# Reverse Gravitational Marriage?



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 22, 2005)

What is your understanding of it, an example of application, and/or a technique in which it is used. Came up in class the other day, and I couldn't help but be curious,.

I'm too verklempt; tualk amongst yourselves.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 22, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> What is your understanding of it, an example of application, and/or a technique in which it is used. Came up in class the other day, and I couldn't help but be curious,.
> 
> I'm too verklempt; tualk amongst yourselves.


reverse gravititational marriage is back-Up Mass on an upward plane. In laymans terms it's using the rising motion of the body to power an upward strike. Boxers use it all the time by driving their uppercuts up with their legs. American Kenpo Examples.

1. Scraping Hoof -- powers the headbutt to the face by straightening the legs
2. Defying the Storm -- powers the knee before the inward overhead elbow
3. Spreading Branch -- powers the knee before the inward overhead elbow
4. Locked Wing -- powers the knee
5. Flashing Wings -- powers the last handsword to face the (some schools versions)

Basically anytime you drop into a lower stance during a technique and then strike upward on the next count while returning to your 'regular height' you are using reverse marriage of gravity as you rise up.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 22, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> reverse gravititational marriage is back-Up Mass on an upward plane. In laymans terms it's using the rising motion of the body to power an upward strike. Boxers use it all the time by driving their uppercuts up with their legs. American Kenpo Examples.
> 
> 1. Scraping Hoof -- powers the headbutt to the face by straightening the legs
> 2. Defying the Storm -- powers the knee before the inward overhead elbow
> ...


You WIN the boobie prize. That was fast...I expected more vacuous gazes on this one. Now, for a pot-stirrer...it's kinduva oxymoron. How can you reverse the direction of gravity? Is it just a pleasant way of reminding ourselves why were doing the thing we're doing, and in what direction? (that was my peeve over this concept/term/definition)

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Rich_Hale (Aug 23, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> reverse gravititational marriage is back-Up Mass on an upward plane.


I must respectfully disagree with Mr. (James) Hawkins.

Mr. Parker describes Reverse Marriage of Gravity as reversing the effects of gravity to enhance the potency of your action. This is right out of his Encyclopedia of Kenpo.

Note that he did not say it is reversing the direction or marriage of gravity, or reversing the principal or marriage of gravity, as one would be doing by straightening his legs for the head butt in Scrapping Hoof. That action is the opposite of marriage of gravity, because gravity is working against the action and not with it.

Carefully read Mr. Parkers explanation of the term, it says reversing the EFFECTS of gravity, so gravational marriage is still taking place; only the effect its having on the action is being affected.

A example of reverse marriage of gravity is to be found in the beginning of Encounter with Danger; when you are first pushed to the ground. At this point you use reverse marriage of gravity to stabilize your base as you deliver a kick to his groin. It is considered reverse marriage of gravity, because you are taking advantage of what was supposed to be a negative use of gravity (you being pushed to the ground: and reversing its effect to enhance the potency of your kick to his groin.

Coincidently, reverse marriage of gravity is used in Scrapping Hoof; not as added power for the head butt, but when you bend your own left knee to add potency to the right scooping heel kick to your opponents inner knee. In this case you are taking what we would normally associate with a buckling, or destabilizing action and reversing the effect to add power to your own kick.

An example outside of reverse marriage of gravity, outside of any specific Kenpo technique would be . . . lets say, if your opponent were to foot sweep you, but on the way down you reached out and grabbed his ear. Marriage of gravity will have still taken place, and you will still have been pulled to the ground, by it. But the effect of it will have been reversed. Now, instead of your opponent adding a takedown to accomplishments he will have just had his ear torn off.

By the way, I wouldnt suggest trying to explain this to your opponent though, because I doubt the he would hear you anyway.


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 23, 2005)

Would it be an example of this if you were to cause your oppoent to fall into a strike?  Take out a leg and they meet a knee on the way down or something like that?

-D


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 23, 2005)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> I must respectfully disagree with Mr. (James) Hawkins.
> 
> Mr. Parker describes Reverse Marriage of Gravity as reversing the effects of gravity to enhance the potency of your action. This is right out of his Encyclopedia of Kenpo.
> 
> ...


For an accurate description of Marriage of gravity and reverse marriage of gravity view Mr. Planas videos on forms. In particular the video on Short 3 where he discusses marriage of gravity and it's reverse with reference to dropping the height to power the elbow in crossing talon and raising the height to power the headbutt in scraping hoof.

Also view his video on Short form 2 with regard to the racking middle-knuckle that first displays marriage of gravity used in a form.

I stand by what I said previous as without 'reverse marriage of gravity' as I described it earlier one of the directions we direct force is missing:

3 Forms of Power with 2 directions piece.

Torque Version 1 - turning in same direction as a strike (i.e. uppercut in Five swords)
Torque Version 2 - turning in the direction opposite a strike to whip the strike out. also called counter torque. (i.e. 2nd downward block in thrusting salute)
Back Up Mass Version 1 - launching toward opponent to power a strike by pushing. (i.e. heel palm in thrusting salute)
Back Up mass Version 2 - launching away from an opponent to power a strike by pulling. (i.e. back knuckles to kidneys in Blinding Sacrifice)
Marriage of Gravity Version 1 - Settling or dropping to power a downward blow (i.e. handsword in sword of destruction)
Marriage of Gravity Version 2 - Rising to power an upward blow. Also called reverse marriage of gravity. (i.e. the front knee in defying the storm).

From a physics standpoint the 'effect' of earth's gravity is to exhibit a *downward pull* *towards the earth*. To reverse that is to exhibit an *upward push away from the earth. *That's what the encyclopedia means when it states "involves reversing the effects of gravity to enhance the potency of your action." The 'effects of gravity' involve a pull and a direction down.

Marriage of gravity is a downward manuever and all of Kenpo's maneuvers have two directions of which one is classified as reverse. Examples:
Step Drag forward-reverse
Push Drag forwad-reverse
Crossover forward-reverse
Pull Drag forward-reverse

Settling is also a maneuver. So if settling is dropping down and we classify that as 'marriage of gravity' what do you call it when you raise back up? Reverse marriage of gravity or reverse settling.

Respectfully your in Kenpo,
James


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 23, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Would it be an example of this if you were to cause your oppoent to fall into a strike? Take out a leg and they meet a knee on the way down or something like that?
> 
> -D


That falls under "borrowed force", "colliding forces" and "guided collision".


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 23, 2005)

See, now, I just have to pass on a compliment to the brainiacs of kenpo. Keeping track of all these definitions was hard enough, then "they" added the algebra-type formulations, and all hell broke loose between my ears. I can learn anything for about ten minutes. After the short-term memory effect wears off, I have to fall back on the "pure knuckles meet pure flesh" thing, because these def's escape me.

My best answer to quizzes has always only ever been, "What's it called when you just grab a guy and hit him?"

Respects to y'all,

Dave


----------



## pete (Aug 23, 2005)

didn't superman use this technique in the sequel to turn back time and save lois...


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 23, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> didn't superman use this technique in the sequel to turn back time and save lois...


No, that was a forgotten technique called "circling the globe".  Uses the principle of reversing and retracing the orbital path. LOL


----------



## Rich_Hale (Aug 23, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> For an accurate description of Marriage of gravity and reverse marriage of gravity view Mr. Planas videos on forms. . . . From a physics standpoint the 'effect' of earth's gravity is to exhibit a *downward pull* *towards the earth*. To reverse that is to exhibit an *upward push away from the earth. *QUOTE]
> 
> I will be the first to say that Huk Planas is one of the most knowledgeable Kenpo instructors alive today. I have known Huk for many years and have traveled from Alaska to California just to spend the weekend with him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 23, 2005)

In Kenpo if I were to tell a student to launch backwards while striking forward with a back-knuckle every black belt in the room would say. "you're splitting their power, they have to launch in the diection of their strikes to put mass behind the strikes." That's why tournaments don't call points for attacks while retreating. No power as the strike and the body are going in opposite directions. So why is it that people insist that reverse marriage of gravity is dropping downward to aid an upward strike? It's the same as the above example but on a vertical instead of a horizontal plane. The mass is still being moved in the opposite direction of the strike. It's still splitting power and violates principles such as back-up mass and directional harmony. I was taught that Mr. Parker said and wrote a great many things just to see if people would actually think on their own or just go with it because he said it was so or because it was written down. I have to wonder if this is one of them. The laws of physics just won't allow for an increase in power from moving a mass AWAY from an object when no rotation is involved. Let alone the minor detail that for every inch the body moves one way that's an inch less the weapon has to penetrate if it's going the other way due to distance. Less penetration equals less transfer of kinetic energy or force. But enough about the physics of kenpo.

Respectfully,
James


----------



## JamesB (Aug 24, 2005)

Isn't gravitational marriage just a round-about way of saying "establish your base"??? The same goes with the reverse-gravitational-marriage (not that I've heard this term before though). From the description(s) of dropping your weight whilst striking upwards, is this not settling into a stance to create a sound structure from which to strike from?

I've never been totally convinced that gravitational marriage is a useful term - it seems to be used to describe how your mass accelerates if allowed to "drop" in a gravitational field...and use this extra acceleration and momentum to aid power to their strikes. So I've got two thoughts which I'd welcome discussion on:

1. The only direction that you would gain any benefit for your strikes is in the same direction as you are dropping - i.e. straight down. 

2. The small distances involved in the "drop" (just a few inches in most cases) would result in negligable acceleration of the body and I suggest that actually very little extra power would be generated from just the effects of your body (as a whole) dropping in height.

So I argue that there are other factors involved here. Although it looks like the body drops down whilst striking, the increase in power is actually achieved through attaining a structured base from which to strike *first*, then the strike is delivered with more potential than it had before.

So (finally returning to the original topic) reverse gravitational marriage is essentially the same as gravitational marriage - it uses the same underlying ideas of body structure and focus etc, and is just a different way of looking at these ideas.

Just my thoughts, any comments from anyone?

-james


----------



## kenposikh (Aug 24, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Isn't gravitational marriage just a round-about way of saying "establish your base"??? The same goes with the reverse-gravitational-marriage (not that I've heard this term before though). From the description(s) of dropping your weight whilst striking upwards, is this not settling into a stance to create a sound structure from which to strike from?
> 
> I've never been totally convinced that gravitational marriage is a useful term - it seems to be used to describe how your mass accelerates if allowed to "drop" in a gravitational field...and use this extra acceleration and momentum to aid power to their strikes. So I've got two thoughts which I'd welcome discussion on:
> 
> ...




Hi James good points there. Well yet again I feel that this is Kenpo trying to be overcomplicated with its terminology and confusing people. Let me explain.

Gravity is the natural force of the planet pulling everyone down and so going with this force is easier than going against agreed?

However making your opponent move in this downward direction with some good checks such as close or wide kneels as in Flashing wings does indeed enhance your final palm heel/ hand sword strike not because you are applying reverse gravitational marriage but because you have consolidated your base dropped your wieght and in doing so have caused your opponent to come downwards unwillingly in to the path of your strike.


I would have to disagree that the small distance would make negligible difference and at some point if we get together I can try to explain furhter.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Aug 24, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Isn't gravitational marriage just a round-about way of saying "establish your base"??? The same goes with the reverse-gravitational-marriage (not that I've heard this term before though). From the description(s) of dropping your weight whilst striking upwards, is this not settling into a stance to create a sound structure from which to strike from?
> 
> I've never been totally convinced that gravitational marriage is a useful term - it seems to be used to describe how your mass accelerates if allowed to "drop" in a gravitational field...and use this extra acceleration and momentum to aid power to their strikes. So I've got two thoughts which I'd welcome discussion on:
> 
> ...


It's obvious you haven't been shown how to properly use marriage of gravity and I would suggest you take Amrik up on his offer.


DarK LorD


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 24, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Isn't gravitational marriage just a round-about way of saying "establish your base"??? The same goes with the reverse-gravitational-marriage (not that I've heard this term before though). From the description(s) of dropping your weight whilst striking upwards, is this not settling into a stance to create a sound structure from which to strike from?
> 
> I've never been totally convinced that gravitational marriage is a useful term - it seems to be used to describe how your mass accelerates if allowed to "drop" in a gravitational field...and use this extra acceleration and momentum to aid power to their strikes. So I've got two thoughts which I'd welcome discussion on:
> 
> ...


Gravity makes the body accelerate very quickly.  As an experiment, spin around and around in your back yard till you can no longer balance and see how hard the ground strikes you. As adults most times we fall we actually ease ourselves down and we forget how fast we are moving.

Jeff


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 24, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Gravity makes the body accelerate very quickly. As an experiment, spin around and around in your back yard till you can no longer balance and see how hard the ground strikes you. As adults most times we fall we actually ease ourselves down and we forget how fast we are moving.
> 
> Jeff


LOL


----------



## RaysOnAwaV (Aug 24, 2005)

After reading a few of the post on marriage of gravity and reverse marriage of gravite it reminded me of a technique I saw Mr. Tatum showing on his tip of the week. 

http://www.ltatum.com/movies/Week37/TipOfTheWeekMedW37.html

Kenpojujitsu3,

Notice the heel palm strike about half way through the technique. I think it is a perfect example of marriage of gravity and rotational force. Now as his heel palm is striking on an upward motion as his body weight is settling toward the ground, would you consider this reverse marriage of gravity?

Ray


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 24, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> 1. The only direction that you would gain any benefit for your strikes is in the same direction as you are dropping - i.e. straight down.
> 
> 2. The small distances involved in the "drop" (just a few inches in most cases) would result in negligable acceleration of the body and I suggest that actually very little extra power would be generated from just the effects of your body (as a whole) dropping in height.


Gravitational marriage is not mearly establishing base. It is reducing height by a sudden drop. Establishing base falls under posture and is a static quality. It does not involve movement. Your desk has a stable structured base. It doesn't drop every now and then to get a stable base. The same is true of neutral bow stance. can you remain in a neutral bow for long periods of time (stability) or do you have to drop every now and then to remain in place?

Answer to number 1. True. From a physics standpoint only strikes travelling on a downward plane (even diagonal planes) would benefit from dropping straight down.

Answer to number 2. False. From a physics standpoint force generated equals the mass of an object times its acceleration. Distance is irrelevant as long as enough acceleration is achieved. 2 inches difference can generate a large amount of acceleration hense a large amount of force. This is due to human bodies being "light" with regards to earth's gravitational pull which means very little inertia. Small inertia means it's easier to accelerate an object in a shorter span of time and with less distance.



			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> "it seems to be used to describe how your mass accelerates if allowed to "drop" in a gravitational field...and use this extra acceleration and momentum to aid power to their strikes."


From a physics standpoint that's *exactly* what gravitational marriage does with strikes on downward planes.

Respectfully,
James


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 24, 2005)

RaysOnAwaV said:
			
		

> After reading a few of the post on marriage of gravity and reverse marriage of gravite it reminded me of a technique I saw Mr. Tatum showing on his tip of the week.
> 
> http://www.ltatum.com/movies/Week37/TipOfTheWeekMedW37.html
> 
> ...


No. That's colliding forces, borrowed force and a guided collision.  That's why the opponent is dropped into the upward heel palm.  If the opponent wasn't falling that kind of heel palm would have little effect as the kenpoist's body mass is going in the opposite direction.  That strike uses the opponent's body momentum to run into the strike so that the kenpoist has time to put his foot back down to have a base for the next series of strikes. 

Respectfully,
James


----------



## JamesB (Aug 27, 2005)

James, thankyou for your reply. I understand what you are saying - I was just wondering aloud if distances involved in a "gravitational marriage" drop in height would be enough to achieve any significant acceleration....was a question more than anything else. I'll get my pad+paper out and see what I come up with 

-james


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 27, 2005)

A man whom I consider very wise, and who contributes here regularly (Who I will not out unless he does so), put the definition of Reverse Marriage of Gravity in a very succinct manner:

... And it brightens your teeth!!!    ...

and that is pretty much a direct course.


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 27, 2005)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> ... And it brightens your teeth!!!  ...


LOL, it certainly did it for me...thanks for sharing that.

Richy


----------



## teej (Aug 30, 2005)

Reversing the effects of Gravitational Marriage is simply Back Up Mass.

Yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## kenposikh (Aug 30, 2005)

teej said:
			
		

> Reversing the effects of Gravitational Marriage is simply Back Up Mass.
> 
> Yours in Kenpo,
> Teej




Can you explain further please cos everything you do has back up mass even a finger poke ok not a lot but it's still there. So please elaborate to help me understand where your coming from.


----------



## teej (Sep 1, 2005)

> Can you explain further please cos everything you do has back up mass even a finger poke ok not a lot but it's still there. So please elaborate to help me understand where your coming from.



Sure I will. As you pointed out, everything has back up mass. Torque is back up mass with the added  effects of torque, hence the term was given to this power principle "Torque".

Gravitational Marriage is again back up mass with the added benifit of the earths pull which is gravity. So this power principle was given the term name "Gravitational Marriage".

Now there is no such thing as "reverse gravity". It does not exist. We can all see astronauts training and in space with no gravity (zero gravity). But have you ever seen anything that reverses gravity???  Again, these is no such thing as reverse gravity.

If you have your knees bent, shift your weight forward into a forward bow with your strike you have back up mass. Your body weight behind your strike. If your knees are bent and you straighten them upward, you are forcing your body weight up.* Your body weight is again behind the strike * so you have back up mass. There is no such thing existing as "reverse gravity" to add to a strike done in this manner, so the power principle would simply be "back up mass".

Hope this helps, yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## jonah2 (Sep 1, 2005)

For me the reverse gravitational marriage is to use the principle of marriage of gravity but in the reverse or opposite way. With marriage of gravity we settle our weight with the strike of our weapon into the target utilising the additional effect of gravity and therefore increasing back up mass and power transference.

With reverse gravitational marriage  as I see it  we use the exact same effect of gravity to increase power transference to the target but by dropping the target onto the weapon.

In my opinion the straightening of the legs for a reverse head-butt is not reverse marriage of gravity but is back up mass. As an example in my mind for reverse marriage of gravity try the back breaker when we bring the attacker down onto our grounded and stationary knee.

I agree with teej that reverse gravity does not exist but IMHO the term reverse gravitational marriage does not mean to reverse the effects of gravity itself, but, to use the principal of gravitational marriage but oppositely ie body to weapon not weapon to body.

My opinions only  may be wrong

jonah


----------



## teej (Sep 1, 2005)

> to use the principal of gravitational marriage but oppositely ie body to weapon not weapon to body.



This is an interesting observation, however; the principles have not changed really. It is the opponents body weight (back up mass) hitting your knee that is causeing him injury. Now you are accelerating his weight by pulling him in the direction of the earths graviational pull. You are part of the equation because you are pulling him. But as I see this it is still his body weight hitting your weapon with the earths gravity behind it, so by definition, it is still Gravitational Marriage. Nothing reverse going on here as far as power principles are concerned.



> My opinions only  may be wrong


Well I agree with you here. We all have one and we are all entitled to our own. The debate over "reverse gravitaional marriage" has been going on for years. It won't end today and I doubt we will see it end in our life time. 

If we had one burnt out light bulb, one spare light bulb and a room full of kenp black belts, we would have several opinions on how to change the bulb.

So as I see it in my opinion there is no such thing as reverse gravitational marriage. As long as we can make the technique work and get that light bulb changed.......................... that is really all that matters.

Your brother in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## jonah2 (Sep 1, 2005)

Granted Teej,

The underlying power principal in this discussion is back up mass but the additional effects of gravitational marriage are obvious and we are not opposing each others views here. The original question was what is reverse gravitational marriage. My opinion is that the term does not express reverse in terms of the effects of gravity but in terms of application. ie not using the benefits of gravity with your weapon but the target itself. I see it almost a kin to borrowed force but purely in a vertical plane. If in the vertical plane, with target descending,  we are using back up mass, borrowed force and the addition of the effects of gravity, but, not directly in terms of the documented gravitational marriage. A term for this slightly different application of a principal needs to be documented, I think the use of the word reverse works for me, thinking lateral rather than literal.

Thanks for the discussion  my response was only because I interpreted you post as saying you dont believe that gravity itself can be reversed (which of course it cant) and I dont think this is what the term is trying to suggest.

Again, only my thoughts, jonah


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 1, 2005)

Teej,

It is neither meet, nor right, to show such illumination publicly!  :ultracool  :ultracool  :ultracool


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 2, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> For me the reverse gravitational marriage is to use the principle of marriage of gravity but in the reverse or opposite way. With marriage of gravity we settle our weight with the strike of our weapon into the target utilising the additional effect of gravity and therefore increasing back up mass and power transference.
> 
> With reverse gravitational marriage  as I see it  we use the exact same effect of gravity to increase power transference to the target but by dropping the target onto the weapon.
> 
> ...


Just keep in mind that reverses and opposites are two totally different things in kenpo.  Your definition of reverse marriage of gravity is actually an opposite not a reverse as stated yourself.  It falls under borrowed force, colliding forces, guided collision, etc. as well.

Gravity = A pulling force in a downward direction.  Now reverse that statement.  A pushing force in an upward direction.  Hense straighening up from a lower position to power an upward blow is reverse marriage of gravity.  Just as dropping from a higher position to power a downward blow is marriage of gravity.  Both are simply back up mass on the vertical instead of horizontal planes.  Good boxers use reverse marriage of gravity all the time by powering uppercuts with upward thrusts from the legs.

Respectfully,
James


----------



## teej (Sep 2, 2005)

> Gravity = A pulling force in a downward direction. Now reverse that statement. A pushing force in an upward direction.



Very true. "Gravity" is the pulling force adding to the back up mass. Thus the power principle becomes Gravitational Marriage.


Now the second part about the pushing force. What is the pushing force? What is being added to this "pushing force"? What is adding to the back up mass? Nothing. It is the same as shifting your weight from a neutral bow to a forward bow. The weight transfer behind the strike becomes back up mass. As nothing is adding to the weight transfering upward, it becomes purely back up mass.

I agree that boxers have strong uppercuts, but thrusting their legs upward is purely Back up mass just as thrusting your legs and body weight forward into a forward bow is back up mass.

Now I am refering to the term being used in the sense of "power principles". Now if someone is reversing something in their minds in the way they think of gravitational marriage that is a different story. But as far as power principles go, if you thrust your legs upward causing your body weight to move upward, the power principle is plain Back Up Mass.

Teej


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 3, 2005)

teej said:
			
		

> Very true. "Gravity" is the pulling force adding to the back up mass. Thus the power principle becomes Gravitational Marriage.
> 
> 
> Now the second part about the pushing force. What is the pushing force? What is being added to this "pushing force"? What is adding to the back up mass? Nothing. It is the same as shifting your weight from a neutral bow to a forward bow. The weight transfer behind the strike becomes back up mass. As nothing is adding to the weight transfering upward, it becomes purely back up mass.
> ...


You are aware that you're saying _exactly_ the same thing that I am saying and that my post was agreeing with one of your previous posts right?

Gravity = A pulling force in a downward direction. Now reverse that statement. A pushing force in an upward direction. Hense straighening up from a lower position to power an upward blow is _*reverse marriage of gravity*_. Just as dropping from a higher position to power a downward blow is _*marriage of gravity*_. *Both are simply back up mass on the vertical instead of horizontal planes*. Good boxers use reverse marriage of gravity all the time by powering uppercuts with upward thrusts from the legs.

In other words Marriage of gravity and its reverse have different terminology than the 'traditional' Back Up Mass because of the difference in launching methods. Gravitational Marriage = the earth launches us towards itself. Reverse that statement = We launch ourselves away from the earth. But the principle remains the same, Back Up Mass, there never is anything 'added to it'. Gravity doesn't ADD anything according to the laws of physics.  Gravity is only providing the acceleration in a direction we have limited means to accelerate towards under our own power.  In laymen's terms we can't launch downward because there is no solid structure overhead to launch off of.  The force principle is always the mass of the object multiplied by it's acceleration. If the acceleration comes from gravitational or physiological means it is still acceleration. From a physics standpoint the method of how the acceleration is achieved is irrelevant. From a physics standpoint ALL of the Power Principles are simply Back Up Mass with a different method of generating the acceleration. But like I said we're saying the same thing different ways.

Respectfully,
James


----------



## Rich_Hale (Sep 3, 2005)

All I see James trying to do is tell the world what reverse marriage of gravity means to him, not what Mr. Paker considered it to be. 

So until we decide to remane the art James Hawkins Kenpo Karate , I'll stick with my years of personal instruction and interaction with Mr. Parker for this type of information.


----------



## KENPOJOE (Sep 3, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> What is your understanding of it, an example of application, and/or a technique in which it is used. Came up in class the other day, and I couldn't help but be curious,.
> 
> I'm too verklempt; tualk amongst yourselves.


Hi Folks!
In regards to the question on reverse marrige of gravity, the foundation of that particular principle/term is found in the saying "For every move, theory,concept, principle and definition there is an opposite and a reverse.". The three major "power principles" are Back Up Mass, Marrige Of Gravity, and Rotational Torque. Each particular principle has a base path of action that it moves on. Back up mass moves forward on a horizontal plane, Marrige of gravity moves downward on a vertical plane and rotational torque moves forward on a circular fashion on a given plane. The first 2 principles are linear in path of action and torque is obviously circuler. 
If we follow the initial phrase then there must be reverse back up mass,reverse marrige of gravity and reverse torque. Since the question was about reverse marrige of gravity I'll focus upon that term. 
Mr. Parker defined marrige of gravity (M.O.G.) or Gravitational Marrige (G.M.) as the unification of a kenpoist's body of weight,moving harmoniously downward on a vertical plane with the assistance of the force of gravity pulling our body toward the earth. We use the natural force of gravity to aid the power of a given strike so that we can hit an opponent with "own whoel body" rather than an individual body part.
In order to properly understand reverse mog we must use the basic criteria:
direction: mog=downward reverse mog=upward 
path of action: vertical 
contributing factors: mog=gravity,body weight, body alignment [varies according to technique]
reverse=borrowed force,body alignment,catapulting/using the ground as a brace,rebounding [depending on the technique]
Mr. Hawkins is correct on several points, on it's basic level, it can be explained as "back-Up Mass on an upward plane" in that with proper body alignment, the natural weapon striking is backed up by the alignment of the given limb.
In regards to settling as opposed to M.O.G., the main point is that a leg and or legs must first be up in the air so that as the leg replants on the ground, the "harmonious action" with gravity occurs. As opposed to "settling" or "sinking" where both feet can remain on the ground as you lower your height zone.
In reverse MOG, being able to push off the ground in an upward vertical plane is one of the key ingredients to generate power on that given plane. Also, obtaining "borrowed force" from your opponent {either intention or unintentional] due to previous actions on your part so that your opponent moves downward on that vertical plane and you meet in a concucsive impact [another example of "opposing forces]
We do not,in fact, reverse the natural force of gravity, rather through the above mentioned actions, we simulate a temporary negation of the force of gravity and show that "what comes up must go down". As Rich Hale mentioned from his quote from the "Encyclopedia of Kenpo" that this reversing the "effect" of gravity, not gravity itself. So that we move upward to generate the power as opposed to downward as far as direction. [btw, it should be noted that the "encyclopedia " was released AFTER Mr. Parker's death and he obviously did not have final say on the released text] but again, we simulate that effect by both our and our opponent's actions and reactions.I was always taught that "scraping hoof" was the primary example of this principle. Rich will probably remember Mr. Parker asking "is not the floor nothing more than a vertical wall that we can push against to generate power?" and as Mr. Hale mentioned "encounter with danger" the concept of pushing off the ground to generate the upward vertical path of action for the back kick is actually a better example of reverse MOG.
The main point is what we are reversing the "direction of motion" that gravity causes, not the actual natural force of gravity.
Simply stated, the term is a simple was for people to understand the use of upward motion upon an opponent. People fail to realize when we are discussin these aspects , that most "old school" instructors would say "just do it" with no explanation whatsoever and leave you in the dark. At least we can explain what we do and why we do it! Not to mention there are no mystical oriental terms that we have to first translate in order to ponder the deeper significance. 
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 3, 2005)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> All I see James trying to do is tell the world what reverse marriage of gravity means to him, not what Mr. Paker considered it to be.
> 
> So until we decide to remane the art James Hawkins Kenpo Karate , I'll stick with my years of personal instruction and interaction with Mr. Parker for this type of information.


Actually not. I never met Mr. Parker so I can't say "He said this and therefore it's the gospel truth." I have only what I know from my own studies and what I learn in college as I work on my degrees in Biology and Physics. I also don't care who said what as men are just that not God. I don't regard any man as THE fountain of knowledge, not even MR. PARKER. If that were the case I'd be saying General Choi Hong Hi (founder of TKD, my first MA) had all the answers. I don't know what I said to warrant this personal attack from you but I'll not return the favor. I'll just simply ask that in the future you present your points with science and logic instead of "Mr. Parker (a human being not a GOD) said it, it must be true" or "The art isn't James Hawkins Kenpo Karate." Mr. Hale I am deeply hurt and disappointed at this as I didn't perceive you to be this type of individual from the reputation told to me about you. I guess I may have been mistaken, but I salute you none the less.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 3, 2005)

Thank you for adding some more details to what I was saying Mr. Rebelo.  Also thank you for adding some of Mr. Parker's ideas and comments as well to support the information.  I don't have the luxury of adding any of Mr. Parker's sayings to my comentary having never met the man but having his commentary carries a "certain weight" in the minds of many.  As always you've been of great service Mr. Rebelo.  Now about that telethon........LOL.

Respectfully,
James


----------



## KENPOJOE (Sep 3, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Actually not. I never met Mr. Parker so I can't say "He said this and therefore it's the gospel truth." I have only what I know from my own studies and what I learn in college as I work on my degrees in Biology and Physics. I also don't care who said what as men are just that not God. I don't regard any man as THE fountain of knowledge, not even MR. PARKER. If that were the case I'd be saying General Choi Hong Hi (founder of TKD, my first MA) had all the answers. I don't know what I said to warrant this personal attack from you but I'll not return the favor. Salute just the same Mr. Hale but I am deeply hurt and disappointed at this as I didn't perceive you to be this type of individual from the reputation passed to me about you. Again Salute:asian:



Congrats,James!
You figured out exactly what Mr. Parker did! For as much as he thought he knew, he was always intelligent enough to realize how little he knew! Because of that, He was always willing to learn more and to grow as a person first and a martial artist second. He was always asking people for their opinion [like yours] and he would use their oopinions as the catalyist for his own creative thought processes. That's why he encouraged people [like yourself] to not blindly acceapt his teachings as gospel, but to question his opinion as well as substanciate their own points of contention. through this "brain storming" he would get valuble insights and incorporate those individuals ideas into the system! such was the open-minded ness of this man but also his humility at always acknowledging how little he knew and eager he always was to learn! 
Keep asking and answering!
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 4, 2005)

Thanks again Mr. Rebelo. All I can do is question everything as that's the only way to ensure that I don't stop learning. That's what they teach at the university I attend: Question everything and everyone until you can prove things on your own instead of based on what the professor/teacher told you.

On another note I noticed a pattern where when someone who studied with Mr. Parker has a difference of opinion with someone who did not the crutch is often "Well I have extensive experience with Mr. Parker so I know what I'm talking about and you don't." Well that gets old as that doesn't explain anything to anyone it's just a crutch phrase. Since the "I knew Mr. Parker card" keeps getting dropped here's my own "Mr. Parker said so card".

Sayings of Mr. Parker from The Zen of Kenpo

_A martial artist who boasts of being IN the art longer than another forgets that the person being accused may have been AT the art longer than he. - Page 10_

_Those who criticize are usually covering up their own incompetence. - Page 26_

_When you criticize, make sure you suggest options to remedy the problem. - Page 26_

_When one knows his subject, fear of verbally answering is not a problem. - Page 38_

_Unsubstantiated judgment of others can lead to paths of sorrow. - Page 54_

_Jerks are those who displau qualities of insecurity. - Page 54_

_It is not the aim of Kenpo to merely produce a skillful as well as powerful practitioner, but to create a well integrated student respectful of all. - Page 57_

_Scrutinize, analyze, realize, revides, devise. - Page 62_

_Use logic and common sense at all times. - Page 66_

_Mass takes in the entire body, and not just a portion of it. - Page 70_

_Mass is enhanced by body momentum. - Page 70_

_To get the most from mass, combine it with directional harmony. - Page 70_

_When a mind is too rigid or formal, it has a tendency to be less receptive. - Page 84_

_Seperating your direction can also mean seperating you power. - Page 92_

_All men, no matter who they are or how much they know, can share their knowledge with others. - Page 108_

_Don't be a traditional bigot who accepts nothing other than what he has been brainwashed to believe. - Page 121_

_Those who stick to tradition can only lead themselves to contradiction. - Page 121_

_A "winner" compliments others. A "loser" condemns. - Page 132_

_A "winner" will say, "there must be better way to do it." A "loser" will say, "be satisfied with the way things are." - Page 133_

Food for thought.
Respectfully,
James
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




P.S. Mr. Rebelo you are one of the few who spent time with Mr. Parker who doesn't try to pull the "well I knew Mr. Parker so there" card when someone has a different opinion. You always give painstaking (and sometimes overwhelming) detail and examples to express your points. Thank you for spending so much time on the net and telephone sharing knowledge and memories with me. It is appreciated more than I could probably ever express. -- James


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 6, 2005)

Mr. Hawkins:

I enjoy your posts, as well as those by Mr. Hale. You mentioned in one of them that you would not respond to his apparent attack with one of your own. This comment is followed by several posts, leveling poorly veiled passive-aggressive barbs at Mr. Hales underlying position and presentation. Without defending his loss of decorum, I would also like to encourage you to regain your own.

Increasingly, the better minds in kenpo aim at each other, creating derisive and divisive atmospheres between practitioners. I would like to invite interested parties to join in our collective hobby with the knowledge that they'll find themselves in an honorable arena, populated by scholarly martial gentry. I am not without fault, and am (more frequently than I care to admit) among the first to drop courtesy...particularly when my blood sugar is low. 

Nevertheless, I think some higher grounds are worth aiming for. Perhaps we can all help each other up to the next level, so that "kenpo" becomes synonymous with minds working and growing together.  I know I can use the help.

Best Regards,

Dave


----------



## Rich_Hale (Sep 6, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Without defending his (Mr. Hale's) loss of decorum, . . .


  Good day to you Dr. Dave,  I will take you polite and professional admonishment to heart as well.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 6, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Mr. Hawkins:
> 
> I enjoy your posts, as well as those by Mr. Hale. You mentioned in one of them that you would not respond to his apparent attack with one of your own. This comment is followed by several posts, leveling poorly veiled passive-aggressive barbs at Mr. Hales underlying position and presentation. Without defending his loss of decorum, I would also like to encourage you to regain your own.
> 
> ...


Point taken, but for the official record.  My subsequent posts were not ONLY for the eyes of Mr. Hale.  To be blunt, he was at the very bottom of the list since he at the very least had the gumption to post his thoughts in public no matter how I feel about them.  There are a great number who prefered to read what's posted here and respond via phone calls and private e-mail to me.  So I figured I'd give them somemore things to read and think about.  Everything is not always as it appears and "poorly veiled" is usually a sure sign that no attempt to conceal anything was made.  After much thought I changed my mind about letting it go.  My honor and integrity as a martial artist and as a man are things that I hold in high importance and I don't take too well to have them attacked by anyone.  Especially not people whom I'd shown nothing but respect too at that point.  But for obviously letting you down I sincerely apologize.  As for the "others" I have no apologies for "showing one of my teeth."


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 6, 2005)

> "A martial artist who boasts of being IN the art longer than another forgets that the person being accused may have been AT the art longer than he."



. :asian:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 6, 2005)

Messeur's Hale & Hawkins:

I am more than pleased that my encouragements to raise the bar have been met optimistically. Thank you for your honest and quick replies. Viewing them leads me to believe there is yet hope that future generations of kenpo students can find men of honor with which to train. My hat's off to you both.

There should be safe places to air an opinion, err with opinions, and grow. Much more preferable than shoring up sides as seen on other kenpo boards.

In full salute,

Dave Crouch


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 7, 2005)

I am encouraged by your getting things back on track yourselves ... as members of this board, and as Kenpoist.

 Kudos,

 Left over Right,
 -Michael


----------



## kenpoworks (Sep 7, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> .........Left over Right.......
> -Michael


Wow Michael...flash backs... "ok lets finish here left over right"......Thanks...Rich


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 8, 2005)

OK, just to kick the hive a bit...

We've discusses REVERSE gravitational marriage...

what is OPPOSITE gravitational marriage?


----------



## jonah2 (Sep 9, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> ...what is OPPOSITE gravitational marriage?


May be I was confused when I described what I thought was REVERSE in post #27 - may be this is OPPOSITE gravitational Marriage

Jonah wrote in post #27:

_"For me the reverse gravitational marriage is to use the principle of marriage of gravity but in the reverse or opposite way. With marriage of gravity we settle our weight with the strike of our weapon into the target utilising the additional effect of gravity and therefore increasing back up mass and power transference.

With reverse gravitational marriage  as I see it  we use the exact same effect of gravity to increase power transference to the target but by dropping the target onto the weapon.

In my opinion the straightening of the legs for a reverse head-butt is not reverse marriage of gravity but is back up mass. As an example in my mind for reverse marriage of gravity try the back breaker when we bring the attacker down onto our grounded and stationary knee.

I agree with teej that reverse gravity does not exist but IMHO the term reverse gravitational marriage does not mean to reverse the effects of gravity itself, but, to use the principal of gravitational marriage but oppositely ie body to weapon not weapon to body."_


I dunno - As long as you know these thing work - thats the main thing.

jonah


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Sep 9, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> May be I was confused when I described what I thought was REVERSE in post #27 - may be this is OPPOSITE gravitational Marriage
> 
> Jonah wrote in post #27:
> 
> ...


Sounds well thought out to me as definition of "opposite marriage of gravity" Salute and keep thinking.:asian:


----------



## Doc (Sep 23, 2005)

I've had my share of chuckles with this one. I've seen the explanations all over the place attempting to assign physics and vertical planes and strikes in all manner of directions that oppose this and that ............. all before I looked at this forum. I was taught a very simple explanation by Mr. Parker.

In the very conceptual *Gravitational Marraige:*

"The utilization of *your* own body weight to enhance your strike or actions."

In the even more conceptual *Reverse Gravitational Marraige:*

"The utilization of *your opponent's* body weight to enhance your strike or actions."

May I please be allowed to say "Duh!?"  On a conceptual level, everyone is correct.


----------



## Jagdish (Sep 23, 2005)

"The utilization of your opponent's body weight to enhance your strike or actions."

Could you give a couple of examples of this? 

Yours,

Jagdish

P.S.:Good to have you back!


----------



## parkerkarate (Sep 23, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> "The utilization of your opponent's body weight to enhance your strike or actions."
> 
> Could you give a couple of examples of this?
> 
> ...



I do not mean to be rude but I have a couple of examples, one is Glancing Salute and the other could be Deceptive Panther. In Glancing Salute you are craning the opponent down from the back of the kneck while delivering a right knee, and then as you plant you are delivering a sort of upward elbow under the chin or to the troat, which ever target you like better. Then in Deceptive Panther after you rotate out of your twist stance after bringing the opponents head down with two hammer fists, you deliver a right lifting inverted back knuckle.

I could be toatally off subject but this what came to mind.


----------



## teej (Sep 23, 2005)

"The utilization of *your opponent's* body weight to enhance your strike or actions." [/QUOTE]


Doc, Wouldn't this just be considered "borrowed force" ??

Thanks Teej


----------



## parkerkarate (Sep 23, 2005)

teej said:
			
		

> "The utilization of *your opponent's* body weight to enhance your strike or actions."




Doc, Wouldn't this just be considered "borrowed force" ??

Thanks Teej[/QUOTE]

You have a point


----------



## jonah2 (Sep 23, 2005)

teej said:
			
		

> "The utilization of *your opponent's* body weight to enhance your strike or actions."


_Doc, Wouldn't this just be considered "borrowed force" ??_

_Thanks Teej[/QUOTE]_ 

I agree with you. If you think about it, utilization of *YOUR* body weight could be considered using back up mass, but, the actions in terms of gravitational marriage and reverse gravitational marriage are back up mass and borrowed force with the additional effects of inhacement by gravity so therefore the use of a seperate term.

IMHO anyway for what its worth,

jonah


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 23, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I've had my share of chuckles with this one. I've seen the explanations all over the place attempting to assign physics and vertical planes and strikes in all manner of directions that oppose this and that ............. all before I looked at this forum. I was taught a very simple explanation by Mr. Parker.
> 
> In the very conceptual *Gravitational Marraige:*
> 
> ...


Well, you all should feel silly becasue I guessed the right answer all the way back in post #5 hahahahaa 
artyon:

(that is, assuming Doc has posted the "right answer" )


----------



## Doc (Sep 23, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> _Doc, Wouldn't this just be considered "borrowed force" ??_
> 
> I agree with you. If you think about it, utilization of *YOUR* body weight could be considered using back up mass, but, the actions in terms of gravitational marriage and reverse gravitational marriage are back up mass and borrowed force with the additional effects of inhacement by gravity so therefore the use of a seperate term.
> 
> ...


Everything you do has a "gravitational and "mass" component to it - if that is how you wish to approach the discussion. Every time you take a step or sit down you utilize "gravitational marriage," 'back up mass," body alignment," "stance changes," etc. None of these conceptual terms are mutually exclusive of each other, and many more are inclusive or actually contradict each other. So what? The "outer rim" contradicts the "box." Isn't a "scoop" a "hook" on a vertical plane? Isn't a "whip" the tail end of a "snap?" 

If we were to shift our focus to actual mechanics of execution there would be less room for misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We must be grounded in the reality of and the understanding of actual physics as it applies to human anatomy. We never "disengage" from gravity so how can we "marry" something already present? It is simply the expression of an idea of how, and the various ways we might utilize our own mass, and an attackers mass to our advantage and his disadvantage. That is the real discussion. 

I was taught to create terms to describe function and stay away as much as possible from conceptual descriptive terms. They will always be subject to extreme interpretations. Most of us would be comfortable that everyone would "conceptually" understand the term "kick." The argument is in the specifics of actual function. We most certainly will disagree with "how" we execute a specific kick.

What you ultimately decide "Gravitational Marriage," or its "Reverse" actually means and how its utilized is up to you. Make it work and you can do what the Chinese did and call it, "weight falling from the sky that really **** Edited to conform to MT's Profanity Rules with you up."

This is why conceptual arguments are ultimately silly. It is all about the study of ideas and how they can be utilized to enhance ones understanding of what they do. Discussing the the theory of relativity, the speed of light, and its relationship to the possibility of time travel is an interesting discussion. When talking about someone trying to kick your butt, you need to get more real.

Hey let's talk about the conceptual differences between a "leap," a "jump" and a "hop?" - NOT! Show me you can get out of the way, and then you give it a name.

Didn't I already say, "Conceptually, everyone is right?"

See you gonna make me say it again. "Duh!"


----------



## Doc (Sep 24, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> OK, just to kick the hive a bit...
> 
> We've discusses REVERSE gravitational marriage...
> 
> what is OPPOSITE gravitational marriage?


Another less than uselful idea.


----------



## kenposikh (Sep 24, 2005)

teej said:
			
		

> "The utilization of *your opponent's* body weight to enhance your strike or actions."




Doc, Wouldn't this just be considered "borrowed force" ??

Thanks Teej[/QUOTE]

SImply put only if it's voluntary i.e. if your opponent for example pulls you towards them and you execute a straight thrust punch to their sternum as in raking mace then this is borrowed force, however as in flashing wings by the use of gravitional marriage on your oppents knee you are involuntarily sending them downwards to me your final strike coming up hence not borrowed force as they did not intend to go that was

Amrik

p.s. Hi Doc got you mail just been busy will reply soon.


----------



## Doc (Sep 24, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> _Doc, Wouldn't this just be considered "borrowed force" ??_
> jonah


Hi Jonah. I don't want to get too deep into these conceptual arguments for reasons already stated, but ...  If someone were to attack you, they would be creating a/the force that you would "borrow" to use against them. When you create the force with their body and use it against them, its another story. OK Buddy?


----------



## Jagdish (Sep 25, 2005)

Dave C,

You were right. 

Amrik:

Your example was perfect. Thanks.

Doc:

Thanks for your detailed explanation. We are always pestering you. OOOH!

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## Doc (Sep 25, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> **** Edited to conform to MT's Profanity Rules with you up."


That was the uninhibited vicodin talking. Sorry.


----------



## kenpoworks (Sep 25, 2005)

Yeh!...I read that 1st time around Doc, and well it didn't seem like you, the limited vocabulary is not your style.
Rich
ps I only PM'd you because it was easier at the time.....in future I will e-mail you personally.


----------



## Doc (Sep 25, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Yeh!...I read that 1st time around Doc, and well it didn't seem like you, the limited vocabulary is not your style.
> Rich
> ps I only PM'd you because it was easier at the time.....in future I will e-mail you personally.


With the volume of PM's I get from forum participants, its easier for people I know personally to shoot me a line. I get to those first. My PM box fills up fast and often.

China


----------



## Jagdish (Sep 26, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> With the volume of PM's I get from forum participants, its easier for people I know personally to shoot me a line. I get to those first. My PM box fills up fast and often.
> 
> China


China???


----------



## Doc (Sep 26, 2005)

Jagdish said:
			
		

> China???


English Cockney Rhyming slang for mate.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 27, 2005)

[b said:
			
		

> DavidCC][/b]
> _OK, just to kick the hive a bit..._
> 
> _We've discusses REVERSE gravitational marriage..._
> ...







			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Another less than uselful idea.


Yes I was sure it was but I really just wanted to poke a little fun at the plethora of vocabulary permutations in AK


----------



## Doc (Sep 27, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> 
> Yes I was sure it was but I really just wanted to poke a little fun at the plethora of vocabulary permutations in AK


I had a plethora once. It was a red 1964 six cylinder, with a stick. Ran great and got really good gas mileage.


----------



## kenposikh (Sep 27, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> OK, just to kick the hive a bit...
> 
> We've discusses REVERSE gravitational marriage...
> 
> what is OPPOSITE gravitational marriage?




Think of it as a concept and then decide what you would like it to be


----------



## Kenpoist (Sep 29, 2005)

*My preferred technique illustrating this concept is Flashing Mace* :

After you have delivered the right inward bracing check against opponent's right arm  and followed-up with a left outward check -  the waiter check, your right hand circle's clockwise from about 6 o'clock  striking upward to the attacker's face.  It is like pitching a softball with you knuckles coming into a full circular rotation.  Your feet may even come up on the toes slightly to gain power.

Now some schools may teach the strike with a looping motion, applying another power principle (like throwing a lasso around the attacker).


----------



## Doc (Sep 29, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> *My preferred technique illustrating this concept is Flashing Mace* :
> 
> After you have delivered the right inward bracing check against opponent's right arm  and followed-up with a left outward check -  the waiter check, your right hand circle's clockwise from about 6 o'clock  striking upward to the attacker's face.  It is like pitching a softball with you knuckles coming into a full circular rotation.  Your feet may even come up on the toes slightly to gain power.
> 
> Now some schools may teach the strike with a looping motion, applying another power principle (like throwing a lasso around the attacker).


Are you sure sir that is your understanding of "RGM?" As for coming up on your toes, I suggest an examination of basics would indicate there are no "Toe stances."


----------



## Kenpoist (Sep 29, 2005)

No toe stances 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 - Just stating the rising power from the strike may bring your weight distribution upward and make your feet feel a little lighter (but not light in the loafers).  Yes this was my understanding of RGM.


----------



## Doc (Sep 29, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> No toe stances
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In my understanding, whenever you strike, you should never "feel lighter." You should do quite the opposite and feel "rooted." From my perspective, the example you gave does not meet the critirior for a "Reverse Marraige of Gravity" application. It should be noted however, in spite of my understanding  of the terms, we do not find them particularly relevant and instead insert much more specific and less conceptual terminology in the methodology descriptions.


----------



## Jagdish (Sep 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> In my understanding, whenever you strike, you should never "feel lighter." You should do quite the opposite and feel "rooted."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jonah2 (Sep 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Everything you do has a "gravitational and "mass" component to it - if that is how you wish to approach the discussion. Every time you take a step or sit down you utilize "gravitational marriage," 'back up mass," body alignment," "stance changes," etc. None of these conceptual terms are mutually exclusive of each other, and many more are inclusive or actually contradict each other. So what? The "outer rim" contradicts the "box." Isn't a "scoop" a "hook" on a vertical plane? Isn't a "whip" the tail end of a "snap?"
> 
> If we were to shift our focus to actual mechanics of execution there would be less room for misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We must be grounded in the reality of and the understanding of actual physics as it applies to human anatomy. We never "disengage" from gravity so how can we "marry" something already present? It is simply the expression of an idea of how, and the various ways we might utilize our own mass, and an attackers mass to our advantage and his disadvantage. That is the real discussion.
> 
> ...


Sir,

The question about using your opponents weight, asking if this was just borrowed force, was from teej  I just responded saying the same as you! or at least tried to.

I agree with you, a more mechanical definition of each movement is better, rather that broader conceptual phrases leading to misinterpretation

Sorry If I made you say Duh! for the second time  I was just joining in with a discussion

jonah


----------



## Doc (Sep 30, 2005)

jonah2 said:
			
		

> Sir,
> 
> The question about using your opponents weight, asking if this was just borrowed force, was from teej  I just responded saying the same as you! or at least tried to.
> 
> ...


No it's my apology because I used your quote to illustrate my point. It was clear that you were not in disagreement. I should have been more clear sir.


----------



## jonah2 (Sep 30, 2005)

Mr Chapél,

Left over right and bow of the head towards you sir,

jonah


----------

