# What is point of origin



## kenposikh (Oct 1, 2003)

Hello to all,

before anyone says what is this guy on, let me explain.

I have heard this phrase used many times and on several occassion I have disagreed with the instructor but only after the class was finished never in front of the class out of respect.

I was wondering if anyone else had heard differing explanations.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 1, 2003)

It is a spot just above and behind your left shoulder ........ no, I'm just kidding .... .


Point of origin is where your weapon is located, at least as I understand it. So .. in Delayed Sword, you do a right inward block, the kick ... and then the chop..... the chop 'Point of Origin' is where the block ended .... don't reload your right hand/arm to complete the chop.

Backing up one step in this technique, assuming you are in a 'Rest Stance', the 'Point of Origin' for the block, is where your right hand is hanging at your side. The right hand should move directly from the 'Point of Origin' toward the 'block position' (in front of your left shoulder).  Don't loop your block in a big arching circle before you reach the 'block' position. You will be creating mucho 'false travel'.

Hope that helps. - Mike


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 1, 2003)

Thanks that is exactly my understanding, however I have heard the term circular point of origin but in my understanding this is just plain stupid. The point is from where the weapon is the direction of travel (TRajectory) can be linear or circular.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenposikh _
> *Hello to all,
> 
> before anyone says what is this guy on, let me explain.
> ...



POO is nothing more than moving your natural weapons from the position they're in to the next position.    Mr. Parker vividly demonstrated Triggered Salute as an example.    The hand travels from the side in an at rest position to the chin.   The push is the trigger mechanism for the heel palm and it can just as easily take the hand to your opponents groin or midsection from the at rest position.   POO is also the catalyst for Economy of Motion and Collapsible Deflections.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 1, 2003)

> Thanks that is exactly my understanding, however I have heard the term circular point of origin but in my understanding this is just plain stupid.



Ya, agreed. A point has only 1 dimension, and circles and lines have 2, so a circular POO doen't make much sense to me either.

Perhaps, and this is just a stab here, they are referring to what type of motion preceded and followed the POO. So in Delayed Sword, you had a linear block, followed by the arcing chop.

Eh, who knows?


----------



## Doc (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Ya, agreed. A point has only 1 dimension, and circles and lines have 2, so a circular POO doen't make much sense to me either.
> *



Both linear and circular movement have a "point" from which they start, to a "point" of conclusion of "change" in human movement. therefor you cannot have linear point of origin without recognizing the circular also exists. If there is no such think as "Circular Pont Of Origin," then where does a "circular" action begin?

If you have a "J" on the basketball court, does not the ball's "Point Of Origin" begin at the shooters hand, and take a circuitious route to the basket to termination?

In motion based kenpo, movements are categorized and interpreted differently. "economy of movement" is a term created by Mr. Parker specifically for that interpretation of his Kenpo which emphasized expediate movement. This concept often contradicts proper and most efficient human anatomical action, which with proper study will be just as fast and much more efficient and effective.

Video of Mr. Parker will, in his own actions, reveal he often violated his own "Economy of Movement" and "Point Of Origin" concepts for reasons not contained in motion based kenpo movements, like most Traditional Chinese Arts. Its reasons are easily demonstrable, and are no less expeditious in execution by the experienced, but do require leaving the "conceptual" for the actual principles under close instructor scruitiny and correction, as I was taught by him.


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 1, 2003)

Good point Doc.  There is a POO for every action.  It is related to Economy of Motion, but not necessarily the same thing, contingent on the path of motion it is following, or the reason you are "violation" the Econ of Mot principle.  I tie both these into Outer Rim theory also.  

Remember these are Principles that came from Concepts.  These Concepts were tested as Theories, but do not apply in all situations, e.g. Thundering Hammers.

-MB


----------



## Doc (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Good point Doc.  There is a POO for every action.  It is related to Economy of Motion, but not necessarily the same thing, contingent on the path of motion it is following, or the reason you are "violation" the Econ of Mot principle.  I tie both these into Outer Rim theory also.
> 
> Remember these are Principles that came from Concepts.  These Concepts were tested as Theories, but do not apply in all situations, e.g. Thundering Hammers.
> ...


Good point sir. I think we differ in that I do not use the word "principle'' so loosely. As I'm sure you already know, "principles" tend to be more absolute. Principles drawn from subjective conceptual material are rarely absolute or transferable.

I also have a sense you use the word not because you necessarily believe it, but more because we become accustomed in certain circles of expressing ourselves in a manner that the group understands.

In the pseudo-scientific atmoshpere of motion based kenpo, so called "principles" only have meaning within the conceptual vehicle itself. Not only is that true but rarely do they transfer to actual scientific application principles of human anatomy.


----------



## kenposikh (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Both linear and circular movement have a "point" from which they start, to a "point" of conclusion of "change" in human movement. therefor you cannot have linear point of origin without recognizing the circular also exists. If there is no such think as "Circular Pont Of Origin," then where does a "circular" action begin?
> *



Hi Doc my understanding is this

Point of origin is where the weapon moves from the way it travels from there is not important when explaining point of origin it is simply where the weapon starts.

To me it seems such a simple piece of terminology which is getting confused.

For instance take in the UK & EEC VAT laws, the point of origin of a shipment is the place from where it starts, it does not matter where and how it is getting to its final destination.

"EX (point of origin) - From the point where a shipment begins movement, e.g., 'Ex Factory, 'Ex Mine' or 'Ex Warehouse.'"

Take the following definition also

"Excess Mileage: 
The term "excess mileage" as used herein shall be defined as the mileage from point of origin through point or points of diversion or reconsignment to final destination, minus the normal mileage from point of origin directly to destination."


----------



## Brother John (Oct 1, 2003)

I think just saying "point of origin" is a bit misleading.
I think that the phrase "Moving directly from the point of origin." serves the purpose better.
A circular point of origin (don't know if I've ever heard of that, where'd you read/hear it?) sounds like it'd be "NOT moving directly from the point of origin, but indirectly." 
Incidentally, I don't think that moving directly from the point of origin is so important that it shouldn't ever be broken, but be sure that the reason you 'break' this rule gives you something better in return.
Don't mean to sound cryptic.

Your Brother
John


----------



## kenpo2dabone (Oct 1, 2003)

I definitely understand that a type of POO would be where a strike originates from in relation to its path to the target. Which I think sums up what most of the other posts are saying in a very general way. Another way the term Point Of Origin has been used is to describe a type of check. A "Point Of Origin Check" describes stopping, a punch for instance, by striking the the shoulder that that punch is attached to. In other words, striking the "center of articulation" of that appendage. So, that being said, you could conclude that the "point of origin" of a punch is the shoulder based on the definition of a "point of origin check". 

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 1, 2003)

> Both linear and circular movement have a "point" from which they start, to a "point" of conclusion of "change" in human movement. therefor you cannot have linear point of origin without recognizing the circular also exists. If there is no such think as "Circular Pont Of Origin," then where does a "circular" action begin



Why does there have to be a differentiation?

I was referring to the Point at which your weapon starts from. From the other post, it was being described as circular or linear at that instant in time. I did not read it as linear or circular except to describe the motion that followed.

Again, why the distinction? POO covers them all. IT seems some schools throw in more jargon than is necessary.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo2dabone _
> *I definitely understand that a type of POO would be where a strike originates from in relation to its path to the target. Which I think sums up what most of the other posts are saying in a very general way. Another way the term Point Of Origin has been used is to describe a type of check. A "Point Of Origin Check" describes stopping, a punch for instance, by striking the the shoulder that that punch is attached to. In other words, striking the "center of articulation" of that appendage. So, that being said, you could conclude that the "point of origin" of a punch is the shoulder based on the definition of a "point of origin check".
> 
> Salute,
> Mike Miller UKF *



That's a good point - If we are all using different definitions of the term, we'll never communicate.


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 1, 2003)

I have heard Raymond McCallum (who taught semi-regularly at my old school), use the expression "Technique to Target".  This is usually in a sparring situation, but applies elsewhere.  I heard Joe Lewis at a seminar use the same phrase, as we tried to learn side kicks without the "chambering" action.

-MB


----------



## Doc (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *That's a good point - If we are all using different definitions of the term, we'll never communicate. *


Funny, that's what I always say.


----------



## Doc (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Why does there have to be a differentiation?
> 
> *


Because HOW you execute a movement ultimately in the long run is more important than the movement itself. Ask all the guys who have shoulder and hip surgery. Only martial artists do "style conceptually interpreted" movements over and over and tear their body's up because they are perhaps expeditiously or "athestically proper" but not anatomically correct.

Pro basketball players shoot hundreds of thousands of jump shots over their lifetime, without a need for shoulder surgery, because they only do it ONE WAY. The anatomically correct most efffcient way.

So the differences and differentiation in teaching execution is monumental in efficiency and effectiveness, and is easy to prove. Only a superficial understanding suggests no need for a "difference."

Ed Parker told me a story while teaching after a similar question from me:
A guy ran a stop sign and almost hit another vehicle. They both stopped, and got in an argument. "Why didn't you stop?" the guy said. The other guy said, "I slowed down." The first guys said, "The sign says STOP not SLOW." The other guy replied, "Stop or slow, what's really the difference?"
The first guy jumped the second and threw him to the ground, and leaped onto his chest, and begin punching him in the face as hard as he could. After five or six punches he stopped and looked at the bloodied man and asked him a question. He said, "Now, do you want me to slow down, or stop."

Trust me, there is a HUGE difference in the real world, except in some interpretations of American Kenpo. The shortest route may be a straight line, but not always the best or most effective or efficient.


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 1, 2003)

:rofl: ROFLOL

Good analogy.

-MB


----------



## Dominic Jones (Oct 1, 2003)

You should move from point of origin.  I take point of origin to be the start point of your action. 

I think linear or circular point of origin is talking about the movement after leaving the single point of origin.

After leaving the point of origin your weapon moves to the target.  The weapon can follow a linear or circular travel path (I know it can be argued that all motion is circular).  As kenpoists we always try to use ecomonoy of motion.  That is 
we chose the line/circle of travel that is the quickest (most efficient) to get the job done (most effective).

To continue the basketball analogy (As a Cornishman, who doesn`t play basketball, this could be fun)...  Say you are in New York (the point of origin) and you are going to play Sans Fransisco (the target).  The quickest way is to fly directly to Sans Francisco and play the game.  But if the rest of your team is in Houston, the most effective way is to fly to houston first pick up your team and then fly to Sans Fransico to play the game.  However if your team is alltogether in New York then to fly directly to San Franscisco is both the quickest and most effective.

It all comes down to efficiency which is, as I believe, Economony of Motion.  That is the best balance between speed and effectivness.


Or as Doc summed up 



> Originally posted by Doc
> 
> The shortest route may be a straight line, but not always the best or most effective or efficient.




Cheers Dom:asian:


----------



## Dominic Jones (Oct 1, 2003)

The same language/terminology.

Lots of arguments boil down to misconceptions as to what terminology means.  Its very common for the same word to have totally different meanings.  For example a patient might say to a medical doctor "I have a chronic pain"- with chronic meaning it just started to really, really hurt now.  The doctor listening now thinks that the patient has had that pain long term and it may or may not really hurt.

Now for a more down to earth analogy...

silt, sand, gravel refers to the grain size of soil.  When a geologist says they want a well graded soil they mean they want an equal percentage of ALL grain sizes.  But when a civil-engineer says they want a well graded soil- they want the soil to consist of just ONE grain size.  The potential for complete confusion on site and lots of UNcivil engineers running around.  As a geologist, a site Im used to seeing.

Finally for an American story, whilst in Wyoming I met a nice girl, unfortunately miscommunication took place as I called her a homely maid   The next second Im covering up and backing off as shes attacking me, for calling her an ugly prostitute.  I quickly explained that a homely maid is a compliment that means a cool, beautiful girl in Cornwall.


Anyway I reckon, in order to communicate effectively you need to be talking the same discourse (language).  In kenpo, although we do share a common language to an extent, the best way to communicate is to meet in person and show and feel the technique/concept etc. that youre trying to communicate about.  Talking about it, though stimulating, is not always good enough.

Cheers Dom
:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenposikh _*
> The point of origin, is from where the weapon "is" (starting point) but, I have also heard the term "circular point of origin", in my understanding this is the direction of travel (TRajectory) which can be linear or circular.
> *



Exactly stated, Point of Origin (POO) is a simple reference to WHERE "something" STARTS ....... if you are talking about 'your' action or any actions of your opponents...... that's it!  the <<<<POINT>>>> of Origin.... it pretty much says is all.

Any movements after the designated "starting point" (POO), should be referred to as the LINE of action or the PATH of action..... 

We should strive to make this easier not more difficult.

:asian:


----------



## Doc (Oct 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Exactly stated, Point of Origin (POO) is a simple reference to WHERE "something" STARTS ....... if you are talking about 'your' action or any actions of your opponents...... that's it!  the <<<<POINT>>>> of Origin.... it pretty much says is all.
> 
> Any movements after the designated "starting point" (POO), should be referred to as the LINE of action or the PATH of action.....
> ...


The problem is most interpret "line" as linear when it may be either linear or circular. A "Path" is a "wide" line.

I was taught to express it in different terms although essentially we are discussing the same thing. By not being motion based it is expressed in anatomical terms as opposed to expeditious conceptual movement.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 2, 2003)

This concept is very usefull. To help us figure out what it is let us figure out what it is not. Starting every technique with your hands at your sides violates point of origin. Hammering from a thrusting position or thrusting from a hammerin position violates point of origin. When staring a fight and your right leg is closest to your opponent, stepping into a left neutral violates point of origin. Any others?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 2, 2003)

UH...starting techniques with your hands at your sides does not violate point of origin if that's where your hands happened to be when the hooraw started. And while Short Form 1 does separate points of origin, and does distinguish between hammering (first block) and thrusting (second block) blocks, neither necessarily has anything to do with point of origin as far as I can see...is it that if you launch a hammering block from the hip, the trajectory is probably too wide of a circle?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 2, 2003)

Robert,
It seems you are contradicting yourself. If your hands are not already up then, as you have just stated, the circle is to big to be of any use. Its Ok to use point of origin instead of dismissing it as a meaningless homily, as you seem to do to all of Ed Parkers teachings. Just because your hands may start at you sides does not mean that you have a get out of jail free card that says you can do any technique you want because you weren't ready. Now I'm sure you were taught to do mace of aggression with your hands at your side but in the time it takes you to bring your hands up "and" then pin and strike, you got you head smacked into the nearest metal object. Perhaps raking mace would have been the better choice. In a street situation you might want to get in the habbit of puting your hands up when you "feel' things are out of place and you are about to possibly  be attacked. You are faster with your hands up, trust me.
Sean


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 2, 2003)

Heh Heh. You guys said poo.

Seriously, I don't think there's too much to this. In a mathematical context, a point has no real mass, volume, or shape, it is only the representation of a single location in space. So there can't be a linear point of origin or circular or whatever, since shapes or lines by definition encompass a myriad of points. The term Point of Origin is just a reference for the space a weapon occupies at a certain juncture in time--in this case, when a technique (basic) begins.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 2, 2003)

Well, that was completely wrong.

In the first place, you are making unwarranted assumptions about my training.

In the second--and far more important!--place, having your hands down when you're attacked has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of point of origin. Point of Origin simply says--and this is all that it says--you move from where you are to where you need to get to, without moving somewhere else first. Doesn't matter if it's a hand, a foot, a weapon, a stance, whatever--if the hand you want to move is on your hip, and you need to raise your hand, you do not scratch your butt before you raise your hand. 

The fact that your hands are up or down hasn't got a thing to do with point of origin...other important principles ("thou shalt not go sleepybye in the Presence of Thine Enemies;" "thou shalt not let thine enemies get close enough to Smite Thee;" "If thou standest there like a penguin, thou shalt getteth thy face smacked up"), surely, but not point of origin.

And by the way, point of origin doesn't say a thing about thr jrajectory your foot, hand, etc. takes--it just says, "Don't go backwards when you want to go forwards." Further, there's no telling which weapon or trajectory will be useful in advance--there may be times when a back elbow is just the ticket, if your hand's on your hip and you need to punch the guy in front of you.

Hope this helps; thanks.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 2, 2003)

Wouldn't not going back before you go forward be about the same as don't go up before you come down? Just because you say that the position of your hands has nothing to do with point of origin does not make it so. Some of us fight with our hands, there Robert, so point of origin  would then apply to those of us that use our hands. I appologize if I assumed Y'all employed the use of your hands in your Kenpo. My Bad.
If my new assumption is wrong. Then how in gods name does the position of you hands not have to do with point of origin? enquiring minds want to know.
Your pal
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 2, 2003)

Simple. If your hands are down, then you start from having your hands down. That's absolutely all it is.

Again--point of origin says nothing about whether you should have your hands up, down, or in Schnectady, New York. At best, one of the corollaries to Point of Origin, is that it's best not to get caught with your hands (or pants) down.

And again--you might find it easier to converse if you didn't make assumptions about other people's training--or at least, kept mum about them.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 2, 2003)

so can I at least get you to explain why you wold hammer with you hands at you side?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 2, 2003)

Since my favorite versions of Five Swords are, in order, maneuvers I call, a) "staying out of obvious biker bars," b) behaving politely, c) buying the guy a beer, d) leaving the joint, e) asking the bartender/bouncer for help, f) ball kicking the putz, well, I probably wouldn't hammer with my hands down at my side. Unless my opponent was three feet tall.

Remind me--what are we talking about, again? Was it point of origin?


----------

