Counter torque

HMMM. I'm not that well versed in the concept of counter ballance to say for sure, but counter torque in this application seems to be more specific, as well as more discriptive of what is at work. And, of the three major power principles (mog, backup mass, and torque), this would be a type of torque.
 
ob2c said:
HMMM. I'm not that well versed in the concept of counter ballance to say for sure, but counter torque in this application seems to be more specific, as well as more discriptive of what is at work. And, of the three major power principles (mog, backup mass, and torque), this would be a type of torque.
Sure its was descriptive but the whole acheiving power while balanced on one leg is counterbalance and the sweep heel palm strike utilized counter torque, or rather something he did while in counter balance. Either way counter balance should have recieved a bit of lip service because it was just as prevalent as counter torque.
Sean
 
Kenpodoc said:
Simply put, the question wasn't answered to my satisfaction. I found no reason to argue, but I wanted other opinions.

For example I disagree with Bill Lear that the kick and Heelpalm are going in different directions. They are going in the same direction but with the body rotating differently top and bottom (thus the term counter torque). I don't disagree that there is increased force in the heelpalm I just believe it is secondary to backup mass (because of directional harmony) and not directly from the countertorque. The Countertorque is an intersting way to add backup mass to what was previously a torque based power technique.

I also disagree with Brother John's example of the toy . With the toy the counter rotation feeds the repetitive nature of the movement but does not inclease the force. In fact the pull of the opposite balls decreases the force of each strike.

I would like to hear from others. I respect Clyde's, Billy's, Brother John's opinions but I disagree in this case and have yet to be convinced. Watch the video and you'll be impressed by Mr. Tatum but watch the power principles and tell me what you think.

Can my mind be changed, sure, but not by what I've heard so far. Mr. Wedlake laughed at me when I told him that I'm a cynic and don't believe things just because someone with more prestige, or more stripes tells me something. He also knows I like to have someone demonstrate something and change my mind.

In my opinion we should all listen, learn, play and have the right to ask questions and disagree. My instructor, Mr Hatfield, allows me to question him, disagree and play with the principles. Usually he changes my mind occassionally I've changed his.
I believe that true respect is shown (and earned) not through blind obedience (those people are just groupies) but through thoughtful consideration by both student and teacher.
Respectfully,

Jeff

I'm with you sir. In simple physical terms, "counter torque" is a principle that can indeed generate power, however that power or energy is not created by the counter torquing action moving towards each other, but instead when torquing away from each other. This also presumes that energy has been stored previously to allow this action to occur, and is less likely to present itself in human anatomy.

In strict anatomical terms counter torque can be utilized to take advantage of the body symetry of movement that requires "complimentary movement" and a lack of pacifity for maximization of the activity at hand. This is the result of this example as I see it explained, and the power is generated through a combination of "torque," "back-up mass," and "muscle mass." The "counter rotation" does not hinder either activity as long as it does not reach an anatomical extreme at which time they will begin to cancel each other as the opposing forces oppose the actions as well. But "counter torque" as presented is not the underlining principle that creates or generates the power as I see it.
 
Doc said:
I'm with you sir. In simple physical terms, "counter torque" is a principle that can indeed generate power, however "counter torque" as presented is not the underlining principle that creates or generates the power as I see it.
Agreed.
Sean
 
Touch'O'Death said:
Sure its was descriptive but the whole acheiving power while balanced on one leg is counterbalance and the sweep heel palm strike utilized counter torque, or rather something he did while in counter balance. Either way counter balance should have recieved a bit of lip service because it was just as prevalent as counter torque.
Sean

To borrow a concept from another topic (the discussion on contact manipulation on the EPAK forum), counter torque would then be a sub category of counter ballance in this example. Correct?

In my understanding, countertorque is a more specific example of the power principle torque. I would also say counterballance is a more specific application of the principle of ballance.

I don't see our two viewpoints as mutually exclusive. As in algebra, a set can be a subset of many sets. The real question is how these principles work together in this technique. Then we could ask which, if either, is more predominant. At my level of understanding, these assesments are more subjective than objective. I go by how the technique feels, and what I primarily feel is that core contraction. Possibly someone with a deeper understanding of anatomy, as well as the terminology and principles, can give a better, more objective description. I'd be interested to hear if that is the case. I'm still learning.

Edit: that sounds a little like I'm excluding you from the class of more knowlegable kenpoists. Not the case, I mean anyone mor knowlegable than me, which apparently includes you, certainly includes Doc, and probably includes a whole host of people here.
 
Doc, couple of questions, if you don't mind.


Doc said:
In simple physical terms, "counter torque" is a principle that can indeed generate power, however that power or energy is not created by the counter torquing action moving towards each other, but instead when torquing away from each other.

You are apparently speaking of counter torque in general here, not as given in this technique. So, by your definition of counter torque, the inward counter rotation given here does not qualify. If this is the case, do you have a term and definition for what occurs here?


This also presumes that energy has been stored previously to allow this action to occur, and is less likely to present itself in human anatomy.

I see this action as similar to the completion of a circle in Taiji. You don't necessarily have to store energy to use the motion, rather your muscles have to be in a position to be able to contract. You open with the forward bow, crane and punch- close with the heel palm sweep. It is similar to the external component of Taiji. (My Taiji instructor hates it when I talk like this :) )


In strict anatomical terms counter torque can be utilized to take advantage of the body symetry of movement that requires "complimentary movement" and a lack of pacifity for maximization of the activity at hand. This is the result of this example as I see it explained, and the power is generated through a combination of "torque," "back-up mass," and "muscle mass." The "counter rotation" does not hinder either activity as long as it does not reach an anatomical extreme at which time they will begin to cancel each other as the opposing forces oppose the actions as well. But "counter torque" as presented is not the underlining principle that creates or generates the power as I see it.

I understand what you are saying here (I think). But it is that core contraction and counter torque (as used in the example) that engages the "combination of 'torque,' 'back-up mass,' and 'muscle mass.' " That would make torque, in the form of counter torque (or whatever term you wish to apply here), the primary power principle, would it not?
 
ob2c said:
To borrow a concept from another topic (the discussion on contact manipulation on the EPAK forum), counter torque would then be a sub category of counter ballance in this example. Correct?

In my understanding, countertorque is a more specific example of the power principle torque. I would also say counterballance is a more specific application of the principle of ballance.

I don't see our two viewpoints as mutually exclusive. As in algebra, a set can be a subset of many sets. The real question is how these principles work together in this technique. Then we could ask which, if either, is more predominant. At my level of understanding, these assesments are more subjective than objective. I go by how the technique feels, and what I primarily feel is that core contraction. Possibly someone with a deeper understanding of anatomy, as well as the terminology and principles, can give a better, more objective description. I'd be interested to hear if that is the case. I'm still learning.

Edit: that sounds a little like I'm excluding you from the class of more knowlegable kenpoists. Not the case, I mean anyone mor knowlegable than me, which apparently includes you, certainly includes Doc, and probably includes a whole host of people here.
Well speaking of math, I guess if you subtracted the power you have in C set (straight low kick with straight punch) from the intersecting low sweep heel pam then we would have the answer of which is predominant. I would say these play off eachother to some extent. I'm sure Doc has a better grasp on this than I do.
Sean
 
ob2c said:
Doc, couple of questions, if you don't mind.

You are apparently speaking of counter torque in general here, not as given in this technique. So, by your definition of counter torque, the inward counter rotation given here does not qualify. If this is the case, do you have a term and definition for what occurs here?

That is an excellent catch sir. I prefer to not comment on the efficacy of the performance of other martial artists in particular, and instead choose to focus on the knowledge of concepts and principles discussed to allow others to broaden, (perhaps) their understanding and perspective of their activity. In doing so they may discover, see, or approach what they do from a hopefully more enlightened perspective that they may apply to their own curriculum.

Here is the problem. There is a tendency among some “modern” martial artist, (thanks to Ed Parker Sr.) to want to take a “scientific approach” to what they now do. This is not a bad thing, but unfortunately there is very little real science knowledge available among those who would teach or learn these various martial arts. Instead in general, and commercial American Kenpo specifically, a pseudo/para-science was created by Ed Parker Sr. to allow him to disseminate his very conceptual ideas among his many followers without his constant presence. To that end he created “scientific” sounding terminology to convey, and yes “sell” and proliferate his ideas. On one level this has had a positive impact on all arts. On another it has caused some to believe they are actually learning a true “science.” They are not.

Certainly there are some Newtonian Physics that translate to any physical activity, but no more than would be available in most physical interactive activities like American Football, baseball, or boxing. But the reality is the dynamics of human anatomy are completely unique in nature and science and it is rare you may “borrow” principles from other established hard sciences and insert them into a pseudo-scientific activity with any consistent degree of validity.

To take a pure physical term like “counter torque” and apply it outside of its intended use to human striking dynamics produces a subjectively conceptual interpretation far removed from reality. This term in particular would best be served by applying it to “locking, throwing, or grappling,” not generally speaking, striking.

Very few have the specific educational background and acumen necessary that will allow them to “create” true new scientific terminology, or properly apply what is known in one science discipline, to another. Subjective terminology can and does have validity but only within the conceptual framework for which it is designed. Outside of the general discipline, terms like “gravitational marriage” have no meaning, and true scientist would shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as an interesting (or not) “idea.”

That being said, you can call anything you want, anything you want to call it, until you enter into general discussions that do not include your devotees like this forum. Than you have to revert back to true science and stop pretending you know scientific principles, or at least explain what you mean by “how” YOU choose to use the term.

On one level American kenpo is about a myriad set of subjective concepts that those within choose to view as being principles. They are not. “Elastic-liquid-counter-gravitational-recoil-collisions” are just what they sound like. They allow some to sound like they’re smart and know what they’re talking about, and perhaps they do, but only for those who subscribe to their personal philosophy.

The human machine is so complex with multiple parts in varying density and connectivity floating in a fluid and contained in an elastic vessel, that you must refrain from using terms you would also apply to an inanimate object like a rock. With the human machine, one tiny entity moved can and does affect the rest of the machine. Even what you see, hear, and feel, can change how that machine physically functions beyond the control of the individual himself.

I had many a lecture from Ed Parker about how carefully you must construct application of true scientific terms. He said, “Be careful, be very careful if you want to be taken seriously by those who do not study kenpo.” That is one lesson I learned.

Bottom line – drop the word “principles” and insert “concepts” unless you really know what you’re talking about. Commercial motion based kenpo is a conceptual design according to its progenitor, that has so many interpretations that "mixed company" conversations always demand explanations instead of terminology assumptions.
 
Doc, where do I start to reply to that? Thanks for the reply might be the best place.

I understand what you are talking about, as I've tried to discuss the 'principles' and 'science' with engineers and medical personnel. They aren't bashful about pointing out that the things we state as principles are a little oversimplified. Add to that the fact I'm still at an intermediate level, therefore not as well versed in some of our principles and concepts, and you probably can get a good idea of the problems I faced in getting my points across.

However, as a vehicle toward understanding what we are doing, I think the simplified use of our principles was, and is, pure geniouse. It gets the point across, and developes a level of understanding like no other art I've come across. Couple that with the feeling and sensitivity of Taiji, and my mind is boggled by the implications of the simplest moves. So, whatever terminology we choose to use at a given time- and you are correct that we must be careful to be clear in our definitions with the person(s) we are talking to at the time- the main thing is that we internalize the movements and concepts so that they can be called on under stress without thinking. Understanding helps us get it right, feeling helps us use it effectively.

This, again, is my take on the subject. I don't claim to know or understand it all- just to try to understand more. Thanks again, sir, for the input.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top