lack thereof affects human structure. If you are really interested in experiments I suggest starting a new topic, ignoring this one, and asking Doc directly. (Don't worry, I don't blame you for asking, but the videos truly show nothing of value since they were not shot to be instructional).



said it all. That I would prefer this discussion be put into a different thread. The point is simple. If people read this thread they will see a video that has no training merit whatsoever. It was not shot with the intention to convey information. The videos will do nothing but sidetrack the discussion. People will try to mimick what Clyde is doing, meet no success, and say it doesn't work. At best we can tell people to ignore the videos, but not everyone will.  So, again, if we want to talk about PNF and the affects on human structure, let's do it in another thread. Call me sensitive... call me whatever. I and I dare say Doc, are very specific about how material is disseminated.

Maybe Doc will feal otherwise. He can post here if he wants.


----------



## kenposikh (Apr 24, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> As much as this is an old story of the battles between CLyde and SL-4 I am reminded of the Matrix both here and on KenpoNet.
> 
> Neo: "You haven't answered my question"
> 
> I understand that there are harsh feelings towards Clyde....but...Mike has asked on at least two forums I've read today for specifics of what was worked on. Both times he's gotten an anti-Clyde rebuttal and a proclamation of "our stuff works" but very little that actually addressed his question. Can you be more specific about what you mentioned in the underlined part...as that's the only part that came close to answering Mike's question..unless it's not for group consumption as I can understand and respect that.


 
Hi James, I hope that you didn't get the Anti Clyde feeling from my post. 

I can't actually comment on the clips as I wasn't there, but my observations are as follows I hope Bode or Doc will jump in here if I'm wrong on any aspect.

Clip 1

This is meant to be a test of stance and structure and as part of the test for strength the push is required to be applied and then increased in strength the way that Clyde was pushing just didn't follow the guidelines of the experiment so would not actually work. A bit like asking someone to do a right inward block against a punch repeating the process and then throwing a left punch and saying ha the right inward block did't work 

Clip 2

Can't really say much on this as I can't see the feet. However just did the test with my girlfriend and she commented on feeling greater strength in the thumbs and more reistance.

clip 3

Well this is one of the things I did with Clyde whilst he was over here in the uk, ssed I lay down the playing field for the experiment and ensured that everything was done consistantly and it worked for him the Bam on the outward elbow made the whole structure stronger.

Overall though you can't learn much from these videos hands on experience and discussion cannot be beaten.

Amrik


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 24, 2007)

kenposikh said:


> Hi James, I hope that you didn't get the Anti Clyde feeling from my post.


 
No, just Bode.  Someone shot me an e-mail along the lines of "why is the SL-4 @$$ Bode dodging the questions, is there something to hide?" and I responded to the e-mail that he wasn't (as I generally consider Bode above that) and then posted here.  But I appear to be mistaken to a degree, but it's no longer my issue.



> I can't actually comment on the clips as I wasn't there, but my observations are as follows I hope Bode or Doc will jump in here if I'm wrong on any aspect.
> 
> Clip 1
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for trying.  Personally I wasn't trying to learn anything from the vids.  I was just curious along with Mike as to what was going on at the seminar regardless of if it showed up in the clips or not.  But it seems that the mere mention of Clyde has made that impossible.  Personally, I don't see the problem with answering a question here as opposed to starting a whole 'nother thread JUST because the videos are Clyde's.  Either way the answer would be there and the question has already been asked.  Why should Mike have to ask again if someone is genuinely interested in helping Mike?  Sounds like a lot of unnessecary hurdles and jumping through hoops to get an answer.  Totally pointless and almost on the same petty level Clyde is accused of stooping to all the time.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 24, 2007)

Bode said:


> Silly me. I thought said it all.


 
Silly me, you are usually ALOT more detailed than that. I stand corrected, that's all there was to it.



> That I would prefer this discussion be put into a different thread.


 
Why should Mike have to start another thread just to ask you what you guys were teaching? Regardless of what Clyde was doing you still know what was going on at the different parts of the seminar shown. So why ask again?




> The point is simple. If people read this thread they will see a video that has no training merit whatsoever.


 
People are viewing the thread regardless. They are getting a whole different point however....



> It was not shot with the intention to convey information. The videos will do nothing but sidetrack the discussion.


 
How? All you say is "in the clip where Clyde was pushing the big guy we were working on X. This is how that is supposed to work and this is what we do to make it work. Clyde is not doing A, B and C and that's why it's not working for him, etc."



> People will try to mimick what Clyde is doing, meet no success, and say it doesn't work.


 
Not if they can read. You already stated he was doing it wrong. Why would they purposely mimick what an authority on the subject has already deemed incorrect if they really came here with the idea of learning something? And if they didn't come here to learn the point is moot.



> At best we can tell people to ignore the videos, but not everyone will.


 
And starting another thread will not solve this. This thread will still be here.



> So, again, if we want to talk about PNF and the affects on human structure, let's do it in another thread.


 
Unnecessary at best, petty at worst.



> Call me sensitive... call me whatever. I and I dare say Doc, are very specific about how material is disseminated.


 
I won't call you sensitive, but at the moment the impression being sent out to some is that Clyde is right and there is nothing to the SL-4 stuff as evidenced by the instructors not having anything to say about it. I know that's not the case, but the appearance is one of hiding, question dodging and dismissal...and Clyde doesn't even have to say anything. If his aim is to discredit then he has won thus far. But I can't help but notice these clips came up after I commented on his "kenpophobia" post on KN and alluded to some things he said about training with Doc as being evidence of his own "Kenpophobia". Suddenly these clips show up as evidence that he is not a "kenpophobe" and that he did go out see what others are doing (thus proving my inference incorrect). Maybe THAT is what this was about and not an attempt to discredit. Who knows? It's largely irrelevant anyway...



> Maybe Doc will feel otherwise. He can post here if he wants.


 
I doubt it, but this has been a disturbing thread to me as no one is learning anything. All they are doing is seeing Clyde "mess things up" and then reading an SL-4 Black Belt say "Sorry, I can't help you with an explanation as to what we were doing or how Clyde is messing it up....unless you ask me again somewhere else." Let me just shut up.  This was Mike's question anyway and I don't want to step on any toes.

Salute and take care Bode.


----------



## Bode (Apr 24, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> No, just Bode.  Someone shot me an e-mail along the lines of "why is the SL-4 @$$ Bode dodging the questions, is there something to hide?" and I responded to the e-mail that he wasn't (as I generally consider Bode above that) and then posted here.  But I appear to be mistaken to a degree, but it's no longer my issue.


I guess you can't please everybody. 




> Thanks for trying.  Personally I wasn't trying to learn anything from the vids.  I was just curious along with Mike as to what was going on at the seminar regardless of if it showed up in the clips or not.  But it seems that the mere mention of Clyde has made that impossible.  Personally, I don't see the problem with answering a question here as opposed to starting a whole 'nother thread JUST because the videos are Clyde's.  Either way the answer would be there and the question has already been asked.  Why should Mike have to ask again if someone is genuinely interested in helping Mike?  Sounds like a lot of unnessecary hurdles and jumping through hoops to get an answer.  Totally pointless and almost on the same petty level Clyde is accused of stooping to all the time.


I repeat. It's about the format of the videos. If they actually taught something useful I could care less if it was Clyde or a ten foot elephant. As it stands the videos are not a good starting point for a discussion. I know what happens to threads online. They get confused and twisted unless you setup the proper focus of the thread. This one, with three videos, each with different lessons, is ripe for disaster. Like I said, it's best discussed in another thread. Preferably one for each lesson. 
If you think I am intelligent then I would expect that you understand I am trying to shift focus for a good reason. If the people of Martial Talk see it otherwise then I can't force them. I'll answer the questions. My first goal was to try a course correction. I don't call the starting of a thread a "hurdle", rather I call it a few mouse clicks. Comparing it to the same petty level as Clyde is overly dramatic as well. It's about the information and the proper dissemination of the lessons and practices.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 24, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Ideally, the student would step into a side horse stance, BAM their lower platform by slapping their far-side leg with the far hand, drop the chin and turn the head, and BAM the far shoulder on the way to the elbow strike.  That is the exercise as I remember it.



Just to be clear...you hit yourself twice before hitting your opponent?


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2007)

Boy, some things never fail to amaze me. I can look around this forum, and find a number of threads, where there are quite a few pages, filled with solid info., by people who are willing to share and exchange information. Yet, when I look at the Kenpo section, I find threads that start out with the intention of having good discussion, but it always seems like people come into the thread with the intention of shutting it down. Rather than quote specific posts, I think I'll just sum it up by saying that James has pretty much hit the nail right on the head with all of his posts in this thread. For that, I'd like to say thanks to James. 

There are no ill intentions on my part, for starting this thread. I saw the video clips and posted them as James said, with specific questions. I've yet to get any answers. I'm interested in what the topic of the clips were. Discussing them in this thread, or another is moot. The only one that has been discussing Clyde and what his preceived intentions are, is Bode. Like I said in my opening post, I was not sure of what was being worked on, so I thought we could discuss that. Again, as I said above, people are more interested in avoiding the subkect, rather than answering it.

Interestingly enough, the thread "An attack that may never happen" ended in similar results...with a few questions asked, but no answers. I guess it depends on whether or not it suits someone. Isn't this the purpose of a "Discussion Forum" to discuss things? It seems like people post, but when direct questions are asked, someone disagrees, etc., people clam up and not post. Whats the big secret?? From my experience on forums, when someone makes a comment, claim, or whatever, its only natural to get questions asked of them. 

Speaking as a member, not a mod. here, if someone finds a post offensive, rude, etc., then by all means, hit the RTM button, which is that little red triangle in the upper right hand corner.

So...it seems like once again, a thread comes to a stand still, because people are more focused on avoiding the question, rather than providing an answer.

In case it was missed, my original question was, what was being worked on in the seminar?  

Mike


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 24, 2007)

MJS said:


> I came across a few SL4 seminar clips. I was unsure of what was being worked on. Can someone explain?
> 
> Clip 1
> 
> ...


 
Well to answer your question, IMO it looks as if the seminar is covering excercises in solidifying one's base.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2007)

I thought the question was generally answered by students and those who have attended seminars. There are no specifics available to be discussed on line beyond what has already been said. It is a "feel thing." I give experiments all the time that must be felt. It's the same thing, but cannot be easily described here and these experiments are for in person seminars. If the video allowed for conversation, It would not be a problem. However to take a snapshot out of physical seminar designed for exploration of the tactle experience and ask, what were you doing? only allows for a general answer, and not the specifics required by participation that apparently people are seeking. Questions on the other public videos in various places on the net, will be answered as best as possible, but these bear no relationship to the actual lesson, and even if they did, they would not be topics for discussion but for "feeling" at a seminar. I do give specific information online when it is possible, but sometimes I do say, "can't explain it online." If I could do that, I'd put out useful videos for sale. I can't because they wouldn't be, so I don't. I don't compromise the art fro any reason. Now go and do the experiment I suggested for "Repeated Devastation" and get back to me before you say the thread died. It didn't.

Sorry.


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 24, 2007)

Doc said:


> I thought the question was generally answered by students and those who have attended seminars. There are no specifics available to be discussed on line beyond what has already been said. It is a "feel thing." I give experiments all the time that must be felt. It's the same thing, but cannot be easily described here and these experiments are for in person seminars. If the video allowed for conversation, It would not be a problem. However to take a snapshot out of physical seminar designed for exploration of the tactle experience and ask, what were you doing? only allows for a general answer, and not the specifics required by participation that apparently people are seeking. Questions on the other public videos in various places on the net, will be answered as best as possible, but these bear no relationship to the actual lesson, and even if they did, they would not be topics for discussion but for "feeling" at a seminar.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.


 
And Doc, it looks like most are having fun and learning.


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> And Doc, it looks like most are having fun and learning.



We had a great time, and everyone had fun except for the aformentioned party and his secret video partner. Dinner was even better as we closed down the Chinese buffet. Great group of people and other old friends were in attendance like Rick Hughes, Willey Steele, Richard Post, Darrin Phillips, and Frank Trejo. No complaints except for Frank not having more room at the buffet.


----------



## JamesB (Apr 25, 2007)

MJS said:


> In case it was missed, my original question was, what was being worked on in the seminar?
> Mike


 
I don't know, I wasn't there. But based on my extremely limited exposure to SL-4 in similar looking seminars, here is what I believe was happening in the clips:

clip#1 - based on what I can hear Doc saying in the background, and based on my prior experience of SL-4 seminars, I would say the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how just a simple touch to a person's body at the appropriate place/time can misalign their stance (even if it looks the same afterwards), causing their body/structure to become weaker and therefore ultimately less effective. You can hear Doc basically saying "put yourself in your strongest stance. Get your training partner to test how strong you are. (you should be strong!) Then do the misaligning thing (note you cannot hear or see what this should be in the clip because there are bodies in the way). The stance should be noticable weaker.

HOWEVER Clyde and his training partner are not following the exercise as I understand it. You can see Clyde trying to unbalance his partner right from the start (he's a BIG guy, that should not be possible), whilst others in the background (smaller/lighter people) are having no problem. Clyde's partner appears to make no effort to obtain a strong stance. It seems as if Clyde has gone into the excercise with pre-conceived ideas as to what SL-4 is. It looks as if he is intending to unsettle the guy's stance from the outset. He tests his partner's stance (which is poor to begin with) and concludes that the excercise does not work.  But the excercise should be a comparison - 'with', and 'without' the misaligning 'thing' (whatever it is).

But that's just the feeling I get from it, I can't even tell from the clip what Clyde+training partner are really doing, let alone what the excercise should be as you can only hear Doc talk. The clip has absolutely no merit for discussion only to say 'what is Clyde doing?'. You cannot tell from the clip what the exercise should be (I have no idea) or even what it looks like/how it should be performed. But I can say for sure, Clyde is not doing it right because he was not listening to Doc's instructions. Look at the others in the clip for comparison.

clip#2 - I recognise this from a previous seminar also. I think it's a test to demonstrate how the strength of the body can be dramatically improved just by a simple 'aligning mechanism' - in this case touching the hands together before assuming the posture that is to be tested for strength. I would *guess* that the purpose of the excercise was to test the strength of the body with the 'mechanism', and without (it should be stronger with). It looks as if Clyde is having success with this one. But the clip does not show/tell how the mechanism should be done, or in what context it should be used, let alone how the test should be performed. Again, the clip has little merit for discussion.

clip#3 - I can't tell for sure what is being tested here. Maybe an outward-elbow? The purpose of the excercise is to apply pressure against the extended elbow and feel the strength of the person's body. Strong body = support for the strike = more effective weapon. You can tell from the clip that Clyde is being rocked back and forth in his stance. I would say his body is not aligned as well as it could be. The clip is so short it shows nothing else. I would *guess* that there should be a rear-shoulder BAM somewhere in there, but Clyde's body is obscuring our view. The excercise is *probably* designed to show how much stronger the body becomes when the rear-shoulder BAM is inserted into the execution of an outward-elbow. You'd first test without the BAM (= quite a strong strike). Then you'd test with the BAM (= super strong strike because the body is unmanipulatable). *But* you can't tell from the clip, it has no merit because firstly you cannot see what is happening, secondly you have no idea what the exercise should be! 

I'm only guessing here, I've attended a handful of SL-4 seminars and I still have no real idea what is going on from what I can see from the clips. A person to viewing them 'cold' has no insight into where to begin. So I agree with Bode. These are clips showing small fragments of selected seminar excercises, they are not an accurate picture of would have been going on because you don't know what 'correct' should be from the clips - even if Clyde was doing the exercises correctly (I believe he's not) they would have no merit because they are incomplete / do not provide context or complete information. But as they stand they are worthless, they convey no useful information. 

Any potential topic of discussion from these clips have been gone over here many times before, with significant input from Doc and other SL-4 guys. Just do a search for 'BAM', you'll see Doc providing many experiments for you to test the material yourselves. Does anyone ever bother applying these lessons though? I've rarely seen anyone respond to one of Doc's online exercises so they can continue the discussion, but then those same people complain that the SL-4 guys are not sharing their information. They are - read the threads, *do the tests*, *provide your feedback* and keep the discussions going. 

P.S. Clyde's awesome I always have fun in his seminars


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 25, 2007)

JamesB said:


> I don't know, I wasn't there. But based on my extremely limited exposure to SL-4 in similar looking seminars, here is what I believe was happening in the clips:
> 
> clip#1 - based on what I can hear Doc saying in the background, and based on my prior experience of SL-4 seminars, I would say the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how just a simple touch to a person's body at the appropriate place/time can misalign their stance (even if it looks the same afterwards), causing their body/structure to become weaker and therefore ultimately less effective. You can hear Doc basically saying "put yourself in your strongest stance. Get your training partner to test how strong you are. (you should be strong!) Then do the misaligning thing (note you cannot hear or see what this should be in the clip because there are bodies in the way). The stance should be noticable weaker.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks JamesB.  This gives an idea of what was really going on.  I think I saw the instructor execute a BAM on the outward elbow but Clyde did not in Clip 3...makes sense to me.  Thanks again for the explanations, it is appreciated and helpful.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 25, 2007)

arnisador said:


> Just to be clear...you hit yourself twice before hitting your opponent?


 

No, you are kindof jumping to conclusions there... there is no hitting and there is no opponent.  This is an exercise to demonstrate some things about how different parts of your body can work together... or not... it is not a self-defense technique.  It's an experiment.

a more accurate statment might be : "you hit yourself twice (and do a few other things too) before your partner tests your stability by applying horizontal load against your extended elbow in the 3-9 line."


----------



## arnisador (Apr 25, 2007)

OK, got it. I thought it was something for fighting.

I'm reminded of aikidoists testing their unbendable arm, which I understand is also more a matter of a knowledge of statics than a demonstration of ki power.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 25, 2007)

As a late-comer to the thread, I thought I'd see what I could add. But I think JamesB nailed it.

D.


----------



## jazkiljok (Apr 25, 2007)

JamesB said:


> I don't know, I wasn't there. But based on my extremely limited exposure to SL-4 in similar looking seminars, here is what I believe was happening in the clips:
> 
> clip#1 - based on what I can hear Doc saying in the background, and based on my prior experience of SL-4 seminars, I would say the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how just a simple touch to a person's body at the appropriate place/time can misalign their stance (even if it looks the same afterwards), causing their body/structure to become weaker and therefore ultimately less effective. You can hear Doc basically saying "put yourself in your strongest stance. Get your training partner to test how strong you are. (you should be strong!) Then do the misaligning thing (note you cannot hear or see what this should be in the clip because there are bodies in the way). The stance should be noticable weaker.
> 
> HOWEVER Clyde and his training partner are not following the exercise as I understand it. You can see Clyde trying to unbalance his partner right from the start (he's a BIG guy, that should not be possible), whilst others in the background (smaller/lighter people) are having no problem. Clyde's partner appears to make no effort to obtain a strong stance. It seems as if Clyde has gone into the excercise with pre-conceived ideas as to what SL-4 is. It looks as if he is intending to unsettle the guy's stance from the outset. He tests his partner's stance (which is poor to begin with) and concludes that the excercise does not work.  But the excercise should be a comparison - 'with', and 'without' the misaligning 'thing' (whatever it is).



Good points all.

All in all, looks simply like a lesson on biomechanics as it applies to body posture and technique. Oddly the gentlemen in question seems to yield an opposite result in the first clip (i.e. easy to push the big guy the first time when the guy is in a "strong" stance, yet finds it more difficult the second time around after doing something that i gather is suppose to make it easier.)

It's worth noting that a lesson on biomechanics brings with it a lot of variables that make the judging of the lesson's benefits subject to the participants willingness to earnestly participate and follow clearly the instructions given.  

Anyone who's had a batting, pitching or golfing lesson would know that.


----------



## Doc (Apr 25, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> Good points all.
> 
> All in all, looks simply like a lesson on biomechanics as it applies to body posture and technique. Oddly the gentlemen in question seems to yield an opposite result in the first clip (i.e. easy to push the big guy the first time when the guy is in a "strong" stance, yet finds it more difficult the second time around after doing something that i gather is suppose to make it easier.)
> 
> ...


Exactly. That is why the videos themselves cannot be the topic of the discussion. They would yield misleading conclusions about something not even displayed. No one else picked up on the "opposite effect" you mentioned. More to suggest at least the one participant was attempting to not make things work, rather than follow the specific experiment. Very sharp observations.


----------



## jazkiljok (Apr 25, 2007)

Doc said:


> Exactly. That is why the videos themselves cannot be the topic of the discussion. They would yield misleading conclusions about something not even displayed. No one else picked up on the "opposite effect" you mentioned. More to suggest at least the one participant was attempting to not make things work, rather than follow the specific experiment. Very sharp observations.



speaking of biomechanics-- i think you (and others) might find this sports related article interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2164894?nav=tap3

peace


----------



## Doc (Apr 25, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> speaking of biomechanics-- i think you (and others) might find this sports related article interesting.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/id/2164894?nav=tap3
> 
> peace



Loved it. I do that myself all the time. Thanks much.


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2007)

Thanks to those who gave some detailed replies. 

As for the clips...there seems to still be this misconception that I wanted to discuss the clips.  If we look back to my OP, I was looking to discuss the focus of the seminar.  I was not there, so I do not know Clydes intention.  Now was he really trying to discredit someone or was he unfamiliar with the topic?  Was he at any time corrected on anything he was doing wrong? Am I safe to assume that there is really no margin for error with any of these drills?


----------



## Bode (Apr 29, 2007)

MJS said:


> Thanks to those who gave some detailed replies.
> 
> As for the clips...there seems to still be this misconception that I wanted to discuss the clips.  If we look back to my OP, I was looking to discuss the focus of the seminar.  I was not there, so I do not know Clydes intention.  Now was he really trying to discredit someone or was he unfamiliar with the topic?  Was he at any time corrected on anything he was doing wrong? Am I safe to assume that there is really no margin for error with any of these drills?


I never took your questions as offensive or wrong in any way. I really didn't mind the question at all. I guess the problem was that I gave an answer that nobody wanted to hear. I know you wanted to discuss the seminar, but with the clips "looming" people were bound to look at them and want to discuss them. The thread would lose focus. I've seen it happen. Asking, in another thread, what some of the lessons are in a typical SL4 seminar would probably get a better response. (FYI... hindsight is 20/20... I probably wouldn't have reacted the same today as I did a week ago, but hey, it is what it is)

Clyde is Clyde. He made it clear he couldn't learn anything from Doc then came to the seminar. He started teaching his own things to the people he worked with, didn't pay attention, was clearly intent on not "emptying his cup", and didn't perform the exercises as specified. Yes, he was corrected. At some point I gave up. See, the drills are about being sensitive to the reactions in your body. We don't beat the crap out of each other to teach these small lessons. With Clyde I would have had to blast him and bruise him for any sort of reaction. We explicitly gave starting parameters for a drill, deviated from them, and asked the audience to say whether or not they fealt anything. It requires honesty and being in tune with your body. Was it possible that it didn't work for him? There are a few drills where some people don't experience the same feelings. Whether it be from an injury, deficiency in muscle tone in a certain area, or some medical problem. However, I have never seen anyone have none of the drills/exercises work. Clyde was the first to say they didn't... but that's what he said. What he fealt I can't speak for. 

Margin for error... Yes, there is little margin for error within the physical movements that set the alignment. However, the movements were very basic. Anyone with an orange belt could perform them properly. Heck, Chiropractors use some of the same exercises to demonstrate how the body acts in unison.


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2007)

Well, I've always been a believer in the saying, "Seeing and feeling is believing" and I'm always saying to my wife that I want to take a trip to Ca., so when we do decide to make that trip, I'd like to take at least one night and see SL4 with my own eyes.  Besides, I love Chinese, so Doc and I have at least that in common!:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## Bode (Apr 29, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, I've always been a believer in the saying, "Seeing and feeling is believing" and I'm always saying to my wife that I want to take a trip to Ca., so when we do decide to make that trip, I'd like to take at least one night and see SL4 with my own eyes.  Besides, I love Chinese, so Doc and I have at least that in common!:ultracool
> 
> Mike


Looking forward to meeting you. We invite everyone who has an interest and open mind to step through our doors. We've had a few guys just looking to start fights, but that doesn't usually last long.


----------



## Doc (Apr 30, 2007)

Bode said:


> but that doesn't usually last long.



What do you expect with most of the school being cops and feds?


----------



## Carol (Apr 30, 2007)

Doc said:


> What do you expect with most of the school being cops and feds?



:idunno:  I thought it was because you guys could kick everyone's butt


----------



## Doc (Apr 30, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> :idunno:  I thought it was because you guys could kick everyone's butt



Naw, it's all the guns present on any given night.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 30, 2007)

So that's the secret to sl-4's effectiveness. It's finally been exposed!


----------



## Doc (Apr 30, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> So that's the secret to sl-4's effectiveness. It's finally been exposed!



It's not the only reason, but it doesn't hurt.


----------



## Carol (May 1, 2007)

If/when I get my permit, remind me to ask you what kind of holster works well with a gi


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 1, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> So that's the secret to sl-4's effectiveness. It's finally been exposed!


 
:rofl:


----------



## Thesemindz (May 1, 2007)

Just as a brief note, I have tried some of the experiments described by Doc in the past, most notably the outward elbow position with and without a "bam," and found that they did seem to work. I've never been to an SL-4 seminar, and have only what I can find on the internet to judge it by, but there seems to at least be some validity to his position. Many of these same ideas and concepts were taught in the school I trained in, which was two steps removed from Mr. Parker's teachings, although admittedly to a much less specific degree. More of an idea of how structure can be improved upon, based on some limited understanding of biomechanics, rather than a complete curriculum on the subject.

I think there are several areas of common ground which we can all agree on. One being that, at least to some degree, we would all agree that weapon formulation and anatomical position has some bearing on combat effectiveness. Some of us might say more or less so, but I think we can all at least agree with Doc to that degree. Another would be that it does matter what your method of execution is, not just the final product of a strike. And again, I think we would all agree that changing something about your stance, even something small about your feet or your torso positioning, can have a huge effect on your ability to transfer power. Look at quarterbacks in pro football. How often do commentators point out that by raising their toes, not planting their heel, or cocking their elbow they've drastically reduced their effectiveness? Many intercepted passes can be blamed on poor body position at the point of the throw. 

My point is only to say that what Doc teaches, while perhaps not exactly or even nearly what the rest of us may teach, may be closer at least philosophically to the positions we hold and the material we teach than many of us realize.


-Rob


----------



## Doc (May 1, 2007)

Thesemindz said:


> Just as a brief note, I have tried some of the experiments described by Doc in the past, most notably the outward elbow position with and without a "bam," and found that they did seem to work. I've never been to an SL-4 seminar, and have only what I can find on the internet to judge it by, but there seems to at least be some validity to his position. Many of these same ideas and concepts were taught in the school I trained in, which was two steps removed from Mr. Parker's teachings, although admittedly to a much less specific degree. More of an idea of how structure can be improved upon, based on some limited understanding of biomechanics, rather than a complete curriculum on the subject.
> 
> I think there are several areas of common ground which we can all agree on. One being that, at least to some degree, we would all agree that weapon formulation and anatomical position has some bearing on combat effectiveness. Some of us might say more or less so, but I think we can all at least agree with Doc to that degree. Another would be that it does matter what your method of execution is, not just the final product of a strike. And again, I think we would all agree that changing something about your stance, even something small about your feet or your torso positioning, can have a huge effect on your ability to transfer power. Look at quarterbacks in pro football. How often do commentators point out that by raising their toes, not planting their heel, or cocking their elbow they've drastically reduced their effectiveness? Many intercepted passes can be blamed on poor body position at the point of the throw.
> 
> ...



We all want it to work don't we sir?


----------



## HKphooey (May 1, 2007)

Doc said:


> We all want it to work don't we sir?


 
True that, Doc!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 2, 2007)

Doc said:


> We all want it to work don't we sir?


 
Blasphemy. Everyone knows that "looking" good and "moving well" are of paramount importance to effectiveness.....wait a minute...


----------



## Doc (May 2, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Blasphemy. Everyone knows that "looking" good and "moving well" are of paramount importance to effectiveness.....wait a minute...



Looking good AND moving well is a tall order in some circles. And then on top of that you want it to work? Interesting concept.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 2, 2007)

Doc said:


> Looking good AND moving well is a tall order in some circles. And then on top of that you want it to work? Interesting concept.


 
Don't forget to make it sound good. You need to add alot of stomps and slaps in there. If you move fast enough, no one will notice and it'll sound like you hit the guy way more times than you actually did. Judicious use of clapping, stomping, and hitting yourself make the techniques sound way cooler.


BTW Doc, I think you know I'm not reffering to what you teach. I'm sure we've all seen Kenpoists who are in the "slap happy" stage. I know I went through it. Beating more hell out of myself than my opponent. Sounded cool as hell though.


-Rob


----------



## Doc (May 2, 2007)

Thesemindz said:


> Don't forget to make it sound good. You need to add alot of stomps and slaps in there. If you move fast enough, no one will notice and it'll sound like you hit the guy way more times than you actually did. Judicious use of clapping, stomping, and hitting yourself make the techniques sound way cooler.
> 
> 
> BTW Doc, I think you know I'm not reffering to what you teach. I'm sure we've all seen Kenpoists who are in the "slap happy" stage. I know I went through it. Beating more hell out of myself than my opponent. Sounded cool as hell though.
> ...


"If you can't dazzle them with the science, blind them with bull**it." - Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 2, 2007)

Doc said:


> Looking good AND moving well is a tall order in some circles. And then on top of that you want it to work? Interesting concept.


 
:rofl:


----------



## Bode (May 2, 2007)

Thesemindz said:


> Don't forget to make it sound good. You need to add alot of stomps and slaps in there. If you move fast enough, no one will notice and it'll sound like you hit the guy way more times than you actually did. Judicious use of clapping, stomping, and hitting yourself make the techniques sound way cooler.
> -Rob



Sadly enough, before I trained with Doc, I used to really wonder why there was all this slapping. I can't even begin to describe the importance of the "slaps" BAMS and PAMS. I used to think it was just structural integrity, but it's wayyyyy more than such a simple concept. Last night's class really made me realize the effectiveness and necessity of BAMS. 

Not only do they create structure, but they are used as a training tool to teach a physical movement properly. Without them your "parrys" and blocks have less efficacy. They can be used offensively, defensively, and combined. Wow... anyway, just being enthusiastic.


----------



## DavidCC (May 2, 2007)

Thesemindz said:


> Don't forget to make it sound good. You need to add alot of stomps and slaps in there. If you move fast enough, no one will notice and it'll sound like you hit the guy way more times than you actually did. Judicious use of clapping, stomping, and hitting yourself make the techniques sound way cooler.
> 
> 
> BTW Doc, I think you know I'm not reffering to what you teach. I'm sure we've all seen Kenpoists who are in the "slap happy" stage. I know I went through it. Beating more hell out of myself than my opponent. Sounded cool as hell though.
> ...


 
Being in a room full of Doc's brown and black belts doing their thing is hard to describe.  The sound of their Kenpo has an interesting sortof rhythm it makes me think of Miles Davis but it is more than sonic, you can feel those guys from across the room.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 2, 2007)

Bode said:


> Sadly enough, before I trained with Doc, I used to really wonder why there was all this slapping. I can't even begin to describe the importance of the "slaps" BAMS and PAMS. I used to think it was just structural integrity, but it's wayyyyy more than such a simple concept. Last night's class really made me realize the effectiveness and necessity of BAMS.
> 
> Not only do they create structure, but they are used as a training tool to teach a physical movement properly. Without them your "parrys" and blocks have less efficacy. They can be used offensively, defensively, and combined. Wow... anyway, just being enthusiastic.


 
All the slapping makes me want to hook all the lights in the kenpo schools up to "the clapper".  But then it'd just look like a bad disco causing people to have seizures.  Wait a minute....some of it already does...


----------



## Doc (May 2, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> All the slapping makes me want to hook all the lights in the kenpo schools up to "the clapper".  But then it'd just look like a bad disco causing people to have seizures.  Wait a minute....some of it already does...



You're sick, and definitely needs some help bro. GET BACK ON YOUR MEDS!


----------



## Doc (May 2, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Being in a room full of Doc's brown and black belts doing their thing is hard to describe.  The sound of their Kenpo has an interesting sort of rhythm it makes me think of Miles Davis but it is more than sonic, you can "feel" those guys from across the room.



Parker Sr. was the same way. That's the way it was in the old days at Ark Wong's, or working with Haumea Lefiti, and later Tiny's Lima Lama that trace part of their roots back to Splashing Hands and Mok Gar. Duplicating the sound is fairly easy, but the "feeling" of power you get from the other side of the room takes training with knowledge and developed skill. Waitin' on you Dave. You already got the "green light" from the "Grandmaster."


----------



## DavidCC (May 2, 2007)

That would be the GrandMistress for sure 

And I have to spend some time working the material so that I can at least look better than when I left. :whip1:     I mean, I can't have you wasting your time telling me to fix my damn heels all night (again) LOL

Watching the videos I made out there I can see so much that you were doing that I was completely unaware of at the time... In addition to "everything matters" and "it depends" you might add  "it's never just one thing".    And also "What the heck do I know about pumpkin pie?!?!" ROFL


----------



## Doc (May 2, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> That would be the GrandMistress for sure
> 
> And I have to spend some time working the material so that I can at least look better than when I left. :whip1:     I mean, I can't have you wasting your time telling me to fix my damn heels all night (again) LOL
> 
> Watching the videos I made out there I can see so much that you were doing that I was completely unaware of at the time...


Helps you understand why I'm so hesistant to do videos. Without the education, you don't know what's happening in front of your own eyes.


> In addition to "everything matters" and "it depends" you might add  "it's never just one thing".    And also "What the heck do I know about pumpkin pie?!?!" ROFL


Truly all of these things become clear when your knowledge increases. 
Yeah, what the hell DO I know about pumpkin pie.


----------



## Sigung86 (May 2, 2007)

Doc said:


> Helps you understand why I'm so hesistant to do videos. Without the education, you don't know what's happening in front of your own eyes.
> 
> Truly all of these things become clear when your knowledge increases.
> Yeah, what the hell DO I know about pumpkin pie.


 
Proably more than you are willing to admit unless it's spiced with Seven Spice or Cinnamon.  
:lol:

How's it goin' out on that West Coast Doc???


----------



## Carol (May 2, 2007)

Sigung86 said:


> Proably more than you are willing to admit unless it's spiced with Seven Spice or Cinnamon.
> :lol:
> 
> How's it goin' out on that West Coast Doc???



*rubbing my eyes*  

Whaaaa?

Could that be Uncle Dan?


----------



## Doc (May 3, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> *rubbing my eyes*
> 
> Whaaaa?
> 
> Could that be Uncle Dan?



Immigration rally's, orders to disperse, accusations of police brutality. Just another day in good old Southern California.


----------



## IWishToLearn (May 3, 2007)

Thesemindz said:


> Don't forget to make it sound good. You need to add alot of stomps and slaps in there. If you move fast enough, no one will notice and it'll sound like you hit the guy way more times than you actually did. Judicious use of clapping, stomping, and hitting yourself make the techniques sound way cooler.
> 
> 
> BTW Doc, I think you know I'm not reffering to what you teach. I'm sure we've all seen Kenpoists who are in the "slap happy" stage. I know I went through it. Beating more hell out of myself than my opponent. Sounded cool as hell though.
> ...



Course it's always fun with the one guy in class who thinks wearing a belt down to his shins is "cool" and slaps the crap outta himself with the belt every time he kicks too. *sigh* Memories. The only thing I miss bout TKD was watching people do stupid stuff like that.


----------



## Ray (May 3, 2007)

IWishToLearn said:


> Course it's always fun with the one guy in class who thinks wearing a belt down to his shins is "cool" and slaps the crap outta himself with the belt every time he kicks too. *sigh* Memories. The only thing I miss bout TKD was watching people do stupid stuff like that.


That reminds me...three years ago, I took my youngest son (who was 15 at the time) to the man you promoted me to black belt (the same year my son was born).  During class, my old teacher commented to my son "when I gave your dad that black belt, it hung to his knees."  

I guess I gained a bunch of weight...


----------

