# What does your Neutral Bow look like?



## JamesB

OK here's a quick poll to see how much variation there is out there in the way people form a Neutral-Bow. 

Please look at the image below before voting! Note that the red lines represent the familar 12-6 and 9-3 lines. The oblong shape represents the alignment of the body.

So looking at the picture now, there seems to be three basic variations on the Neutral-Bow:

A. Horse Stance facing roughly 9.30 / 10.00 O'Clock 
B. Feet angled to 45 degrees (i.e to 10.30)
C. Feet and body angled to 45 degrees

So please use the polling options above to vote for the way you train/teach the Neutral-Bow.


----------



## Ray

JamesB said:
			
		

> OK here's a quick poll to see how much variation there is out there in the way people form a Neutral-Bow.


Maybe it would be a good idea to use the diagrams in Infinite Insights?  Just because there's a lot of variation doesn't mean it should be decided by popular vote?


----------



## Blindside

Who is deciding anything?  This is a "what do YOU use" not what Jim Mitchell uses.

Lamont


----------



## JamesB

Ray said:
			
		

> Maybe it would be a good idea to use the diagrams in Infinite Insights? Just because there's a lot of variation doesn't mean it should be decided by popular vote?


 
It was because of the variation that I felt it would be interesting to see how people actually practice their kenpo, rather than how they read it should be in a book. Also from reading about the history of Kenpo, it seems Infinite Insights represents a particular era in Kenpo so it would be good to see a broader spectrum this way.

Also, any strong opinions either way regarding 'horse-stance' vs 'feet at 45' ? There are benefits to both methods depending on how you define 'better' - i.e. which is more prevalent, which stance is stronger, which is more manouvarable, which is easier to teach to a beginner etc.


----------



## Ross

JamesB said:
			
		

> It was because of the variation that I felt it would be interesting to see how people actually practice their kenpo, rather than how they read it should be in a book. Also from reading about the history of Kenpo, it seems Infinite Insights represents a particular era in Kenpo so it would be good to see a broader spectrum this way.
> 
> Also, any strong opinions either way regarding 'horse-stance' vs 'feet at 45' ? There are benefits to both methods depending on how you define 'better' - i.e. which is more prevalent, which stance is stronger, which is more manouvarable, which is easier to teach to a beginner etc.


 
Hi James,

You know mine - A.

Good idea about starting this thread, as it was getting a bit specific on the Basic one.

BTW did Locking Horns the other night - makes much more sense now and, man alive is it awesome! Not an easy one though!


----------



## Doc

Blindside said:
			
		

> Who is deciding anything?  This is a "what do YOU use" not what Jim Mitchell uses.
> 
> Lamont


Oh that was a good one. The stances in general as displayed in Infinite Insights are flawed and were not to Mr. Parker's liking. Drawings yes, pictures no.


----------



## Doc

JamesB said:
			
		

> It was because of the variation that I felt it would be interesting to see how people actually practice their kenpo, rather than how they read it should be in a book. Also from reading about the history of Kenpo, it seems Infinite Insights represents a particular era in Kenpo so it would be good to see a broader spectrum this way.
> 
> Also, any strong opinions either way regarding 'horse-stance' vs 'feet at 45' ? There are benefits to both methods depending on how you define 'better' - i.e. which is more prevalent, which stance is stronger, which is more manouvarable, which is easier to teach to a beginner etc.



I define it by anatomical perameters, not personal preferences as admittedly, motion based Kenpo allows. Therefore "A" is absolutely correct, and anything else is 'anatomically flawed' and contrary to proper body mechanics.


----------



## Shortay

I'm with Ross and Dad on this one.

xx


----------



## Ross

Shortay said:
			
		

> I'm with Ross and Dad on this one.
> 
> xx


 
Lol!

Hello Hun! xx


----------



## Kenpobuff

Doc said:
			
		

> Oh that was a good one. The stances in general as displayed in Infinite Insights are flawed and were not to Mr. Parker's liking. Drawings yes, pictures no.


 
Why would Mr. Parker use a visual reference and put it in his book that would describe his system if he didn't like it?


Or was this one of those "intentional mistakes" I've heard rumor about to see who learned from a book and who learned from an instructor?


----------



## Kenpodoc

Doc said:
			
		

> I define it by anatomical perameters, not personal preferences as admittedly, motion based Kenpo allows. Therefore "A" is absolutely correct, and anything else is 'anatomically flawed' and contrary to proper body mechanics.


C is the definition in Infinite insights.  Doc, I take it that your neutral bow is a slightly off angled horse stance.  Are the insides of your feet parallel to each other or the outsides parallel (slightly toed in)?


----------



## JamesB

Doc said:
			
		

> I define it by anatomical perameters, not personal preferences as admittedly, motion based Kenpo allows. Therefore "A" is absolutely correct, and anything else is 'anatomically flawed' and contrary to proper body mechanics.


 
yes this is my understanding and is how Mr Mills has taught me to look at my posture and alignment. There seems to be two perspectives in Kenpo when it comes to stances (and posture etc) - basing everything on external reference points such as "point your feet over there", and a self-relative "internal" perspective where everything is relative to one's own body physics. I much prefer the latter perspective and find it much easier to understand what I should be doing. That being the case, *why* does the former (external) method exist?



			
				Kenpobuff said:
			
		

> Why would Mr. Parker use a visual reference and put it in his book that would describe his system if he didn't like it?
> 
> Or was this one of those "intentional mistakes" I've heard rumor about to see who learned from a book and who learned from an instructor?


 
I was hoping somebody would ask this question as I am now wondering the same thing. When I posted this poll I first checked my Infinite Insights as I wasn't certain whether or not there was an explicit statement in those books as to how the feet should be aligned - but there in black+white it says "feet should be 45". 

So the Golden Question is - what motivated Mr Parker to deliberately describe the neutral-bow this way? Also am I right in thinking that the Infinite Insights corresponds to the 'Motion' kenpo era? 

Mr Parker would certainly of had discussions with his students and peers about this topic - presumably the "feet at 45" was deemed easier to teach+describe from a book and gave a rough idea as to how the stances should be - leaving it up to the instructor to give the finer details. 

There can only be one 'correct' Neutral Bow, but the poll so far indicates that there is a 50-50 split between 'Horse vs 45'. It amazes me that even within the same art of Kenpo there is no agreement as to how to achieve this fundamental posture - even with authorities on the subject giving clear statements as to which is the desirable method.



			
				KenpoDoc said:
			
		

> Are the insides of your feet parallel to each other or the outsides parallel (slightly toed in)?


 
I was hoping to convey this idea in the diagram but didn't quite succeed. The arrows on diagram 'A' are drawn from the outside of the feet and should be parallel, resulting in a 'toe-in', 'heel-out' stance.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I vote for none of the above because your last option included confusion. I know why I put my feet the way I do.
Sean


----------



## JamesB

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I vote for none of the above because your last option included confusion. I know why I put my feet the way I do.
> Sean


 
well I struggled to think of any other variations on this stance and wanted to keep the diagram+poll simple. So, I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts were on this topic?


----------



## Touch Of Death

JamesB said:
			
		

> well I struggled to think of any other variations on this stance and wanted to keep the diagram+poll simple. So, I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts were on this topic?


We play with the angle on the back foot. So we can launch in the direction of our opponent. It a bit quicker yet less stable. Its a trade off.
Sean


----------



## JamesB

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> We play with the angle on the back foot. So we can launch in the direction of our opponent. It a bit quicker yet less stable. Its a trade off.
> Sean


 
thanks, I understand this - you're right I should have included a poll option for 'none of the above' ah well, too late now, unless a Moderator can change this for me?


----------



## HKphooey

Doc said:
			
		

> I define it by anatomical perameters, not personal preferences as admittedly, motion based Kenpo allows. Therefore "A" is absolutely correct, and anything else is 'anatomically flawed' and contrary to proper body mechanics.


 

Not sure if this is saying the same thing...
Personal preference, in most case, is antacomically correct (hence the word personal).  I base my stance on the size of my body.  That in itself is personal preference.  I was always taught the proper foot placement, was established by rear heel sliding up to front toes (small gap) and Droping my right knee to the ground just behind my front heel for proper spacing.  When all is said and done, I should be able to execute front and rear twists, rear leg front kicks, cat stances etc. without my own legs getting int the way.  So "A" looks the closest.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Crap. Decades in this stuff, and I still gots to fix my feet.


----------



## Doc

Shortay said:
			
		

> I'm with Ross and Dad on this one.
> 
> xx


My duaghter agrees with me therefore I consider the matter closed. 

XXXX


----------



## Doc

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Not sure if this is saying the same thing...
> Personal preference, in most case, is antacomically correct (hence the word personal).  I base my stance on the size of my body.  That in itself is personal preference.  I was always taught the proper foot placement, was established by rear heel sliding up to front toes (small gap) and Droping my right knee to the ground just behind my front heel for proper spacing.  When all is said and done, I should be able to execute front and rear twists, rear leg front kicks, cat stances etc. without my own legs getting int the way.  So "A" looks the closest.


No that would be incorrect. You must be taught proper mechanics and posture which can conflict with personal preferences. Additionally sir, the base phyical specifications of a neutral bow have nothing to do with the size of your body. Only 'depth' may be 'adjusted' without affecting these base specs, and this is true of all stances in bi-pedal anatomical postures.


----------



## Doc

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> C is the definition in Infinite insights.  Doc, I take it that your neutral bow is a slightly off angled horse stance.  Are the insides of your feet parallel to each other or the outsides parallel (slightly toed in)?


You know Doc, it figures you would ask the right questions. It seems to be a habit of yours.  The confusion comes from discrepencies between the photo, the drawings, and most importantly, their interpretations. 

Mr. Parker was attempting to find the best way to express what was clear in his mind. That is, "*ALL* stances are anatomical and perspective derivations of the horse stance." Everyone out of Ark Wongs' had that pounded into them. And as the real Doctor asked, "Are the insides of your feet parallel to each other or the outsides parallel (slightly toed in)?" is the answer to the confusion.

Anatomically speaking feet are defined as being parallel by the outsde portion of the foot creating what appears to be a slight pigeon-toed effect. This is an 'anatomical optical' (actually PNF) illusion that causes people to view and assess correctness based on their own subjective perspective of the alignment of their own feet, compounded and juxtapositioned against their own, (once again subjective) understandings of the specs of the stance.

The feet *ARE* at a 45-degrees when placed in the proper horse position, and everything else is a misinterpretation compounded by;

A lack of understanding of human anatomy obviously inherently *NOT* included in motion based Kenpo.

The very poor stances of the model used in the book.

An incorrecr diagram illustrating the neutral bow.
(in defense of Edmund who did all of the ilustrations as a teenager, he iullustrated what his father said)

All of which was expressed to me and others by Ed Parker Sr., and partially why in his planned proposed republishing, volume 2 was first on his re-do list to correct and clarify this information.

If you look at the diagram of the foot positions of the neutral bow, the forward foot * IS * at a 45-degree angle utilizing the *outside* portion of the foot as a guage. The rear foot is utilizing the *inside* portion of the foot as its guage and is angled incorrectly. The cross member helps create the illusion, and the rear foot in the diagram  should be turned more outward to actually parallel the *outside* of the forward foot.

Ed Parker in his Kenpo never intentionally did, wrote, or expressed anything incorrectly intentionally. He did in fact express the fact the information as expressed in these books was from the early seventies of the commercial system, and that it took him 10 years to codify the material. Volume 2 is over a quater of a century old as published and the material is 12 years older than that.

Thank you sir for asking the 'right' question. That is something that I have wanted to say for over 25 years,  and thanks to James for getting the discussion going in the right direction.


----------



## Carol

What is it about having one's feet at 45 that is not anatomically correct?


----------



## Doc

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> What is it about having one's feet at 45 that is not anatomically correct?


Relative to what?


----------



## HKphooey

Doc said:
			
		

> No that would be incorrect. You must be taught proper mechanics and posture which can conflict with personal preferences. Additionally sir, the base phyical specifications of a neutral bow have nothing to do with the size of your body. Only 'depth' may be 'adjusted' without affecting these base specs, and this is true of all stances in bi-pedal anatomical postures.


 
Thanks for the feedback. I would have to disagree about the body size/type. I have heard many instructors (kenpo and other styles) use the phrase "shoulder width" for a stance width. That is not a universal statement for all (could be true for some). One of my past training partners was a weightlifter and his upper thighs were enormous. He had to adjust his stance to properly execute kicks from a neutral bow. I agree proper mechanics must be in place to have a solid root. When I use the phrase "personal preference", it is based on what works for me.

I believe in the phrase "Kenpo in my own art".


As for the books, yes they were written years ago. Many techniques and topics where against shirt grabs  and other outdated attacks. Who the heck grabs someone by the shirt anymore? These books are like the Bible - people will read what they believe to be truth and not challenge it.  I believe kenpo is about challenge and change.


----------



## Doc

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback. I would have to disagree about the body size/type. I have heard many instructors (kenpo and other styles) use the phrase "shoulder width" for a stance width. That is not a universal statement for all (could be true for some). One of my past training partners was a weightlifter and his upper thighs were enormous. He had to adjust his stance to properly execute kicks from a neutral bow. I agree proper mechanics must be in place to have a solid root. When I use the phrase "personal preference", it is based on what works for me.
> 
> I believe in the phrase "Kenpo in my own art".
> 
> 
> As for the books, yes they were written years ago. Many techniques and topics where against shirt grabs  and other outdated attacks. Who the heck grabs someone by the shirt anymore? These books are like the Bible - people will read what they believe to be truth and not challenge it.  I believe kenpo is about challenge and change.


Any instructor that suggests the stance correllates to shoulder width is working from a deficit of knowledge. The human body is not always proportional, and is not even perfect semetrically, therefore that can only conform to anatomical mandates by pure chance, if at all.

Believe it or not, people are still grabbed by their clothing. As for you personalizing 'your' kenpo, unfortunately that makes for some serious limitations and a functional ceiling limited by the knowledeg and skill of its creator.


----------



## MJS

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Not sure if this is saying the same thing...
> Personal preference, in most case, is antacomically correct (hence the word personal). I base my stance on the size of my body. That in itself is personal preference. I was always taught the proper foot placement, was established by rear heel sliding up to front toes (small gap) and Droping my right knee to the ground just behind my front heel for proper spacing. When all is said and done, I should be able to execute front and rear twists, rear leg front kicks, cat stances etc. without my own legs getting int the way. So "A" looks the closest.


 
Oddly enough, looking at Book 2, that is the exact same description as what you've given above.  While it does not mean that the book is the final word, I also believe that the art was intended to fit the person, not the person to fit the art.  Considering that there is a large height difference between you and I, I'd have to say that yes, there would be a difference in the way we execute moves.



> Thanks for the feedback. I would have to disagree about the body size/type. I have heard many instructors (kenpo and other styles) use the phrase "shoulder width" for a stance width. That is not a universal statement for all (could be true for some). One of my past training partners was a weightlifter and his upper thighs were enormous. He had to adjust his stance to properly execute kicks from a neutral bow. I agree proper mechanics must be in place to have a solid root. When I use the phrase "personal preference", it is based on what works for me.
> 
> I believe in the phrase "Kenpo in my own art".




Yes, I too have heard the same phrase.  Like I've pointed out many times, we could have 5 people all attempting the same thing, and I'm sure that we'd see 5 variations.  Hence, the 'personal preference'

Mike


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, looking at Book 2, that is the exact same description as what you've given above.  While it does not mean that the book is the final word, I also believe that the art was intended to fit the person, not the person to fit the art.  Considering that there is a large height difference between you and I, I'd have to say that yes, there would be a difference in the way we execute moves.
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> Yes, I too have heard the same phrase.  Like I've pointed out many times, we could have 5 people all attempting the same thing, and I'm sure that we'd see 5 variations.  Hence, the 'personal preference'
> 
> Mike


And the art suffers because of all the misinterpretations, and self created masters of material they don't understand. The idea of making an art your own is not new, but only in Kenpo is this concept taken to an extreme and allows a student who hasn't got his uniform dirty yet, to decide 'what works for him.' It is the reason it is so monetarily succesful, and why in general it is so universally bad.


----------



## Carol

Doc said:
			
		

> Relative to what?


 
Never mind sir  I was posting my question as you were posting the answer to it. 

Doc sir, even on the internet, you are faster than I am. :rofl:


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> And the art suffers because of all the misinterpretations, and self created masters of material they don't understand. The idea of making an art your own is not new, but only in Kenpo is this concept taken to an extreme and allows a student who hasn't got his uniform dirty yet, to decide 'what works for him.' It is the reason it is so monetarily succesful, and why in general it is so universally bad.


 
1) HKP is certainly not a self created master.  I've known him for quite a while.  He has some very good knowledge of the art.

2) He's far from a new student, so I'd say his uniform isn't as 'clean' as you may think it is.

3) Are you saying that everyone should be a robot, all pre-programmed to move and perform in the same way?  Considering we're all built differently, I'd say that some may need to make adjustments to how they apply certain things.  I'm not talking about going out and creating something new, I'm talking about making an adjustment to allow the person to apply a move so it suits their body style.  You can't possibly think that someone who is 5'3 is going to be able to make something work the way a 6'7 person would.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> 1) HKP is certainly not a self created master.  I've known him for quite a while.  He has some very good knowledge of the art.
> 
> 2) He's far from a new student, so I'd say his uniform isn't as 'clean' as you may think it is.


My response wasn't personal. I don't know the gentleman so I wouldn't assume anything about his skill or knowledge. It is the modern 'idea' of how martial arts should be taught and learned I have a general problem with.


> 3) Are you saying that everyone should be a robot, all pre-programmed to move and perform in the same way?  Considering we're all built differently, I'd say that some may need to make adjustments to how they apply certain things.  I'm not talking about going out and creating something new, I'm talking about making an adjustment to allow the person to apply a move so it suits their body style.  You can't possibly think that someone who is 5'3 is going to be able to make something work the way a 6'7 person would.


This idea of everybody adjusting the art is a new one created by Ed Parker specifically to proliferate an art he couldn't oversee personally for every student and teacher. So he took the idea of 'tailoring' and shifted it to where it wasn't supposed to be. Mr. Parker made the students and teachers conceptually responsible for their own interpretations of what they were taught/teach. This was the only way the art could spread, and the only way the business model could work. It had to leave room for personal interpretation without being considered wrong, according to the 'dance studio business plan' it was based upon. It also meant he wasn't responsible for how good or bad you were. You and your teacher had to be responsible for that.

The nucleus of everything you do however should be based on sound 'basics.' These basics are built on proper body mechanics, so unless you're an alien with three arms, everyone should learn these basics the same. Mechanically they have to be the same because the basics of human anatomy are the same for everyone. Some people are taller, or wider, or their body proportions are different, but the underlying body is the same for everyone. Any medical doctor will tell you that. That's why books like 'Grey's Anatomy' apply to everyone, whether it 'works for you' or not.

It is the expression of these properly taught 'basics' that allow individual interpetation, but even these personal preferences must be based on sound mechanics. But to ultimately achieve the desire level to allow free expression comes at a price. And the cost is time.

Ed Parker encouraged 'tailoring' knowing that ultimately, 'kenpo-karate' was an entity feeding upon itself. All this free expression has diluted a good concept down to the lowest common denominator, and the bottom of grade on the curve.

"Free expression" of your skills comes after years of perfecting basics, not while you learning the art. And even then its only because you've learned to understand the perameters you must work within for maximum efficiency, (whether you like them or not).

He kept telling students but they wouldn't listen. Everyone decided that they knew so much, while he reminded them;

*"One does not become great until they realize what they know is very little."

"Let time be your measurement to skill and knowledge."

"Just because the red show don't mean that you know."

"The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open."*

Funny, how everyone always seem to think Ed Parker was talking about another group or someone else and not them. They were wrong. He was speaking to all of us, but most never listened. They fell in love with the belts and pretty red stripes, and forgot they were supposed to actually mean something.


----------



## HKphooey

Doc, I completely understand your opinion.  My goal in the martial arts has been to defend myself with practical aplications and to teach others to do so, also.  If if works, I use it!  I never claim that my kenpo is EPAK. I have trained in EPAK, TracyKenpo, Chinese Kempo and other various arts for over 18 years. My kenpo as the phrase states, "Is my own".  

And on many occasions I will test some of the posted theories, some seem to work great and I add them to my training.  Others... let's just say, they do not work for me (and I can only speak for me).

Now back to the Neutral Bow discussion. 

MJS, thanks for the feedabck.

PS - _anatomic, anatomical (adj.) _- of or relating to the structure of the body; "anatomical features" .   AKA - body size, mass, type - so yes, those all do play a key role in establishing one's posture and base.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Kenpobuff said:
			
		

> Why would Mr. Parker use a visual reference and put it in his book that would describe his system if he didn't like it?
> 
> 
> Or was this one of those "intentional mistakes" I've heard rumor about to see who learned from a book and who learned from an instructor?


Each thing must be introduced at a rudimentory level and then refined as you go up in level.
Sean


----------



## Doc

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Doc, I completely understand your opinion.  My goal in the martial arts has been to defend myself with practical aplications and to teach others to do so, also.  If if works, I use it!  I never claim that my kenpo is EPAK. I have trained in EPAK, TracyKenpo, Chinese Kempo and other various arts for over 18 years. My kenpo as the phrase states, "Is my own".
> 
> And on many occasions I will test some of the posted theories, some seem to work great and I add them to my training.  Others... let's just say, they do not work for me (and I can only speak for me).


I understand and respect your perspective. For you it is a personal issue, and there is nothing wrong with that. You are exactly what and why Ed Parker created motion kenpo. It allows the individual to learn at a personal pace and take resposibility for their own well-being, developing self confidence and skills, as they explore and test material available to them from various sources and shape their own personal style. This is the genius of that methodology.


----------



## masherdong

I choose C.


----------



## eyebeams

The goal should really be to learn postures as part of the path to issuing power from natural positions, without particular concern for handfuls of degrees and inches in your own posture. This is especially misguided when you think of the numerous structural differences found within human beings, from minor defects to differences created by gender and heredity.

If moving a single finger or moving your foot an inch can make your stance far less efficient, then the problem is not with the finger or the inch. The problem is a lack of relaxed activity within your root and in particular, a lack of dynamic practice in maintaining your root.

That said, the idea of a "neutral bow" is alien to my own approach in CMA completely, since it's rooted in internal arts. Truly neutral postures are  usually discouraged because they're double-weighted. Different arts have their own perferences as to whether the bow should be open or closed. In some very hardcore hung gar the stance is trained as an inverted, but in application the turn in is much more subtle.

I personally prefer an open, square, back-weighted posture as a default position, but these days I'll just walk and stand normally, too.


----------



## Bode

> If moving a single finger or moving your foot an inch can make your stance far less efficient, then the problem is not with the finger or the inch. The problem is a lack of relaxed activity within your root and in particular, a lack of dynamic practice in maintaining your root.


[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]

But you do believe that there is an optimal posture to maintain a solid base? You are too smart to believe that any posture will do as long as you have an dynamic root. An extreme example (used only to illustrate a point) is a person with one leg. Physics simply precludes them from have a strong base. 
[/FONT]


----------



## eyebeams

Bode said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]
> 
> But you do believe that there is an optimal posture to maintain a solid base? You are too smart to believe that any posture will do as long as you have an dynamic root. An extreme example (used only to illustrate a point) is a person with one leg. Physics simply precludes them from have a strong base.
> [/FONT]



The right posture depends on a number of things, but the important ones for this discussion are:

1) Anatomical alignment, where load is distributed on the joints properly. Example: The leag leg of the taijiquan bow stance doesn't go past the toe and the hips move from an angled position to a square position.

2) Proper position in relation to other objects or bodies. Example: When receiving a head-on takedown, respond with bow or sprawl.

3) Movement to maintain #1 and #2. Example: You a-frame into a clinch. Your opponent moves to sweep, and you circle around into the gap, drop into horse on a T-angle and knock him down.

Striking arts tend to emphasize #1. Grappling arts tend to emphasize #2.  Both arts need both. But I believe that the test of effectiveness lies in proper understanding of #3, and realy, one ought to work with *both* #1 and #2.

A one-legged guy is not inherently less stable. He has far fewer options for acquiring stable positions. That's a subtle but important difference. 

Proper movement has two components worth talking about here:

A: It is sensitive to the situation. If you don't spar in situations where gaining and losing your balance means something, then you aren't really stable. This not only includes yeilding, but it also includes aggresively siezing stability at the expense of the opponent whenever an unimpeded opportunity presents itself.

B: It is acting efficiently through the entire musculoskeletal system. "Acting" means that muscular activity is coordinated properly and constantly. For example, it meas that I always know where my left hand is when my right hand acts, and it is always where I *want* it to be, not just where it arbitrarily ends up. "Efficiently" means that there is minimal antagonistic tension -- just stability. When this is done properly

Stances are really moments in time that teach you how to move and position yourself in common situations, and how to overload difficulty in those situations in order to learn broad reflexive movement. Naturally, you want to hedge your bets with stable, basic postures, but you don't want to be stuck with them. Even in the context of #1, there are lots of individual anatomical differences. For example, I have flat feet, so I prefer a bit of a turnout. Despite various claims of orthodoxy, this is not only not "inferior" to a idealized method, various CMA sources suppirt various differences that are both personal and stylistic. But the relationships and active movements involved are far more important.


----------



## Bode

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The right posture depends on a number of things, but the important ones for this discussion are:
> 
> 1) Anatomical alignment, where load is distributed on the joints properly. Example: The leag leg of the taijiquan bow stance doesn't go past the toe and the hips move from an angled position to a square position.
> 
> 2) Proper position in relation to other objects or bodies. Example: When receiving a head-on takedown, respond with bow or sprawl.
> 
> 3) Movement to maintain #1 and #2. Example: You a-frame into a clinch. Your opponent moves to sweep, and you circle around into the gap, drop into horse on a T-angle and knock him down.
> 
> Striking arts tend to emphasize #1. Grappling arts tend to emphasize #2.  Both arts need both. But I believe that the test of effectiveness lies in proper understanding of #3, and realy, one ought to work with *both* #1 and #2.


 Agreed 100%. 



> A one-legged guy is not inherently less stable. He has far fewer options for acquiring stable positions. That's a subtle but important difference.


 I agree he has far fewer options, but short of placing his hands on the ground the guy is, without a doubt, inherently less stable. Saying otherwise is like saying a bipod is as strong as a tripod. Inherently, by it's very physical construct it is less strong. 



> Proper movement has two components worth talking about here:
> 
> A: It is sensitive to the situation. If you don't spar in situations where gaining and losing your balance means something, then you aren't really stable. This not only includes yeilding, but it also includes aggresively siezing stability at the expense of the opponent whenever an unimpeded opportunity presents itself.
> 
> B: It is acting efficiently through the entire musculoskeletal system. "Acting" means that muscular activity is coordinated properly and constantly. For example, it meas that I always know where my left hand is when my right hand acts, and it is always where I *want* it to be, not just where it arbitrarily ends up. "Efficiently" means that there is minimal antagonistic tension -- just stability. When this is done properly


 Well said. 


> Stances are really moments in time that teach you how to move and position yourself in common situations, and how to overload difficulty in those situations in order to learn broad reflexive movement. Naturally, you want to hedge your bets with stable, basic postures, but you don't want to be stuck with them.


 Yes, hedge your bets and choose the most anatomically superior stance for the purpose. This is why there are various stances. One for each purpose and need. Mobility vs stability... However, in the end the stances that create the correct posture are limited and finite, with minor, very minor variances to account for....


> Even in the context of #1, there are lots of individual anatomical differences. For example, I have flat feet, so I prefer a bit of a turnout. Despite various claims of orthodoxy, this is not only not "inferior" to a idealized method, various CMA sources suppirt various differences that are both personal and stylistic. But the relationships and active movements involved are far more important.


 You have flat feet, which does require a slight adjustment in the stance, but nothing major. We agree more than it seems on the surface. Active movement is very, very important, but I also believe that the posture, even down to the placement of a single finger can be, and should be, taken into account. That being said, the practice of actively adjusting your base and core must be practiced, but not until the student has decent grasp of the physical/external elements. What's the sense in moving if you can't even maintain a static, solid stance. 

What should never happen is allowing the uneducated student who is only a green belt to "do what feels right." Often, especially when first starting, what feels wrong is actually right. Muscles that aren't often engaged are firing and the student feels fatigued or out of aligment. That's the core of this discussion. There is an "optimal" stance, but there is no "I prefer to do if this way" simply for the sake of comfort. If you do change your stance from the optimal stance, you better have a good reason founded on logic and physics.


----------



## MJS

Bode said:
			
		

> What should never happen is allowing the uneducated student who is only a green belt to "do what feels right." Often, especially when first starting, what feels wrong is actually right. Muscles that aren't often engaged are firing and the student feels fatigued or out of aligment. That's the core of this discussion. There is an "optimal" stance, but there is no "I prefer to do if this way" simply for the sake of comfort. If you do change your stance from the optimal stance, you better have a good reason founded on logic and physics.


 
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but reading this, I get the impression that a size difference is not going to matter?  If someone is 5'3 and the person teaching the stance is 6'8, I'd imagine there'd be some difference in the way both people stand.  Using the shoulder width theory or the heel/toe theory would IMO, provide each person with the stance best suited for their body size.

Mike


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but reading this, I get the impression that a size difference is not going to matter?  If someone is 5'3 and the person teaching the stance is 6'8, I'd imagine there'd be some difference in the way both people stand.  Using the shoulder width theory or the heel/toe theory would IMO, provide each person with the stance best suited for their body size.
> 
> Mike


Anatomically speaking, I believe I addressed that perspective. Every body has a geometrical proportion that is unique. Persons of disparate height could conceivably have the same shoulder width, therefore using that as a gude would be ludicrous. I also allowed that depth is the least significate and does not affect anatomical proportions relative to stances, as long as you avoid extremes of archatectural support.


----------



## kenpoworks

Hey Doc,
*anatomical proportions* 
I know that you are refering to stance, but saying as the term is out there, I use "generalised anatomical proportioning" all the time when dealing with self defense scenarios while teaching class, it really does move things along from the mechanical rather rapidly.
Rich


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> Anatomically speaking, I believe I addressed that perspective. Every body has a geometrical proportion that is unique. Persons of disparate height could conceivably have the same shoulder width, therefore using that as a gude would be ludicrous. I also allowed that depth is the least significate and does not affect anatomical proportions relative to stances, as long as you avoid extremes of archatectural support.


 
Yes, looking back, you did explain this.  So, for someone who does not have the background, so to speak, on the human body, how can it be expected that they know any different?


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> Yes, looking back, you did explain this.  So, for someone who does not have the background, so to speak, on the human body, how can it be expected that they know any different?



Its kinda like an algorithm. It's doesn't fall out of the sky. In general terms, an algorithm consists of detailed instructions (basics) which results in a predictable end-state (proper function) from a pre-set (knowledge) beginning. Algorithms are only as good as the (teacher) instructions given, however, and the result will be incorrect if the algorithm is not properly defined. (So much for exploring and the self taught)

A good example would be instructions for assembling a model plane. Given the starting set of a number of marked pieces, one can follow the instructions given to result in a predictable end-state: the completed airplane. Misprints in the instructions, or a failure to properly follow a step will result in a faulty end product, so choose your instructions (teachers) wisely cause you ain't gonna figure it out without one.


----------



## hongkongfooey

Diagram A looks like my neutral bow.


----------



## Doc

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> Diagram A looks like my neutral bow.


Good for you sir.


----------



## katsudo_karate

We do it this way as well I got this from Bill Parsons.

From Bill Parsons:

I give the following to my students when they are first learning the Neutral Bow:

TWELVE POINTS OF THE NEUTRAL BOW
(DIRTY DOZEN)

1. WIDTH -- HEEL/TOE ALIGNMENT 

2. DEPTH -- REAR KNEE/FRONT HEEL MEASUREMENT

3. HEIGHT -- THIGHS 30-45 DEGREES

4. FEET 45 DEGREES (1:30 or 10:30) --TORSO SAME DIRECTION

5. 50/50 FRONT-REAR WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION

6. WEIGHT ON BALLS OF THE FEET (NOT THE TOES)

7. TOES IN & KNEES OUT

8. HIPS BENEATH SHOULDERS (BACK STRAIGHT)

9. LEAD ARM 45 DEGREES--SIDE-SIDE & FRONT-REAR -- ELBOW ANCHORED

10. LEAD HAND APPROX. SHOULDER HEIGHT -- LITTLE FINGER FORWARD

11. REAR HAND PALM UP IN FRONT OF SOLAR PLEXUS

12. HEAD UP AND TURNED FORWARD

Salute,


----------



## Doc

katsudo_karate said:
			
		

> TWELVE POINTS OF THE NEUTRAL BOW
> (DIRTY DOZEN)
> 
> 
> 
> 1. WIDTH -- HEEL/TOE ALIGNMENT
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 2. DEPTH -- REAR KNEE/FRONT HEEL MEASUREMENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acceptable approximation
> 
> 
> 
> 3. HEIGHT -- THIGHS 30-45 DEGREES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> immaterial and vague
> 
> 
> 
> 4. FEET 45 DEGREES (1:30 or 10:30) --TORSO SAME DIRECTION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 5. 50/50 FRONT-REAR WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 6. WEIGHT ON BALLS OF THE FEET (NOT THE TOES)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emphatically incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> 7. TOES IN & KNEES OUT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda. The "toe in" is an illusion. feet must be parallel utilizing the PNF sensor outside edge of the feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. HIPS BENEATH SHOULDERS (BACK STRAIGHT)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 9. LEAD ARM 45 DEGREES--SIDE-SIDE & FRONT-REAR -- ELBOW ANCHORED
> 10. LEAD HAND APPROX. SHOULDER HEIGHT -- LITTLE FINGER FORWARD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arm and hand positions are critical to stance efficacy and cannot be defined in this manner. This description is vague at best, and dysfunctional at worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 11. REAR HAND PALM UP IN FRONT OF SOLAR PLEXUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely positively incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 12. HEAD UP AND TURNED FORWARD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, although I would say "chin up."
Click to expand...


----------



## dubljay

My Neutral Bow is only consitant in that it changes to meet the situation.  When I would spar with my friend, who was roughly my size, speed and strength, I would keep a fairly text book neutral bow, toe heel line, knee heel line ect.  However when I would spar with Johnny, a guy much bigger, taller, faster and stronger, than myself I opted for a slightly deeper stance, just a few inches deeper.  I would sacrafice a bit of manuverability to keep from getting knocked over.  A bit counter intuitive, but I first tried narrowing my stance for greater manuverability just to find myself knocked flat because Johnny was much faster (not to mention more experienced and skilled) than I was.  I soon learned if I was just a little more stable on my feet I could withstand a glancing blow (usually by parrying or very slight movement) and have enough stability to stay on my feet and counter.  Granted if I was caught off guard I had no hope in hell of getting out of the way.


----------



## JamesB

After reading everyone's replies to this thread (and we still have a 50-50 split) I would say it is impossible to gauge 'correctness' of a neutral-bow by the questions I posed in the initial survey.

Doc's description especially (of the outside of the foot angled to 45 degrees) means that theoretically both A and C are correct, because I failed to specify how this angle of '45' should be measured - or what it was relative to.

Perhaps a better question would be - how do you measure the 45 - using the inside/outside of the foot?

Would it also be correct to say, that the consensus of the survey so far, is that an ideal neutral-bow would be a horse-stance, angled so that the outside of the feet are parallel and facing 45 degrees...?

I'm finding it quite difficult to actually write out how a N.B. should be measured, I can appreciate why there is ambiguity in the Inifinte Insights and therefore why there is so much apparent variance in people's stances.....however I still think the comparison to 'horse stance' provides the simplest and most accurate description of a neutral-bow.


----------



## Ray

Ever since you have posted this, I have been tempted to make wooden cut-outs of my foot-prints and visually layout the different feet positions.  I can't figure out, in my mind, if the feet frame a rectangle or a parallelogram (without 90 degree corner angles); and then does then "relative construction" of the box change if the feet change from A to C.

(I could not tell by drawing boxes on the image you posted).

But, if I do that, I will have no reason to lay awake in bed all night thinking.  Or maybe there's a body angle relative to the platform question...


----------



## Doc

dubljay said:
			
		

> My Neutral Bow is only consitant in that it changes to meet the situation.  When I would spar with my friend, who was roughly my size, speed and strength, I would keep a fairly text book neutral bow, toe heel line, knee heel line ect.  However when I would spar with Johnny, a guy much bigger, taller, faster and stronger, than myself I opted for a slightly deeper stance, just a few inches deeper.  I would sacrafice a bit of manuverability to keep from getting knocked over.  A bit counter intuitive, but I first tried narrowing my stance for greater manuverability just to find myself knocked flat because Johnny was much faster (not to mention more experienced and skilled) than I was.  I soon learned if I was just a little more stable on my feet I could withstand a glancing blow (usually by parrying or very slight movement) and have enough stability to stay on my feet and counter.  Granted if I was caught off guard I had no hope in hell of getting out of the way.


If you find it necessary sir to 'adjust' the depth of your stance for stability, than your neutral bow is incorrect.


----------



## DavidCC

Ray said:
			
		

> Ever since you have posted this, I have been tempted to make wooden cut-outs of my foot-prints and visually layout the different feet positions. I can't figure out, in my mind, if the feet frame a rectangle or a parallelogram (without 90 degree corner angles); and then does then "relative construction" of the box change if the feet change from A to C.
> 
> (I could not tell by drawing boxes on the image you posted).
> 
> But, if I do that, I will have no reason to lay awake in bed all night thinking. Or maybe there's a body angle relative to the platform question...


 
I had to work through this too... Imagining my feet as square, I concluded it's a rectangle.  My bathroom at home has 1" tiles on the floor, very convenient for this kind of thing.


----------



## Doc

DavidCC said:
			
		

> I had to work through this too... Imagining my feet as square, I concluded it's a rectangle.  My bathroom at home has 1" tiles on the floor, very convenient for this kind of thing.


Only you would work on a neutral bow in the bathroom. The rest of us would be doing something useful, like reading.


----------



## DavidCC

Doc said:
			
		

> Only you would work on a neutral bow in the bathroom. The rest of us would be doing something useful, like reading.


 
My teacher keeps saying I'm a "special case" I wonder if this is what he means.

You never know when you might need a good stance :toilclaw:

I still can't quite "go #1" from a neutral bow yet, but, despite my wife's objections, I continue to pratice.   Maybe I should try the forward bow. Or buy a mop.


----------



## DavidCC

OK, sorry, maybe that was a little over the top LOL


----------



## pete

Doc said:
			
		

> Agreed, although I would say "chin up."


hey doc, wouldn't that compromise the alignment of the spine?  pete


----------



## Bode

pete said:
			
		

> hey doc, wouldn't that compromise the alignment of the spine?  pete


I know this was to Doc, but as his student I couldn't resists answering. 

No. Raising your chin will actually help align the spine and fortify the upper platform. A lowered chin tells your body something completely different and will actually curve the spine instead of cause it to remain straight and rigid.

Try this fun example of fortifying:
1) stand in a natural stance. (attention) and have someone punch your chest in the pectoral area. Make sure it's hard enough to feel it, but not enough to damage your muscle. 
2) Now raise your chin as high as you can (you'll be looking at the cieling), then lower it to the point where you feel as if your nose is slightly tilted upwards. Now have the same person punch you in the same spot with the same force.

Tell me which one is worse....(here's to hoping I described it well enough).


----------



## Doc

pete said:
			
		

> hey doc, wouldn't that compromise the alignment of the spine?  pete


No sir. The INDEXED head position most people naturally assume does just the opposite in conjunction with other factors. The position of the chin AND head are part of the major PNF sensors that assist in setting the alignment for the rest of the body to dedicated activity.


----------



## eyebeams

Bode said:
			
		

> I know this was to Doc, but as his student I couldn't resists answering.
> 
> No. Raising your chin will actually help align the spine and fortify the upper platform. A lowered chin tells your body something completely different and will actually curve the spine instead of cause it to remain straight and rigid.
> 
> Try this fun example of fortifying:
> 1) stand in a natural stance. (attention) and have someone punch your chest in the pectoral area. Make sure it's hard enough to feel it, but not enough to damage your muscle.
> 2) Now raise your chin as high as you can (you'll be looking at the cieling), then lower it to the point where you feel as if your nose is slightly tilted upwards. Now have the same person punch you in the same spot with the same force.
> 
> Tell me which one is worse....(here's to hoping I described it well enough).



Number 2 is worse, because people like to other punch people in the face, not the chest. Keeping the chin up minimizes the structural support you get from your neck. On the other hand, there should not be a serious lean forward *at* the neck.


----------



## Ray

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Number 2 is worse, because people like to other punch people in the face, not the chest.


When we martial artists talk about stuff like this (what to do, how to do it, etc) (and I'm guilty of it too), it reminds me of a chess story.

In the chess story, a grandmaster has pulled off a brilliant win and someone says "I don't understand it." The grandmaster runs sets up the position and runs through the great combination with much careful explanation. "I understand the combination" says the other guy, "I don't understand how to get in the position to pull it off."

_I_ _could be_ a great fighter _if I could_ just get into those positions where I can pull off that great KO combination everytime.


----------



## pete

Doc said:
			
		

> No sir. The INDEXED head position most people naturally assume does just the opposite in conjunction with other factors. The position of the chin AND head are part of the major PNF sensors that assist in setting the alignment for the rest of the body to dedicated activity.


 this is contrary to anything i've been taught, shown, and physically tested... head erect, spine straight, pelvis tucked, tailbone down, expanding spine, gently lifting top of the head upward - aligning the crown (baihui) and perineum (huiyin)...  chin up would close the occiput joint, while forcing the chin to far down would stress the muscles in the neck... so comfortably lower chin to allow the point at the top of the head to lift upward.  that point is where a line from ear to ear and another line from spine to nose would intersect.  

unless there is a specific application or usage for the chin up position in transition, i respectfully disagree...


----------



## pete

thanks bode, i will try the experiment (i always do) as soon as i can get away from this 'puter and find someone that wants to hit me!


----------



## Bode

pete said:
			
		

> this is contrary to anything i've been taught, shown, and physically tested... head erect, spine straight, pelvis tucked, tailbone down, expanding spine, gently lifting top of the head upward - aligning the crown (baihui) and perineum (huiyin)...  chin up would close the occiput joint, while forcing the chin to far down would stress the muscles in the neck... so comfortably lower chin to allow the point at the top of the head to lift upward.  that point is where a line from ear to ear and another line from spine to nose would intersect.
> 
> unless there is a specific application or usage for the chin up position in transition, i respectfully disagree...


It's diffucult on a forum to describe the exact posture or angle of the chin, but I imagine what you describes is much closer than we assume. I believe the best description would be a 90 degree angle of chin to neck. Is that correct Doc?


----------



## eyebeams

Ray said:
			
		

> When we martial artists talk about stuff like this (what to do, how to do it, etc) (and I'm guilty of it too), it reminds me of a chess story.
> 
> In the chess story, a grandmaster has pulled off a brilliant win and someone says "I don't understand it." The grandmaster runs sets up the position and runs through the great combination with much careful explanation. "I understand the combination" says the other guy, "I don't understand how to get in the position to pull it off."
> 
> _I_ _could be_ a great fighter _if I could_ just get into those positions where I can pull off that great KO combination everytime.



If it was a response to a specific attack at a specific angle, it would be one of those, "but I could do this," kind of things. But it it a fact that people like to use all manner of movements to hit people in the head, and a fact that keeping your chin low as a general strategy greatly reduces the chance of getting knocked out and suffering other serious injuries.

On a more general note, these recent explanations of fighting postures as "for want of a nail" kinds of things where a finger, toe or a few degrees of angle totally wreck a posture are both impractical in the context of true spontaneous testing and are based on what I consider to be mislaid interpretations of the core principles behind them.


----------



## eyebeams

pete said:
			
		

> this is contrary to anything i've been taught, shown, and physically tested... head erect, spine straight, pelvis tucked, tailbone down, expanding spine, gently lifting top of the head upward - aligning the crown (baihui) and perineum (huiyin)... chin up would close the occiput joint, while forcing the chin to far down would stress the muscles in the neck... so comfortably lower chin to allow the point at the top of the head to lift upward. that point is where a line from ear to ear and another line from spine to nose would intersect.
> 
> unless there is a specific application or usage for the chin up position in transition, i respectfully disagree...



That's a perfect explanation.


----------



## Flying Crane

I wonder if I could get someone to back up a bit and give a little clarification for those of us who did not study EPAK kenpo from which it seems much of the terminology and concepts come from.

I see a lot of references to "body indexing", and its correctness or incorrectnes.  Could someone please explain in plain English what this is referring to?

I have seen references to stances and positions being "anatomically correct", and would like to better understand the concept with regard to martial positioning.  I certainly understand what the term means in the general sense, but am not sure I see how it can be strictly applied in the dynamic circumstances of the martial arts.  Since a combat situation is dynamic and changes constantly, how do you support any claims that variations in things like stances will make it "anatomically incorrect"?  One must contantly move, shift, and make adjustments to respond to a changing situation, so variations are guaranteed to occur during this process.

If a stance is "correct", I assume that means it is most stable.  But is this in reference to the direction in which the stance is facing, assuming an attacker is in that position, or does it also consider an attack from a different direction?  By claiming a stance is "correct", does this assume maximum stability from all directions, with regard to someone else's ability or inability to push you over?  Or have I completely missed the idea and it is something else entirely?  I guess I am wondering about someone who might purposely use a less-rooted, higher and narrower stance to increase mobility, for example.  Is this somehow "incorrect", and if so, why?

A few threads ago DOC posted an exercise illustrating how having one finger out of place can compromise the stability of a body position.  I tried the exercise, and I agree that it showed what was claimed.  However, again going back to the notion that combat is dynamic and constantly changing, requiring one to constantly change in the blink of an eye in response, how can one really be concerned with things like the misplacement of a single finger, so long as the finger is not postioned where it could be caught by the attacker and torn off, or otherwise injured.  Of course the more one trains correctly, the more naturally and accurately one will use good positioning, stances, etc., but I just wonder if some of these ideas reach a level of theory that may be true, but is impossible to effectively translate into practice.  Only a robot can have constant and unwavering accuracy in performing a physical movement, and humans are not robots (i should certainly hope, anyway).

So if anyone involved in this thread could help clarify these things, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Doc

Bode said:
			
		

> It's diffucult on a forum to describe the exact posture or angle of the chin, but I imagine what you describes is much closer than we assume. I believe the best description would be a 90 degree angle of chin to neck. Is that correct Doc?


Pretty much, but individual anatomical geometric variances in proportions affects the proper posture position. "Chin up" as a descriptor is as opposed to average normal position most people assume, NOT pointing upward. But then when engaged in active resistance in a head-lock scenario, it should be up high. So as I always say, "Everything matters."

Additionally the idea of the chin down as a general strategy to prevent knock outs comes from a blunt force trauma perspective, completely ignorant of other factors of anatomical alignment associated with non-sporting activities. Perhaps when I'm in Texas in a couple weeks we can get a volunteer so I might demontrate the significant differences the oppoing postures present.


----------



## eyebeams

Doc said:
			
		

> Additionally the idea of the chin down as a general strategy to prevent knock outs comes from a blunt force trauma perspective, completely ignorant of other factors of anatomical alignment associated with non-sporting activities.



Please cite the relevant studies that would contradict evidence gained over decades in multiple combat sports, including how the principle would be nullified outside the limits of said sports. Knockouts are typically caused by violent acceleration, especially rotation. Keeping your chin tucked has repeatedly, demonstrably reduced the opportunity and severity of strikes causing this in the face and jaw without having adverse effect anywhere else. I can't speak for more obscure or mysterious methods, but then again, since they're obscure or mysterious they aren't typical self-defense problems.


----------



## Bode

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Keeping your chin tucked has repeatedly, demonstrably reduced the opportunity and severity of strikes causing this in the face and jaw without having adverse effect anywhere else.



I'm sorry, I never read that study. Could you cite said study? I'd appreciate it... (Wish I had time for a longer reply).


----------



## eyebeams

Bode said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I never read that study. Could you cite said study? I'd appreciate it... (Wish I had time for a longer reply).



You misread my statement. It's well known from decades of combat sports participation from thousands of athletes that keeping your chin tucked reduces the risks. Any sport where hard head contact is a risk has coaching that advises you to do this. There are many examples of matches where people who don't do this get tagged on the chin and get KO'd.

So for Doc's statement to be significant, it needs to bring evidence to bear that has more legitimacy than the experiences noted by literally thousands of athletes and coaches, from boxers and MMA practitioners to football players, many of whom can be assumed to have more scientific expertise on hand to ensure peak performance than any group of martial artists, anywhere.

Such evidence would not only have to have raw persuasive power, it would have to explain why this heretofore thought silly tactic of keeping the chin is popular and why that popularity among trained amatuer and professional athletes should not be followed in a self-defense context.

And finally, even if one were to appeal to Chinese "martial science," one would have to ask why members of CMA linages and known CMA theory also recommends keeping your chin down.

Advice to keep your chin up is, therefore, an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## Hand Sword

I would definitely recommend keeping your chin tucked in a real fight.


----------



## JamesB

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You misread my statement. It's well known from decades of combat sports participation from thousands of athletes that keeping your chin tucked reduces the risks. Any sport where hard head contact is a risk has coaching that advises you to do this. There are many examples of matches where people who don't do this get tagged on the chin and get KO'd.


 
bearing in mind that you are referring to sports where each competitor wears huge protective gloves, the reason why there is less likelyhood of being K.O.d might be because the fist can't actually reach the chin (when tucked in)...just because of the size of the gloves. The coaches will advise their competitors to 'tuck in' not because they understand the science so much, but they know that it is more difficult to hit a small target this way. 

Take the gloves off, get rid of the referee, and I would suggest the 'chin down' would become a more viable target. Not only that, the chin-down would contribute to an overall lessening of your defensive posture and lead to worse problems than being popped on the chin...I'm quoting Doc here btw.

thoughts anyone?


----------



## Hand Sword

A chin up, means a hit drives to jaw back into the brain stem, ending in a knock out, or at leat extremely dazed. Plus it exposes the throat to a hit, which might mean your death. BTW, the gloves came after boxing was around. The covering up for defense is still legit, gloves on or off.


----------



## Shortay

As far as I understand it, the position of the chin from the perspective Doc is speaking of is nothing to do with the chin as a target in a fight, it is the position of the chin relative to the rest of the body, that will create alignment that gives you a much better chance of successfully defending the attack.

For me as a shorter, smaller female, I cannot rely on great strength or power from my stature as other larger guys can. Doc says "everything matters", well everything really matters for me as my assailants are always likely to be much bigger and stronger than I am. 

As James says, it is reasonable that boxers etc tuck their chin in to not have an obviously target sticking out there, but in the techniques we do, I have felt the difference between tucking my chin in and keeping it up. The position of my chin when someone attacks me with a bear hug from the rear can be the difference between them being able to pick me up and not.

I can't speak for the years of other fighters doing other things, I can only speak from my own experiences.

respectfully,

Claire


----------



## Doc

JamesB said:
			
		

> bearing in mind that you are referring to sports where each competitor wears huge protective gloves, the reason why there is less likelyhood of being K.O.d might be because the fist can't actually reach the chin (when tucked in)...just because of the size of the gloves. The coaches will advise their competitors to 'tuck in' not because they understand the science so much, but they know that it is more difficult to hit a small target this way.
> 
> Take the gloves off, get rid of the referee, and I would suggest the 'chin down' would become a more viable target. Not only that, the chin-down would contribute to an overall lessening of your defensive posture and lead to worse problems than being popped on the chin...I'm quoting Doc here btw.
> 
> thoughts anyone?


You're correct James, and sporting contests do present a different perspective. Interestibly enough, when the 'gloveless' Marcus of Queensbury Rules were the norm in boxing, the "chin up" position was standard posture for boxers. Only when the gloves were installed to protect the hands, which permitted harder BFT strikes did the posture change. Additionally, it is the combination of overall posture in conjunction with the chin position that contributes to the vulnerability or lack thereof. Funny how in the ultimate contact sport of American Football, the first thing an offensive or defensive lineman is taught is to get the chin up from the three point stance at the snap of the ball. My demo with the UCLA football team more than half my age demonstrated why.


----------



## Hand Sword

Football and fighting......Apples and Oranges! But, to stay with it... Funny how, a running back is told to go head down (chin down) and flat back when ramming into someone.

As for the gloveless boxing, Head up until a punch was coming then "turtle" to defend. Plus, it's a natural response when a strike is coming toward the head. The arms come up and the head  comes down. Look at a startle response as well. The chin tucks, shoulders come up, with the hands, and you lean forward.

P.S. : the gloves were used to stop the grabbing that was going on, and those early ones were pretty thin too.


----------



## Doc

Shortay said:
			
		

> As far as I understand it, the position of the chin from the perspective Doc is speaking of is nothing to do with the chin as a target in a fight, it is the position of the chin relative to the rest of the body, that will create alignment that gives you a much better chance of successfully defending the attack.
> 
> For me as a shorter, smaller female, I cannot rely on great strength or power from my stature as other larger guys can. Doc says "everything matters", well everything really matters for me as my assailants are always likely to be much bigger and stronger than I am.
> 
> As James says, it is reasonable that boxers etc tuck their chin in to not have an obviously target sticking out there, but in the techniques we do, I have felt the difference between tucking my chin in and keeping it up. The position of my chin when someone attacks me with a bear hug from the rear can be the difference between them being able to pick me up and not.
> 
> I can't speak for the years of other fighters doing other things, I can only speak from my own experiences.
> 
> respectfully,
> 
> Claire


Very well said sweetie. One of the reasons boxers tuck the chin is because the head is the number one target of attack, and body secondary to open the head once again. In the art you have to defend the entire body without the luxury of 'rules.'


----------



## Hand Sword

In a squared off kickboxing/boxing range, it's still oncoming kicks and punches, (Yes to the head on the street!) rules or not, and an exposed chin and throat will get you into trouble.


----------



## eyebeams

JamesB said:
			
		

> bearing in mind that you are referring to sports where each competitor wears huge protective gloves, the reason why there is less likelyhood of being K.O.d might be because the fist can't actually reach the chin (when tucked in)...just because of the size of the gloves. The coaches will advise their competitors to 'tuck in' not because they understand the science so much, but they know that it is more difficult to hit a small target this way.
> 
> Take the gloves off, get rid of the referee, and I would suggest the 'chin down' would become a more viable target. Not only that, the chin-down would contribute to an overall lessening of your defensive posture and lead to worse problems than being popped on the chin...I'm quoting Doc here btw.
> 
> thoughts anyone?



My first thought is that if tucking your chin truly compromises your effective posture, then more work needs to be done on your posture. The guideline (suspension from the root to the fontanel) should naturally cause your chin to drop without affecting the spine. In fact, it's better for the spine according to CMA theory.

As for its superiority when it comes to dealing with a shot, you can test it yourself by seeing the difference in the range of lateral rotation between the chin-up and chin-down positions. I suppose it might be  a problem if you have trouble looking behind you with minimal head movement, but this is a trainable attribute and, well, you can always put your chin back, can't you? I can also see problems for people abnormally low flexibility in the neck -- but I mean, *abnormally.*

On that topic, this subject really emphasizes the importance of basic physical fitness, especially stabilizing strength and flexibility, as well as the ability to perform movements with a certain degree of isolation and the coordination to issue force from multiple positions. If you do not have the physical prerequisites, you might have problems, but I'm not talking about an athletic level of strength or force against force -- I'm talking about a minimum threshold. Otherwise, you will experience fatigue in successive muscle groups related to, but not ideally suited to, the required task.

(This last is something you experience all the time in office work, sitting in a bad chair or using a mouse.)

I know some of you are raring do go on about "strength not being necessary," so let me say again, this is not athleticism. It's the strength you ought to have if you don't have a physical disability of some kind.

What might also be likely is simply not being used to the proper position. People with poor kinestetic sense tend to look down at their own bodies, as to people assumin reflexive defensive postures. Then you have people taking dominance postures, either through instinct or through training (a typical "attention stance" or a bad "natural stance" is usually taught this way because of militant customs). This just takes practice to overcome -- same as anything.

I am personally not too familiar with using gloves, since I normally only ever use them on a heavy bag. But having been punched in the face and having punched people in the face, I can personally attest to the difference. Without a chin tuck, even a glancing blow lauched with serious power can move your head enough to create momentary confusion. Personal experience and the experience of many, many other people are what inform my opinion.


----------



## eyebeams

Doc said:
			
		

> Very well said sweetie. One of the reasons boxers tuck the chin is because the head is the number one target of attack, and body secondary to open the head once again. In the art you have to defend the entire body without the luxury of 'rules.'



Actually, people still aim for your head quite a bit. Sportfighting where the entire body is a target hasn't abandoned the method, either.

As for old boxing, you may be confusing staged poses (which were the custom in the era of long exposures) with how fighters actually traded blows. The few old legit (not staged) films I've seen don't have that kind of upright stiffness, nor do modern practitioners (MMA kyokushin and offshoots) who use minimal to no hand protection.


----------



## eyebeams

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> In a squared off kickboxing/boxing range, it's still oncoming kicks and punches, (Yes to the head on the street!) rules or not, and an exposed chin and throat will get you into trouble.



Well yes. Sensible tucking also helps protect against a variety of ye olde "street" attacks, including throat shots and choke attempts. Not tucking seems, thusfar, to provide a primarily ideological benefit.


----------



## eyebeams

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Football and fighting......Apples and Oranges! But, to stay with it... Funny how, a running back is told to go head down (chin down) and flat back when ramming into someone.



Linemen have to start heads up because they wouldn't see much otherwise.


----------



## Hand Sword

Exactly why I said apples and oranges.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I wonder if I could get someone to back up a bit and give a little clarification for those of us who did not study EPAK kenpo from which it seems much of the terminology and concepts come from.
> 
> I see a lot of references to "body indexing", and its correctness or incorrectnes. Could someone please explain in plain English what this is referring to?
> 
> I have seen references to stances and positions being "anatomically correct", and would like to better understand the concept with regard to martial positioning. I certainly understand what the term means in the general sense, but am not sure I see how it can be strictly applied in the dynamic circumstances of the martial arts. Since a combat situation is dynamic and changes constantly, how do you support any claims that variations in things like stances will make it "anatomically incorrect"? One must contantly move, shift, and make adjustments to respond to a changing situation, so variations are guaranteed to occur during this process.
> 
> If a stance is "correct", I assume that means it is most stable. But is this in reference to the direction in which the stance is facing, assuming an attacker is in that position, or does it also consider an attack from a different direction? By claiming a stance is "correct", does this assume maximum stability from all directions, with regard to someone else's ability or inability to push you over? Or have I completely missed the idea and it is something else entirely? I guess I am wondering about someone who might purposely use a less-rooted, higher and narrower stance to increase mobility, for example. Is this somehow "incorrect", and if so, why?
> 
> A few threads ago DOC posted an exercise illustrating how having one finger out of place can compromise the stability of a body position. I tried the exercise, and I agree that it showed what was claimed. However, again going back to the notion that combat is dynamic and constantly changing, requiring one to constantly change in the blink of an eye in response, how can one really be concerned with things like the misplacement of a single finger, so long as the finger is not postioned where it could be caught by the attacker and torn off, or otherwise injured. Of course the more one trains correctly, the more naturally and accurately one will use good positioning, stances, etc., but I just wonder if some of these ideas reach a level of theory that may be true, but is impossible to effectively translate into practice. Only a robot can have constant and unwavering accuracy in performing a physical movement, and humans are not robots (i should certainly hope, anyway).
> 
> So if anyone involved in this thread could help clarify these things, I would appreciate it.


 
Slightly off topic, but this reminds me of a thread on here regarding Dillman.  Dillman attempted a KO, which failed.  He then goes on to state that the person having it done to them must have countered it by having his toe up, his tounge on a certain side of his mouth, etc. 

I do agree though...there will be constant movement during a confrontation, so yes, I can imagine it'd be difficult to always maintain things in a perfect, textbook fashion.

Mike


----------



## MJS

JamesB said:
			
		

> bearing in mind that you are referring to sports where each competitor wears huge protective gloves, the reason why there is less likelyhood of being K.O.d might be because the fist can't actually reach the chin (when tucked in)...just because of the size of the gloves. The coaches will advise their competitors to 'tuck in' not because they understand the science so much, but they know that it is more difficult to hit a small target this way.
> 
> Take the gloves off, get rid of the referee, and I would suggest the 'chin down' would become a more viable target. Not only that, the chin-down would contribute to an overall lessening of your defensive posture and lead to worse problems than being popped on the chin...I'm quoting Doc here btw.
> 
> thoughts anyone?


 
I disagree.  The gloves may play a small part in it, but even without the gloves, good hand position along with the shoulders, will play a big part in protecting the chin and jaw area.

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane

JamesB said:
			
		

> Not only that, the chin-down would contribute to an overall lessening of your defensive posture and lead to worse problems than being popped on the chin...I'm quoting Doc here btw.
> 
> thoughts anyone?


 
I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this thought more deeply.  In what way does it lead to an overall lessening of your defensive posture, and lead to worse problems?  Thanks.


----------



## JamesB

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this thought more deeply. In what way does it lead to an overall lessening of your defensive posture, and lead to worse problems? Thanks.


 
from my own experience in being taught, the position and orientation of the head (and therefore chin) is important enough to pay considerable attention to. The way we test our stances is to assume the posture in question (i.e neutral bow) and have someone apply steady pressure from the direction in which the stance is intended to be strong. The arms can be held in certain configurations too, such as extending the lead arm to a 'palm heel' and chambering the 'rear' arm. It all depends on what you want to test.

In the above example, your 'helper' would then push against your extended palm, the goal being to try and collapse your arm+upper body. The idea of course is to assume a posture where your body cannot be manipulated within the context of this test. This is all done to verify that these specific postures that are being taught actually work when tested under load - i.e. there is a valid reason for training with that amount of detail. 

I have found that holding the chin level results in a very stable and strong stance (without me actually exerting myself). However lowering my chin resulted in my entire upper body losing stablity - my extended arm would collapse and my body was inherently maniputable. The upshot is, my striking potential was severly reduced, but worse than this was the fact that my stance was unstable - someone could easily push/pull/tackle me or otherwise do harm (strikes to the body would hurt more also).

The position of the head goes way beyond a 'fighting stance' also - there are specific postures to defend against bearhugs, grapples, and all manner of attacks. The 'chin up' is appropriate in some senarious, in others it is not. I can't even begin to explain any further than this because underlying body-physics is beyond me. It's *very* cool when your shown how to do it though 

Notice that Doc's initial 'chin up' comment was geared towards the formation of a 'correct' neutral-bow, the purpose of which is to establish stability and strength throughout the body - at no point has an application beyond this been suggested or implied, yet the direction of the thread immediately veered towards the 'they do it in sports/MMA' without considering what context was being discussed.

don't know if that answered your question..
cheers,
James


----------



## Flying Crane

JamesB said:
			
		

> from my own experience in being taught, the position and orientation of the head (and therefore chin) is important enough to pay considerable attention to. The way we test our stances is to assume the posture in question (i.e neutral bow) and have someone apply steady pressure from the direction in which the stance is intended to be strong. The arms can be held in certain configurations too, such as extending the lead arm to a 'palm heel' and chambering the 'rear' arm. It all depends on what you want to test.
> 
> In the above example, your 'helper' would then push against your extended palm, the goal being to try and collapse your arm+upper body. The idea of course is to assume a posture where your body cannot be manipulated within the context of this test. This is all done to verify that these specific postures that are being taught actually work when tested under load - i.e. there is a valid reason for training with that amount of detail.
> 
> I have found that holding the chin level results in a very stable and strong stance (without me actually exerting myself). However lowering my chin resulted in my entire upper body losing stablity - my extended arm would collapse and my body was inherently maniputable. The upshot is, my striking potential was severly reduced, but worse than this was the fact that my stance was unstable - someone could easily push/pull/tackle me or otherwise do harm (strikes to the body would hurt more also).
> 
> The position of the head goes way beyond a 'fighting stance' also - there are specific postures to defend against bearhugs, grapples, and all manner of attacks. The 'chin up' is appropriate in some senarious, in others it is not. I can't even begin to explain any further than this because underlying body-physics is beyond me. It's *very* cool when your shown how to do it though
> 
> Notice that Doc's initial 'chin up' comment was geared towards the formation of a 'correct' neutral-bow, the purpose of which is to establish stability and strength throughout the body - at no point has an application beyond this been suggested or implied, yet the direction of the thread immediately veered towards the 'they do it in sports/MMA' without considering what context was being discussed.
> 
> don't know if that answered your question..
> cheers,
> James


 
Thank you, that was the kind of answer I was looking for.  Putting it into context, and explaining what is actually being tested, and what the goals are.  Much appreciated.


----------



## Hand Sword

Don't worry about the trifles (I know I read that somewhere before?)Chances are, if it is a real encounter, you got caught unaware, so you won't be able to drop into a neutral bow stance anyway.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Back to the "can you cite that?" garbage, eh? Do you know how many double-blind, RCT's have been conducted around the basic knee-jerk reflex to validate it as a measure of neurologic integrity? None. Zip. Nichts. Nada. Nein. Some people have brisk reflexes who are in dire shape; pristine athletes in the peak of health may have none. Yet, we know enough about neurology to recognize it as a sign of pathology in certain presentations.  Oh yeah...that dickens of a word; context.

Some basic reflexes, and how we can measure them or screw with them.

Righting reflex: Eyes provided data to the brain, which rights the skull to a visual horizon.  Look down the street without straining: This is the most neutral position for the skull and neck in relationship to each other (nope...sorry, don't have a citation; nor do I have the desire to hunt them down). Incidentally, it COMPARATIVELY is "chin up" compared to what most folks do when concentrating, which is to tuck their chins, and look out through the orbits with the eyes COMPARATIVELY looking up.

Tipping the chin down into  partially flexed position creates subtle transient pressure on the nerve roots by closing down the neural foramen (particularly in flexion with rotation...which we happen to be in when we are turned sideways at the body but looking at an opponent, as in a neutral bow or sideways horse).

Experiment (I do this regularly to make a point about posture to my patients): Get a Jaymar dynamometer. It measures grip strength. Get a mean on 3 grips standing in a neutral position, staring of to the horizon (chin up...not "looking up", but not tucked either).  Now, look down wih the chin, keeping the eyes looking off to the horizon. Take 3 measurements, and get the mean. On MOST of the population (don't inform them why you're doing this in advance...just do it, get the data, and see if it supports a null hypothesis) you will see a notable difference in a reduction of grip strength in the chin-tucked position. 

Odd thing: It will also effect dysdiadochokinesia tests of the lower extremities. Osteopaths would say this was due not to neural foramen closure, but rather to stretching of the dura around the brain and spinal cord, effecting blood and nerve flow through the entire body. But, of course, there are no RCT studies to prove or disprove it. Just as there are none to support or disprove Chinese martial arts concepts like a "guideline" (and yet, we see it's effect on position in gung-fu, and health in TCM).

To be fair...if you're going to demand citations for unsubstantiated, esoteric or theoretic constructs offered by others on this forum, you should restrict yourself from making counter-claims that are just as unsubstantiated, without supporting research evidence. Did you require citations on the biomechanics of gait before learning to walk? Without them, surely your feet will not work. Just don't tell that to the infants curently busy working out how to put one foot in front of the other...might mess up their whole life.

I gotta get back to the hospital. The medical dieties, using their best methods of scientifically-proven care and intervention, are killing my father in law with un-thought out uses of meds, out of the context of the research of those meds, and the side-effects of these meds clashing, and causing more silly stuff to go wrong. But hey; they got research to back 'em and funding to inform them, so they must be right.

Regards (and offline for a spell, so hate mail will likely go unresponded to),

Dave


----------



## Flying Crane

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Back to the "can you cite that?" garbage, eh? Do you know how many double-blind, RCT's have been conducted around the basic knee-jerk reflex to validate it as a measure of neurologic integrity? None. Zip. Nichts. Nada. Nein. Some people have brisk reflexes who are in dire shape; pristine athletes in the peak of health may have none. Yet, we know enough about neurology to recognize it as a sign of pathology in certain presentations. Oh yeah...that dickens of a word; context.
> 
> Some basic reflexes, and how we can measure them or screw with them.
> 
> Righting reflex: Eyes provided data to the brain, which rights the skull to a visual horizon. Look down the street without straining: This is the most neutral position for the skull and neck in relationship to each other (nope...sorry, don't have a citation; nor do I have the desire to hunt them down). Incidentally, it COMPARATIVELY is "chin up" compared to what most folks do when concentrating, which is to tuck their chins, and look out through the orbits with the eyes COMPARATIVELY looking up.
> 
> Tipping the chin down into partially flexed position creates subtle transient pressure on the nerve roots by closing down the neural foramen (particularly in flexion with rotation...which we happen to be in when we are turned sideways at the body but looking at an opponent, as in a neutral bow or sideways horse).
> 
> Experiment (I do this regularly to make a point about posture to my patients): Get a Jaymar dynamometer. It measures grip strength. Get a mean on 3 grips standing in a neutral position, staring of to the horizon (chin up...not "looking up", but not tucked either). Now, look down wih the chin, keeping the eyes looking off to the horizon. Take 3 measurements, and get the mean. On MOST of the population (don't inform them why you're doing this in advance...just do it, get the data, and see if it supports a null hypothesis) you will see a notable difference in a reduction of grip strength in the chin-tucked position.
> 
> Odd thing: It will also effect dysdiadochokinesia tests of the lower extremities. Osteopaths would say this was due not to neural foramen closure, but rather to stretching of the dura around the brain and spinal cord, effecting blood and nerve flow through the entire body. But, of course, there are no RCT studies to prove or disprove it. Just as there are none to support or disprove Chinese martial arts concepts like a "guideline" (and yet, we see it's effect on position in gung-fu, and health in TCM).
> 
> To be fair...if you're going to demand citations for unsubstantiated, esoteric or theoretic constructs offered by others on this forum, you should restrict yourself from making counter-claims that are just as unsubstantiated, without supporting research evidence. Did you require citations on the biomechanics of gait before learning to walk? Without them, surely your feet will not work. Just don't tell that to the infants curently busy working out how to put one foot in front of the other...might mess up their whole life.
> 
> I gotta get back to the hospital. The medical dieties, using their best methods of scientifically-proven care and intervention, are killing my father in law with un-thought out uses of meds, out of the context of the research of those meds, and the side-effects of these meds clashing, and causing more silly stuff to go wrong. But hey; they got research to back 'em and funding to inform them, so they must be right.
> 
> Regards (and offline for a spell, so hate mail will likely go unresponded to),
> 
> Dave


 
Thank you for this response Dave.  I appreciate you taking the time to explain the WHY behind some of the things that are being said.

My own personal frustrations with this and other threads is that it seems often claims are made, but no reasoning is given along with the claim.  I am not asking for scientific journal references, but just a little bit of the reasoning behind what is being said is helpful.

When someone just claims something vague like "body indexing in XYZ stance with your chin and hands in XYZ position is wrong, and leaves you in a weak and vulnerable position that will cause you all kinds of problems", but they don't say WHY this is so or just what the hell they are talking about, I have a hard time swallowing it, especially when we are talking about very minor differences in positioning.

I am still hoping that someone will give a clear, plain English description of what is meant by INDEXING, when used in these discussions.  I keep seeing the term "BODY INDEXING" being tossed around, but again, without any clear notion of what is being said, it is meaningless to me.

I am always hoping to gain some insight from these discussions.  My position is: if you make a claim regarding a better vs. worse way to do something, especially when the only difference is in the very minor details, then just explain it.  I want to learn something, and I am giving anybody a chance to convince me of the truth of what they are saying.  So please, take a moment and convince me.  Don't just throw out jargon that those of us who have not studied the same stuff won't understand, and then expect that to suffice.  Again, I am not expecting references to medical journals.  I am an intellingent, well educated person and I have a high capacity to reason things out.  If you can explain something in a way that makes sense to me, then OK, i'll be convinced.  I don't need citations to prove it to me, because I understand that much of this stuff, especially within the context of the Martial Arts, has never been studied and reported on in that manner.

Only a couple posts on this thread, including this one, bothered to give a glimpse of the reasoning behind the claims that were made.  Many posts consisted of a simple "no, you are wrong" kind of answer to a prior post.  This helps no one.  If the prior post was wrong, please explain why.

Maybe some of this stuff was explained years ago on Martial Talk, prior to my own membership.  Maybe some of the people who have been around for that long get tired of saying it over and over.  Well, most of us probably don't have the time to search out all the old threads in hopes of finding the spot where a particular point was defined three years ago, in order to understand a thread that is happening today.  Without some explanation to the claims being made, I remain unconvinced.  But with a convincing argument, I will be convinced. 

Once again, thank you for this post, it is appreciated.


----------



## Bode

Flying Crane, part of the problem is, as you suggest, these topics have been hashed and re-hashed. Doc, from what I understand does get a bit tired of repeating and I can't say I blame him. I come on as often as I can and help out, but lately, that's been very little. 

Dave wasn't suggesting that YOU wanted a citation or reference. I think he was replying to Eyebeams. 

On the subject of what indexing is... Dave went off about it a while back in this series of post starting here

Basically, think of indexes as anatomically correct movement when moving from point A to point B that maximizes muscle recruitment and skelatal alignment. It's never as simple as "move your hand from here to here"... it's how you get there.


----------



## Flying Crane

Bode said:
			
		

> Flying Crane, part of the problem is, as you suggest, these topics have been hashed and re-hashed. Doc, from what I understand does get a bit tired of repeating and I can't say I blame him. I come on as often as I can and help out, but lately, that's been very little.
> 
> Dave wasn't suggesting that YOU wanted a citation or reference. I think he was replying to Eyebeams.
> 
> On the subject of what indexing is... Dave went off about it a while back in this series of post starting here
> 
> Basically, think of indexes as anatomically correct movement when moving from point A to point B that maximizes muscle recruitment and skelatal alignment. It's never as simple as "move your hand from here to here"... it's how you get there.


 
Thanks for this reply, and I understand that Dave's comments were not aimed at me.  I was just airing my frustration at how things sometimes get played out in the threads, and in this case I'm mostly on the sidelines watching the show, but i feel like i'm getting very little information from what is being said.  Thanks also for the link to where indexing is discussed.  I'll check it out, and hopefully it will put me into a better position to understand some of the things being said.  Much appreciated.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Well, most of us probably don't have the time to search out all the old threads ...


I feel your pain.


----------



## JamesB

To get back on the subject of neutral-bows, I've just starting reading a book called "Opening the Energy Gates of the Body" by B.K. Frantzis. He's a Bagua/Taijichaun person. In this book he details the placement of one's feet during Chi Gung practice. He says:

"Begin standing with the outer edges of your feet somewhere between hip and shoulder-width apart....." and goes on to say "Feet are parallel"

The diagram in the book appears to show the outside of the feet to be parallel (toe-in basically) but it's not too clear that I can be definite about this. Although he does go on to say the following:

"Parallel placement of the feet means that the distance between the toes is the same as the distance between the heels, and one foot is neither in front of nor in back of the other". He also says that feet turned inwards is 'incorrect' as far as the subject of the book is concerned. 

His point about distance between toes vs heel confuses me, it seems contradictory to the idea of the outside of the feet being parallel. Perhaps he means that turning the outsides of the feet inward is incorrect.

In my experience having the outside of the feet parallel yields a stronger stance. I would guess that this would not be to the detriment of 'chigung' practices but I don't know - this book I'm reading hints that maybe it is. Comments anyone?

:idunno: 


james


----------



## Michael Billings

Glenn Haley, one of John Sepulveda's Black Belts, just gave me a copy of *Ed Parker's KENPO KARATE* Volume 1 THE BASICS.  Written by Ed Parker and Tom Gow.  Photos by Daniel L. Gow.  Front page picture was Kealoha Parker (with a knife), Ed Parker, and Tom Gow.  So two pictures of Mr. Parker in the photo.  

Anyhow, it was copywritten circa 1967 by Thomas Gow.  In it are very clear pictures, with anatomical alignment of Plate 1 Stances: Horse, Neutral & Front Bow.  The Horse as in Infinite Insights Volume I; the Picture 1-3 Horse (Fighting Position); and 1-4 Neutral Bow and Arrow.

The interesting thing is that it is clear that the  Fighting Horse is what many here are defining as a Neutral Bow.  The Neutral Bow (Side View) clearly illustrates that the upper torso is rotated more to the front than is what is being described here.  It allows the rear arm to be more available.  Also of interest is the chin being up more in the Neutral Bow than in the Horse Stance (fighting), slightly.  

Now the person in the pictures is a very dark haired, lean Edmund Kealoha Parker, Sr.  I cannot scan this now, but will try to get this page scanned on Monday.  

Doc I am certain has seen this.  It looks a lot like a pamplet article you would give to your new students after they sign up.  It is neat to see this. 

-Michael


----------



## pete

JamesB said:
			
		

> I've just starting reading a book called "Opening the Energy Gates of the Body" by B.K. Frantzis. He's a Bagua/Taijichaun person. In this book he details the placement of one's feet during Chi Gung practice.


 excellent book! i train in bagua under one of his students from the mid-seventies. the idea there is to maintain a connection through your feet into the ground, and complete a circuit by which your energy will flow. the only way for the path of the circuit to connect is to open the inguinal crease (or, kua) by relaxing the hip joints, keep the knee joints open and pushed outward so they remain over the feet (or big toe to be exact), and to keep the feet parallel from the outside so that becomes the apex of the circle and somewhere under the floor is where your energy path from your right foot will connect to that of the left.

the confusing part is that sometimes 'outside of the foot' is discussed as the outer or pinky edge in comparison to the 'inside edge' or the big toe side. sometimes 'outside of the foot' is used to describe the entire outside perimeter in comparison to the inside as the center sole. the former is generally used in physical weighting and direction while the latter is more for directing internal energy paths and connections.

further, the inside edge of the big toe (up to the ball of the foot) lines up to be parallel with the outside edge of the foot from the pink joint down... so, either upper inside or lower outside edges can be used as external guides in aligning the feet.

however the best way is to feel your way into the proper position internally. the i've been shown how the position of the feet become intregal to the unity of the lower body with the upper body. if the feet are not aligned properly, not only will the energy path be disrupted, but the lower back will remain closed. an open lower back and straightened spine are needed to unite the upper and lower.

i've found these IMA principles are completely compatible with Kenpo and the footwork found in Bagua is wild...

pete


----------



## Doc

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Glenn Haley, one of John Sepulveda's Black Belts, just gave me a copy of *Ed Parker's KENPO KARATE* Volume 1 THE BASICS.  Written by Ed Parker and Tom Gow.  Photos by Daniel L. Gow.  Front page picture was Kealoha Parker (with a knife), Ed Parker, and Tom Gow.  So two pictures of Mr. Parker in the photo.
> 
> Anyhow, it was copywritten circa 1967 by Thomas Gow.  In it are very clear pictures, with anatomical alignment of Plate 1 Stances: Horse, Neutral & Front Bow.  The Horse as in Infinite Insights Volume I; the Picture 1-3 Horse (Fighting Position); and 1-4 Neutral Bow and Arrow.
> 
> The interesting thing is that it is clear that the  Fighting Horse is what many here are defining as a Neutral Bow.  The Neutral Bow (Side View) clearly illustrates that the upper torso is rotated more to the front than is what is being described here.  It allows the rear arm to be more available.  Also of interest is the chin being up more in the Neutral Bow than in the Horse Stance (fighting), slightly.
> 
> Now the person in the pictures is a very dark haired, lean Edmund Kealoha Parker, Sr.  I cannot scan this now, but will try to get this page scanned on Monday.
> 
> Doc I am certain has seen this.  It looks a lot like a pamplet article you would give to your new students after they sign up.  It is neat to see this.
> 
> -Michael


Yes sir, I have a couple of copies of the "Basics Booklet." The 'fighting horse' generated so much confusion, Parker dropped it from the system. It was a carry over from Ark Wong's teaching.


----------



## Doc

Doc said:
			
		

> Yes sir, I have a couple of copies of the "Basics Booklet." The 'fighting horse' generated so much confusion, Parker dropped it from the system. It was a carry over from Ark Wong's teaching.


To follow up; Parker had planned a series of these booklets, but some of the information contained within the first one was obsolete almost immediately as he changed things not only personally but commercially. 

He further didn't like the reaction of students who, seeing him demonstrate something in print, cast it in stone and made any revisions of information difficult. For this reason, with one exception he never demonstrated anything again for mass consumption, choosing instead to allow someone else to demo ideas. When I asked him why he didn't do it himself he said, "People expect me to be perfect and never make a mistake, or change my mind about how to do something. Sometimes I don't even know what I want."


----------



## Michael Billings

I actually use the fighting horse, usually in transition, as it still has a good defensive function.  It provides perhaps more stability in the depth dimension, albeit momentarily.  It is still taught in the Chinese Kenpo system I came out of in the late 70's to early/mid 80's.  I have been to seminars with them and it is still there in Book Set or for us in Two-Man Set.

-Michael


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Yep. I was taught the fighting horse as my 3rd kenpo stance as a white belt in 1971. Horse; Neutral Bow, ForwardStance (bow( and Reverse Bow. Still have a hard time hitting a neutral bow without deviating to a fighting horse.

Regards,

D.


----------



## eyebeams

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Tipping the chin down into partially flexed position creates subtle transient pressure on the nerve roots by closing down the neural foramen (particularly in flexion with rotation...which we happen to be in when we are turned sideways at the body but looking at an opponent, as in a neutral bow or sideways horse).



Tucking your chin in this method is indeed incorrect. That's why it ain't what CMA teaches. The chin should hang lower from correcting the position of the cervical vertebrae and raising the spot where the frontal and parietal bones of the skull meet. It should not be a "flexed position." Your chin should naturally drop. I cannot really speak to the experiences of people who are tucking their chins improperly, really.



> To be fair...if you're going to demand citations for unsubstantiated, esoteric or theoretic constructs offered by others on this forum, you should restrict yourself from making counter-claims that are just as unsubstantiated, without supporting research evidence. Did you require citations on the biomechanics of gait before learning to walk? Without them, surely your feet will not work. Just don't tell that to the infants curently busy working out how to put one foot in front of the other...might mess up their whole life.



That rather shows my point about the thousands of combat sport athletes who have confirmed that tucking works, doesn't it? It's already been taken to the best "lab" that could be found, over and over again.


----------



## Andrew Green

Doc said:
			
		

> You're correct James, and sporting contests do present a different perspective. Interestibly enough, when the 'gloveless' Marcus of Queensbury Rules were the norm in boxing,



The what now?

The Marquis of Queensbury rules had gloves involved right from the beginning.

Perhaps you are thinking of the London Prize Rules?  or Broughtons rules?

But the chin was always down, advising anyone to keep it up is putting them in danger.



> the "chin up" position was standard posture for boxers.



Not really, most of the stylized pictures of the time don't really reflect it, but the chin has always been tucked in a bit.

Chin up is more annotomically strong for certain things, I'll give you that. Anyone that wants to test this need only attempt a squat or deadlift with their chin down. But once people start trying to punch you in the chin things change.


----------



## MJS

Ok, maybe I'm just not reading things right, but this is the impression I'm getting.  We're talking about the position of the chin while in the NB.  Reading the posts, talking about stability, I'm guessing we're talking stability from a static position?  So, when happens to the chin position when movement starts to happen?  What happens when someone is trying to grab us, take us down, etc.?  I'd think we're not going to be keeping our chin in the same position.  So, isn't that going to effect the stability of the stance?

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:
			
		

> Ok, maybe I'm just not reading things right, but this is the impression I'm getting. We're talking about the position of the chin while in the NB. Reading the posts, talking about stability, I'm guessing we're talking stability from a static position? So, when happens to the chin position when movement starts to happen? What happens when someone is trying to grab us, take us down, etc.? I'd think we're not going to be keeping our chin in the same position. So, isn't that going to effect the stability of the stance?
> 
> Mike


 
This is what I am also thinking.  It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances.  When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie.  Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter.  As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter.  I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect.  Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".


----------



## kenpo_cory

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".


 
I like that. I found that when i ask my instructor a question on something, most of the time his answer is "it depends"


----------



## Doc

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The what now?
> 
> The Marquis of Queensbury rules had gloves involved right from the beginning.
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of the London Prize Rules?  or Broughtons rules?


Actually, the London rules were revised and allowed for gloves but they were never mandatory under the Revised London Rules. When the Marquis, (multiple spellings) rules were first instituted they were the same. The initial feeling was real men dont use gloves. Gloves ultimately became mandatory under the rules to protect the hands of gentlemen.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is what I am also thinking. It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances. When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie. Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter. As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter. I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect. Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".


 
Structural integrity -- of which indexing is only part -- will allow you the ability to respond with greater speed, flexibility, and strength. Anatomical alignment can be maintained through and during motion. AS you move fom an NB to other positions in the rapid decay of personal defense, that can be done in such a way as to honor your bodies natural alignment, or diminish it. 

Dialogue about the NB in the static position is one topic. Maintaining anatomical integrity while moving offensively or defensively from it is another story; once again, there are ways to do it so you stay strong and agile at the same time, and ways to do it that defeat that purpose. Not being cryptic here, FYI: lotsa ways to step forward or lunge forward to attack an attack; only a few of which maintain structural integrity, each of which is perfectly doable in the heat of conflict.

One Doc has written about in other threads is the C-step version of a step-through forward or reverse, opposed to sliding the feet in straight paths forward or reverse. One compromises how you actually stay on your feet if and or as the guy crashes into you or you to him, while the other helps you maintain a stable foundation from which to react, even while you are in motion. Both also effect the stability (or lack thereof) when you come to rest in your next stance.

It's not just about the anal retentiveness of static stability; it's about setting your body up for maximum performance once you have to abandon that stance to respond to your opponent.

But it's a good observation. Media of communication again...so much more could be made so clear with just an hour in person to go over some of these details. Then light bulbs go on, and the questions stop being ideas in the mist, and start being specific things you implement into your training that change your basics from the ground, up (literally).

Best Regards,

Dave


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is what I am also thinking.  It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances.  When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie.  Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter.  As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter.  I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect.  Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".


Of course, you are correct, but the human body is a special type of living machine with special capabilities. The discussion centered around the unloaded static neutral bow, and the properly Indexed posture for a positive execution of the stance.

In reality, the human body has the ability to move fluidly between structurally solid and a loose connectivity or a disassociated structure mode. This ability is what gives the human machine its fluidity.

The idea is to understand the underlying mechanisms that allow you to call upon either as needed for dynamic human interaction.

In Martial Science, much like other sciences, there is a direct cause and effect to all activity. Martial Science draws on many different scientific disciplines, but all are in some way related to one another through the conduit of human anatomy. There exists a significant cause and effect interaction between all the many parts of human anatomy whether static or in motion. In any examination of the many martial postures and their transitions, the efficacy of its many positions are predicated upon, among many factors, weight distribution and an exacting posture relative to the physical activity at hand, and load.

The relative position of the feet to each other, and their movement, also significantly determines whether structural integrity is created or maintained. Lets discuss for a moment structural integrity in posture, movement, and weight distribution. Any variations in these categories beyond proper anatomical posture can diminish or enhance effectiveness on multiple levels offensively or defensively.

How you move your body in its entirety, the arms, feet, and even the head in particular, in martial science affects the stability of the complete body for a variety of reasons. For most, this probably is not news. However, what is probably new information to most is that some of the basic things taught in most martial arts fall quite comfortably into the negative and inefficient category. Surprisingly their effectiveness can be demonstrated to be much less than perceived. That is, when these things are tested in the light of reality, they fall well short of their well-intended goals. Lets us define efficiency relative to human physical activity in general, and martial science in particular.

Essentially, the human machine is a large gelatinous bag punctuated by multiple directionally dedicated and articulated appendages, connected by loose and flexible tissue. This semi solid shape is supported by an articulated and rigid substructure we call a skeleton.  This necessary substructure skeleton, supports the human body as the primary load bearing entity, but also simultaneously provides it with mobility and sustains its general shape. It also supplies the major structural frame for anatomical rigidity or solid structure on demand.

This relationship between the sub-structure frame, (skeleton) the connecting tissues, (ligaments, muscle, tendons), and the containment vessel epidermis (gelatinous bag) have a constant and perpetually active interaction relationship from one jiffy-second moment to the next. The system software or brain, constantly monitors all external stimuli from thousands of body sensors in general, and certain ones in particular through the autonomic nervous system. This utilizes a mechanism called Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation, (which functionally includes the Golgi Organ) and subsequently makes thousands of minute adjustments every millisecond to allow the machine on one level to function intuitively, and on another, to take directed commands from the central processing unit simultaneously.

By its very evolutionary design the human body unit operates in one of two non-destructive modes, operating either efficiently, or inefficiently. The inefficient mode I have termed Disassociated Anatomical Movement. In order to accomplish this, this extremely complex machine has an inherent ability to disconnect or create a more loose and flexible relationship between its many articulated parts, expressly for the purpose of performing movements and/or postures not necessarily anatomically structurally sound, but necessary for fluid human movement. Therefore, by the very nature of the body, not all movement is necessarily effective, efficient, or even structurally sound, even though it may be performed quite easily. This is the reason humans do not move like rigid robots or automatons.

Most modern martial arts place a heavy emphasis on immediate satisfactory results, and therefore usually are conceptually driven, allowing practitioners flexibility to achieve immediate short-term goals of questionable or elementary effectiveness. Unfortunately, these arts usually have levels of efficiency defined by some ranking process, and they include belts despite the lack of knowledge and quantifiable basic skills. Martial Arts clearly have taken on a business life of their own. A look in any martial arts magazine will yield pages of books and videos for those who believe they can actually learn this way and virtually teach themselves to mastery.

When any physical activity is taught with only an emphasis on conceptual movement or motion with no regard for anatomical structural requirements and physical mandates, than inefficient movement is the most likely results. The reason this can be confusing is that most martial arts instructors teach from this aesthetic perspective emphasizing the look, or even "sound" of a movement over the proper anatomical execution to obtain the desired results.

A lack of knowledge has created a plethora of interpretations as numerous as there are instructors. Thus, the western term martial art is indeed accurate because of this interpretive aesthetic perspective. Art, (in this instance artistic movement and postures) is clearly subjective, whereas martial science and its proper anatomical movement and postures are not. This explains why one martial art can have so many different interpretations from instructor to instructor, school to school, and even student to student.

This methodology is also inherent in cultural based martial discipline do (way) type arts that choose to emphasize a cultural and artistic methodology over an efficient anatomical results driven perspective. It is also, an unintentional byproduct of modern, eclectic, commercial, self-defense arts that lack sufficient foundation material beyond their conceptual design, as well. At least the traditional way arts emphasize consistency of movement and execution from student to student.

Oddly enough some of the most effective of these modern types arts are stripped down bare bones courses that at least allow participants to be attacked and retaliate against a person dressed in protective armor for a more realistic assessment of perceived skill development. This methodology also has the effect of introducing a level of Adrenal Stress to training that is also missing from most martial arts self-defense instruction.

Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an inefficient methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose disassociated mode to achieve the objective. The architectural human frame is designed to locomote forward partly deriving its balance from the swinging of the arm opposite the forward moving leg. Although the body can walk and move rearward, it does so inefficiently and in a definite disassociated mode.

As an example, when you walk backwards your arms do not swing naturally and balance is more difficult as a result. Additionally, moving forward aggressively without the ability to move your arms creates the same disassociated condition. The principle area affected in all of these situations begins with the Primary Disconnect Mechanism, the pelvic bone. The same holds true in any lateral movement as well.

However the converse of stepping backwards to meet resistance moving in the same direction as youre stepping, is stepping forward when you are being pulled forward. Both of these movements are inefficient and must have correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity.

Stepping rearward without the mechanism makes alignment impossible. Stepping forward however because the body functions to locomote forward naturally may create alignment, but only predicated on either how far or how many times you step, or if an additional correcting mechanism is involved.

Therefore to teach any execution that by necessity requires inefficient movement forward backward or laterally, first there must be recognition of these absolute anatomical facts, and second a mechanism must be designed to compensate, re-connect, or re-associate the body unit into singular structural integrity for efficient transference of power, or to resist body mass driven assaults. Additionally as previously stated, proper weight, distribution and postures are also mandated based on anatomical parameters, not aesthetics.

Other good examples can be found in various forms of footwork taught in most traditional and non-traditional arts alike. Lateral and forward movements where feet move toward one another create similar results of instability and structural disassociation as stepping back. Although all of these activities are a staple of most arts, anatomically speaking, such maneuvers lack structural stability, absent a necessary compensating mechanism.


----------



## Hand Sword

Doc said:
			
		

> Actually, the London rules were revised and allowed for gloves but they were never mandatory under the Revised London Rules. When the Marquis, (multiple spellings) rules were first instituted they were the same. The initial feeling was real men dont use gloves. Gloves ultimately became mandatory under the rules to protect the hands of gentlemen.


 
Not accurate. If you know boxing history, the gloves were not made to protect the hands of the gentlemen. In the pre rules version, there was a lot of grabbing and throwing down going on. The bigger guy would just over power the other, and throw him down. It was considered barbaric. The gloves were used to clean up the fighting, making it more gentlemen like, preventing the grabbing. Nothing more than that.


----------



## Hand Sword

I've noticed that this thread is going down 2 different roads at the same time. 1 being the correct posture of a NB, which is what was the original topic. The other, being the practicality of the mechanics the body is take, and how they apply for real. 

I will say this. The posture of the feet, body, and head/chin as discussed are correct. the technicalities are what they are. That being said, I would recommend, for those seeking the correct basics, to take the advice of those teachers here that have taken the time to give instructions.

As to reality and the self defense situations connected with it. I would say taking a flat footed, rooted stance, with chin up, would be GREATLY DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR PHYSICAL WELL BEING. Most street fights are either planned attacks catching you off guard, thus, nullifying any chance of dropping into a NB, or are being squared up with a fast moving advisary, changing directions, again nullifying any taking of a set stance. It was designed for that big, one punch coming from a drunk, where you have time to take a stance.

As for grabs and chin placement, let's be real! If you're grabbed, they are bigger and stronger. You will be moved no matter how you put your chin. If you were grabbed hold of, you were caught unaware, and you will be tossed. No one is just going to hold you.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> Of course, you are correct, but the human body is a special type of living machine with special capabilities. The discussion centered around the unloaded static neutral bow, and the properly Indexed posture for a positive execution of the stance.


 
Yes, thats correct.  However, a few things come to mind here. 1) How long can we discuss the stationary position before things become redundant? 2) Considering that no fight is going to be stationary, I'd say that it is relevant to the discussion to talk about movement.

Mike


----------



## jazkiljok

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Not accurate. If you know boxing history, the gloves were not made to protect the hands of the gentlemen. In the pre rules version, there was a lot of grabbing and throwing down going on. The bigger guy would just over power the other, and throw him down. It was considered barbaric. The gloves were used to clean up the fighting, making it more gentlemen like, preventing the grabbing. Nothing more than that.



i recall reading that John Broughton invented the first boxing gloves. they were called "mufflers," and designed to protect not only the hands but also the face from blows. Back in his day though, they were used only in practice, not in actual fights. below the waist was declared off limits by Broughton but wrestler holds were still allowed during this time.


----------



## Andrew Green

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Not accurate. If you know boxing history, the gloves were not made to protect the hands of the gentlemen. In the pre rules version, there was a lot of grabbing and throwing down going on. The bigger guy would just over power the other, and throw him down. It was considered barbaric. The gloves were used to clean up the fighting, making it more gentlemen like, preventing the grabbing. Nothing more than that.



Yup, and the Queensbury rules required gloves for similar reasons.  Boxing had been banned just about everywhere.  When the Marquis came out and backed these new rules, with gloves and all the other stuff it became legal again.



			
				doc said:
			
		

> In Martial Science, much like other sciences, there is a direct cause and effect to all activity.



What exactly is the origins of this, sounds like a marketing buzzword to be honest.


----------



## Hand Sword

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> i recall reading that John Broughton invented the first boxing gloves. they were called "mufflers," and designed to protect not only the hands but also the face from blows. Back in his day though, they were used only in practice, not in actual fights. below the waist was declared off limits by Broughton but wrestler holds were still allowed during this time.


 
Old fashioned focus mits. The gloves referred to were the ones for fighting. They just covered the hands, no wrapping, very thin. They were just for stopping the grabbing that was going on.


----------



## Andrew Green

Mufflers where first for training only, an attempt at getting more "dignified" people involved that couldn't go around all banged up.  Matches where still barefist until the Queensbury rules took effect.

Upper body wrestling was allowed under Broughton and LPR, with fighters often seeking out wrestlers to help them out.  A round ended when a person hit the ground, and a throw or a sweep was a valid way to achieve that.

There is a fair bit of documentation on clinch fighting, specific techniques illustrating throws, headlocks, reversals, etc.  I don't have any links on hand right now, it's been a while since I really searched all this stuff out.


----------



## Hand Sword

Thank you Andrew! Mine was a poor attempt at some tongue in cheek sarcasm. Your explanation is much better.


----------



## Doc

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> What exactly is the origins of this, sounds like a marketing buzzword to be honest.


Thank you for your inquiry regarding a fairly well written and time consuming post.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is what I am also thinking. It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances. When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie. Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter. As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter. I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect. Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".


 
Good post!    This is why I wanted to start steering the discussion towards some actual movement.


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> Good post!    This is why I wanted to start steering the discussion towards some actual movement.


Perhaps a new thread would have been better.


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> Perhaps a new thread would have been better.


 
Here it is:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=547716#post547716

Lets shift any further discussion on movement over to this thread. 

Mike


----------



## Andrew Green

Doc said:
			
		

> Thank you for your inquiry regarding a fairly well written and time consuming post.



Just curious, you said "In the martial sciences" I'm curious as to what you mean by that.


----------



## BallistikMike

Hand wraps were illegal in the bareknuckle boxing days of old. They were used during training however. More so because laborers were the mainstay of the boxing community and needed to work to put food on the table and a roof overhead.

There is some truth in gloves coming along with the rule change "queensburry" to thwart throwing/tossing, but it is a small part not the main. Gloves were introduced for the protection of the fight promoter, then the fighters hand. Plain and simple. 

Buttocks throws, hip tosses, reaps do not need the hand to grab and never have. Gloves never had any bearing on these types of throws. 

The gloves stopped the grab and pound. It made it a pugilistic sport... gentlemens sport.

Gloves allowed for more fights in a shorter rest period between bouts. Does anyone know why and what injury caused the longest lay off for prize fighters BEFORE the queensburry rule change?

It almost makes more sense that gloves came along for the money, more so then the protection of the fighters. The "queensburry" rules were introduced so prize bouts could be held. Until then boxing was illegal. 

Money and law had a greater impact then anything "martial".


----------



## BallistikMike

For the record imho everything is a horse stance. Its the subtle variations and moments captured in time for a reference point that create all the other stances.

Its those moments in time when coupled with "other" things that generate movement, power, torque, etc...


----------



## Hand Sword

BallistikMike said:
			
		

> Does anyone know why and what injury caused the longest lay off for prize fighters BEFORE the queensburry rule change?


 
Jail time for illegal prize fighting.


----------



## jazkiljok

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Old fashioned focus mits. The gloves referred to were the ones for fighting. They just covered the hands, no wrapping, very thin. They were just for stopping the grabbing that was going on.



what's your source for this information?


----------



## Bode

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Just curious, you said "In the martial sciences" I'm curious as to what you mean by that.



So first you suggest that martial science is a "marketing buzzword" and now you want to know what it means. Usually insulting someone then asking them a question is not the polite way of going about obtaining usefull information. I think, perhaps, your chance for receiving an answer is lost (via Doc). 

If you search for martial science I am sure some other post explains exactly what it means. The "marketing" angle has been suggested before along with every other uneducated suggestion about Doc's school.


----------



## Andrew Green

Bode said:
			
		

> If you search for martial science I am sure some other post explains exactly what it means.



Tried that, raised more questions then answers to be honest.


----------



## Busto

I would suggest taking a trip to California to visit Mr.Chapel and experience it for yourself.I just came back from a visit there.All I can say is that it was definetly worth the trip.When you are there he can show you in person "To feel is to believe"
Thank You again Mr.Chapel and everyone at the school.


----------



## Kenpodoc

On the initial topic "What does your Neutral Bow look like?"  Go to Jaki McVicar's site and Look at the position of Mr Parkers feet in the photo section. http://www.mcvicarkenpoacademy.co.uk/


Jeff


----------



## Doc

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> On the initial topic "What does your Neutral Bow look like?"  Go to Jaki McVicar's site and Look at the position of Mr Parkers feet in the photo section. http://www.mcvicarkenpoacademy.co.uk/
> 
> 
> Jeff


Well what do you know. Doesn't look like Infinite Insights does it Doctor?


----------



## Bode

Doc said:
			
		

> Well what do you know. Doesn't look like Infinite Insights does it Doctor?


Even Jeff Speakmens neutral bow doesn't look like the one from II. (Under the "what is kenpo" section).


----------



## Kenpodoc

Doc said:
			
		

> Well what do you know. Doesn't look like Infinite Insights does it Doctor?


I wish he had allowed himself to be the model for more of the instructional pictures. I think that I understand his concerns, and I know that you can't strictly learn from pictures but they would have been a nice way to "index" the basics as he saw them. Well back to short 1 again. 

Jeff :asian:


----------



## Doc

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> I wish he had allowed himself to be the model for more of the instructional pictures. I think that I understand his concerns, and I know that you can't strictly learn from pictures but they would have been a nice way to "index" the basics as he saw them. Well back to short 1 again.
> Jeff :asian:


Yeah, he learned his  lesson with the "Basics Booklet." Almost immediately a great deal of what he posed was changed, especially the blocks. A huge concern of his because people could always point to the book and say, "That's the way Ed Parker does it." He felt constrained by his own work. The only thing he ever posed for after that was his "Nunchaku Book." Other than that, he never instructionally posed again. He felt by having various students do it, he could always say, "It evolved."


----------



## kenpotroop

Doc said:


> Oh that was a good one. The stances in general as displayed in Infinite Insights are flawed and were not to Mr. Parker's liking. Drawings yes, pictures no.



Now I remember why i havent been on this site for a long time. Same BS as before  i'm right you're wrong crap


----------

