# New Insight



## Bob White (Feb 6, 2010)

"Action is twice as fast as reaction", is an old kenpo saying.This article sheds a new light on the subject. Comments?
http://www.cbc.ca:80/technology/story/2010/02/02/tech-brain-action-reaction-speed.html
Respectfully,
Bob White


----------



## K831 (Feb 7, 2010)

Bob White said:


> "Action is twice as fast as reaction", is an old kenpo saying.This article sheds a new light on the subject. Comments?
> http://www.cbc.ca:80/technology/story/2010/02/02/tech-brain-action-reaction-speed.html
> Respectfully,
> Bob White



An interesting article. Not surprising, knowing what we know of startle reflex etc.. (think of how fast your hand moves when you touch something hot).

I have always understood "Action is faster than reaction" to be as much strategy and tactics as actual bio mechanical speed. My first thought when I saw that title was: "sure, the body may be a little faster on reacting, but not enough to catch up to the attacker who initiated movement first."

That was confirmed by this statement in the article:

"Twenty-one milliseconds may seem like a tiny difference, *and it probably wouldn't save you in a Wild West duel because your brain takes around 200 milliseconds to respond to what your opponent is doing.* But it could mean the difference between life and death when you are trying to avoid an oncoming bus."
The part in bold is the key to the Kenpo saying that "Action is always faster than reaction". 

What this article brings up that I find interesting isn't so much the speed the body moves at, but rather, the time it takes to process information cognitively. 

Some of the fastest guys I have fought/sparred didn't have faster hands than me or more explosive footwork, but they had incredible "perceptual speed" meaning they perceived, processed and decided on an action very quickly. 

That brings up one of the negatives or criticisms I hear about Kenpo from other arts; "analysis peralysis " we have way too many memorized techniques and the lack of simplification causes delays in reaction time. 



​


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Feb 8, 2010)

K831 said:


> ​ That brings up one of the negatives or criticisms I hear about Kenpo from other arts; "analysis peralysis " we have way too many memorized techniques and the lack of simplification causes delays in reaction time. ​


 
This is why training with spontaneous attacks, and using techniques with spontanous insertions/deletions/alterations etc. is so important, in my opinion. I think of the process of learning the techniques as a way of giving my body/brain complex the words to work with, and then training with random attack elements as forcing my body/brain complex to write freestyle prose under pressure instead of just reading a paragraph someone else has written. Of course I'm just at the start of my journey, but that is the way that I think of it.


----------



## MattJ (Feb 8, 2010)

K831 said:


> I have always understood "Action is faster than reaction" to be as much strategy and tactics as actual bio mechanical speed. My first thought when I saw that title was: "sure, the body may be a little faster on reacting, but not enough to catch up to the attacker who initiated movement first."


 
I agree with this. 



> "That brings up one of the negatives or criticisms I hear about Kenpo from other arts; "analysis peralysis " we have way too many memorized techniques and the lack of simplification causes delays in reaction time.


 
I agree with this totally as well. I always thought it odd that kenpo had the action>reaction mantra that was not reflected in the way techniques are taught ie; they are all defensive. I used to have students ask me why we didn't have any offensive techniques in kenpo, and I would usually respond with "leave out the first move", LOL. 

I personally found that more spontaneous drills and sparring helped to break the "paralysis analysis".


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 8, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> This is why training with *spontaneous *attacks, and using techniques with *spontanous* insertions/deletions/alterations etc. is so important, in my opinion. I think of the process of learning the techniques as a way of giving my body/brain complex the words to work with, and then training with random attack elements as forcing my body/brain complex to write freestyle prose under pressure instead of just reading a paragraph someone else has written. Of course I'm just at the start of my journey, but that is the way that I think of it.


 
I think that hits the nail on the head. 

The idea in regards to what we do is to build spontaneous, effective responses to particular actions instead of just a knee-jerk reaction. 

I think constant training takes advantage of...


> When we see a change in the environment and make a reaction to it, the signal comes in through the eye, gets sent to the back of the brain and from there to the areas that control movements.
> 
> When we initiate the movement ourselves, the signal originates in the decision areas at the front of the brain and goes from there to the movement centre.
> 
> *"The key idea is that effectively the brakes get taken off faster when we're making a reactive movement, *so we can get moving faster, than when we make an intentional movement,"


 
...by building "muscle memory" through repetition.

All this article basically says is that a "Decision-Based" action takes longer to execute than a "Reflexive-Based" action. 

I think one of the main things to take away from that article is the importance of being spontaneous; that is having practiced to the point to where your reactions to aggressive stimulus have become embedded within your subcouncious to the point where they do not require concious decision to execute. They become reflexive. 

If you have to think about how a technique is accomplished, then you haven't practiced enough. 

"He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position." -SGM Parker


----------



## K831 (Feb 8, 2010)

MattJ said:


> I agree with this totally as well. I always thought it odd that kenpo had the action>reaction mantra that was not reflected in the way techniques are taught ie; they are all defensive. I used to have students ask me why we didn't have any offensive techniques in kenpo, and I would usually respond with "leave out the first move", LOL.




I have always been puzzled by that as well. 

I agree with the "leave out the first move" idea and in fact I practice that way often. We also have the freestyle (offensive) techniques, but they get neglected at most schools in favor of the defensive techniques.



celtic_crippler said:


> I think that hits the nail on the head.
> 
> The idea in regards to what we do is to build spontaneous, effective responses to particular actions instead of just a knee-jerk reaction.
> 
> ...



I agree, however, I think that could be accomplished with say, maybe 40-60 defensive techniques. I honestly believe 154 is ridiculous.

There is a place for techniques and technique line. But I think the muscle memory and the mechanics and motion and targeting and opponent response etc can be ingrained in much less than 100+ techniques. 

Learn the core techniques, drop the redundant ones, and focus on spontaneous drills and two man sets that teach how to actually use Kenpo in real time. We have a wonderful system, we don't seem to teach it very well in my opinion. The mass amount of techniques is, IMHO, a result of Mr. Parker taking it "commercial" and being business savvy.


----------

