Dr. Chapel - Technical Kicking Question

[Carol]

The proper method requires a measure of patience and personal discipline, but oddly does not take any longer to learn than the commercial method. The difference is the latter requires the oversight of a supremely knowledgeable teacher of proper anatomical movement within the context of the learned activity. In sports, they call them ‘coaches.’

You mean...it doesn't dismiss Kenpo to the Socratic Method, and actually requires an accomplished instructor that precisely instructs and fine-tunes every move of their students?

I so want some of this blashemous instruction.

 

[marlon]

You mean...it doesn't dismiss Kenpo to the Socratic Method, and actually requires an accomplished instructor that precisely instructs and fine-tunes every move of their students?

I so want some of this blashemous instruction.

Yes me too, only i live too fart away. Doc can you name a chinese or okinawan form that particularly stands out to you as teaching indexing through posture as you mentioned?

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[marlon]

INDEX – Specific points and methodologies the human body must utilize and move through in order to obtain maximum anatomical congruency, for any specific physical activity.

Indexes are divided into two categories, Basic, and Advanced. Index body parts would be the Head, Arms, Hands, fingers, Pelvic, Legs and Feet. With a significant understanding of this aspect of human movement associated with Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation, (PNF) one begins to understand from the lost old Chinese perspective, why ‘posture’ was and is so important to proper execution. Thus this is one of the reasons ‘forms’ were created. They are ‘Indexes of information,’ (not strict application as some believe), as well as the methodology for teaching proper body mechanics once properly decoded.

The sustained execution of proper Indexes invariably leads to what some call, ‘Internal Energy’ or ‘Qi or ‘Ki.’ Those who obtain it move with an explosively articulate and powerful action consistently, cultivated from sustained correct anatomical movement.

A good example would be a jump shooter in basketball. All great jump shooters all shoot the exact same anatomical way, having learned the proper Indexing/basics’ and not allowed to alter, change, or tailor by knowledgeable coaches. Ultimately the action becomes intuitive, smoothed and compressed in action and appears effortless in its effectiveness.

Put simply: Whatever it is you are going to do may require you to move from point ‘A’ to point ‘E.’ In that process anatomically you must move THROUGH ‘B, C, and D’ to get there correctly. In this example, ‘B, C, and D’ would be the ‘Index Points,’ if one is to move properly utilizing all of the body’s architectural support properly to achieve the goal upon arrival at ‘E.’

In the beginning, these Index Points may look to some as exaggerated, excessive, or even slow. They are neither. The Chinese were criticized by other less knowledgeable art practitioners for some of their long, looping and exaggerated postures and methods. But the end result is anything but.

In Ed Parker’s teaching to me, he referred to these Index Basics, as Phonetic Movement. (There are some that will remember him speaking of this) This analogy of learning of the ABC’s, (Indexes) is transferred to writing in large blocks of PRINT, which gives way over time to smaller blocks of print, to large than small SCRIPT, and ultimately, SHORTHAND. The problem is; everyone wants to begin with shorthand when they haven’t learned the ABC’s. But the really sad thing is, almost no one knows the ABC’s (basics) to begin with. Everyone talks about them and their importance, but I can assure you they don't know them and it is demonstrable.

Those born of and reared in the commercial context began their study sans basics or Indexes at shorthand, thus lacking the proper foundation upon which to build and grow. Therefore, whatever level of skill acquired in general will level out, with no opportunity to reach higher. It is a functional ceiling built into the methodology.

The proper method requires a measure of patience and personal discipline, but oddly does not take any longer to learn than the commercial method. The difference is the latter requires the oversight of a supremely knowledgeable teacher of proper anatomical movement within the context of the learned activity. In sports, they call them ‘coaches.’

Hope I didn’t bore you sir.

Bore us!!! this answer helps a great deal. Thank you again Sir

Respectfully,
marlon

 

[Carol]

Bore us!!! this answer helps a great deal. Thank you again Sir

Respectfully,
marlon

Yes! Bore us!

Yes me too, only i live too fart away. Doc can you name a chinese or okinawan form that particularly stands out to you as teaching indexing through posture as you mentioned?

Respectfully,
Marlon

I'd also be interested in knowing the answer...if there is any style that is taught through such indexing.

Marlon - as a TOTAL noob that doesn't really know what I am doing yet I'm finding that my FMA instructors are a bit more precise in their instsruction of the different body movements. Not as precise as Doc but more precise than what I've seen in my admittedly limited exposure to Kenpo.

I don't know if that is a result of teaching style or the style of the art. It may be the way my instructor teaches. The Filipino arts tend to divert from Kung Fu and Karate styles by makingn classifications on the grounds of different types of energy. One of my instructors in particular is very picky focuses fine tuning each motion that we make because "the energy is different."

Then again, there is also something about those sticks and knives that we hurl at each other that demands accuracy and precision.

 

[marlon]

Carol, i find also that many kempo instrructors are not precise and picky about body movements ertc...myself included. I have been working for quiter some time to correct this and have gone to outside sources to learn...mostly chinese internal arts. But i believe that one does not need throw out the system but re-introduce these concepts b/c in the end i find that it is already there in the forms and techniques. Only too much practicing in the air and working with overly compliant uke's created false ideas and false 'corrections'. I am teaching pickier and practicing with more intent to precision and having the moves match the basics and posture and stances are high on the prioirity list of basics...ther is posture and stance considerations in every block, hand strike and every kick and more so when these are liked into a technique. Every time i see someone execute well i look for these things. of course the limitation of this is that i can only look for what i already know but often questions like What the --- was that!? gets answered and i grow. And there are many who share knowledge openly and willingly and i grow some more. I believe this is a benefit to kempo and martial arts in general ..so than kyou to all of you who know and who share.

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[marlon]

i realize i left out someone important. My current instructor, who spends a tremndous amount of time on his own training and self imporovement . Who takes the time, money and enrgy to seek out instructors in different areas and goes to them to learn and then brings this back to us. He encourages us to always learn and get knowledge where ever we can. He does not enslave us to his organization or his way of doing things. He is a great inspiration to me and has improved my kempo and my teaching abilities beyond measure. He is definitely one who knows and who shares. i am humbled by his skill and genrousity and love of kempo. I say this because in my zeal to know i may to others sound unappreciative of my own instructor...this is definitely not the case. He does not engage in thses forums so understand i am not sucking up. Just telling it like it is.

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[IWishToLearn]

Once again Dr. Chapel - thanks for showing me kicking indexes. Even though the herniation sends spikes down my leg, when I need to, at least the pressure isn't on my back any more.

 

[Doc]

INDEX – Specific points and methodologies the human body must utilize and move through in order to obtain maximum anatomical congruency, for any specific physical activity.

Indexes are divided into two categories, Basic, and Advanced. Index body parts would be the Head, Arms, Hands, fingers, Pelvic, Legs and Feet. With a significant understanding of this aspect of human movement associated with Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation, (PNF) one begins to understand from the lost old Chinese perspective, why ‘posture’ was and is so important to proper execution. Thus this is one of the reasons ‘forms’ were created. They are ‘Indexes of information,’ (not strict application as some believe), as well as the methodology for teaching proper body mechanics once properly decoded.

The sustained execution of proper Indexes invariably leads to what some call, ‘Internal Energy’ or ‘Qi or ‘Ki.’ Those who obtain it move with an explosively articulate and powerful action consistently, cultivated from sustained correct anatomical movement.

A good example would be a jump shooter in basketball. All great jump shooters all shoot the exact same anatomical way, having learned the proper Indexing/basics’ and not allowed to alter, change, or tailor by knowledgeable coaches. Ultimately the action becomes intuitive, smoothed and compressed in action and appears effortless in its effectiveness.

Put simply: Whatever it is you are going to do may require you to move from point ‘A’ to point ‘E.’ In that process anatomically you must move THROUGH ‘B, C, and D’ to get there correctly. In this example, ‘B, C, and D’ would be the ‘Index Points,’ if one is to move properly utilizing all of the body’s architectural support properly to achieve the goal upon arrival at ‘E.’

In the beginning, these Index Points may look to some as exaggerated, excessive, or even slow. They are neither. The Chinese were criticized by other less knowledgeable art practitioners for some of their long, looping and exaggerated postures and methods. But the end result is anything but.

In Ed Parker’s teaching to me, he referred to these Index Basics, as Phonetic Movement. (There are some that will remember him speaking of this) This analogy of learning of the ABC’s, (Indexes) is transferred to writing in large blocks of PRINT, which gives way over time to smaller blocks of print, to large than small SCRIPT, and ultimately, SHORTHAND. The problem is; everyone wants to begin with shorthand when they haven’t learned the ABC’s. But the really sad thing is, almost no one knows the ABC’s (basics) to begin with. Everyone talks about them and their importance, but I can assure you they don't know them and it is demonstrable.

Those born of and reared in the commercial context began their study sans basics or Indexes at shorthand, thus lacking the proper foundation upon which to build and grow. Therefore, whatever level of skill acquired in general will level out, with no opportunity to reach higher. It is a functional ceiling built into the methodology.

The proper method requires a measure of patience and personal discipline, but oddly does not take any longer to learn than the commercial method. The difference is the latter requires the oversight of a supremely knowledgeable teacher of proper anatomical movement within the context of the learned activity. In sports, they call them ‘coaches.’

Hope I didn’t bore you sir.

Once again Dr. Chapel - thanks for showing me kicking indexes. Even though the herniation sends spikes down my leg, when I need to, at least the pressure isn't on my back any more.

Been there. Nasty!

 

[HKphooey]

Hi Doc, hope all is well.

A good example would be a jump shooter in basketball. All great jump shooters all shoot the exact same anatomical way, having learned the proper Indexing/basics’ and not allowed to alter, change, or tailor by knowledgeable coaches. Ultimately the action becomes intuitive, smoothed and compressed in action and appears effortless in its effectiveness.

One of the best 3 point shooters that played in the NBA, Michael Adams, was only 5'6", He learned to shoot from the side, as opposed to in front/overhead, so that his shots could not be blocked. There are a few correct ways to skin a cat, just have the goods to back it.

By the way, I totally agree that to properly learn a kick one needs to know all the proper movments of the body and the results of not doing things properly. But assuming all commercial practioners learned to wrong way may be an overstatement. They may have learned a modified method to account for knee injuries or other deficiencies in their training. Or they just found something that worked better for them. Just like Michael Adams did.

As always, thanks for taking the time to post the information.

 

[Doc]

Hi Doc, hope all is well.



One of the best 3 point shooters that played in the NBA, Michael Adams, was only 5'6", He learned to shoot from the side, as opposed to in front/overhead, so that his shots could not be blocked. There are a few correct ways to skin a cat, just have the goods to back it.

By the way, I totally agree that to properly learn a kick one needs to know all the proper movments of the body and the results of not doing things properly. But assuming all commercial practioners learned to wrong way may be an overstatement. They may have learned a modified method to account for knee injuries or other deficiencies in their training. Or they just found something that worked better for them. Just like Michael Adams did.

As always, thanks for taking the time to post the information.

Whenever I mention something like this, someone will always come up with an anomoly. There are people with anatomical deficiencies that force them to compensate to perform a particular activity. Usually it is a single activity. However that does not translate to what we're talking about. The example you gave was about compensating for what otherwise was a normal physical person, who desired to play basketball and thus adapted over many years of training a singular thing. Martial artist must train thousands of movements not one jump shot. And your example, with the exception of that one shot, had to play the game dribbling, moving, and passing just like everyone else.

In limited physical activities there can always be anomolies, but not often even there. Coaches know the optimal way to execute gleened from years of previous coaches experiences. Keith Wilks started playing when he was small and learned to 'swing' the ball around his head to help him get the ball up and never lost that trait, and became very succesful with it. But the rest of his game was by the coaches book.

The misunderstnding of tailoring in the arts is a modern one. You may 'tailor' for a given set of circumstances that present themselves, but you to not 'alter' the methodology, choosing instead to just use a different correct methodology. The exeption is if you're only doing one or two things, you could spend years concentrating on that one thing, and ultimately make it work for you. Martial artist have no such luxury of working on one thing for years, however in sports it possible. But even there its rare. That's another story.

You may hav to spel a word inkorectly bekaws u never lurned write or contex an stil be undastood. But all the letters you used were correct to do it. Had you made up your own letters, you would be incapable of communicating in writing.

"Tailoring and altering are not the same thing. You may tailor to the circumstances, but you do not alter the physical methodology." - Ron Chapél

 

[HKphooey]

Whenever I mention something like this, someone will always come up with an anomoly. There are people with anatomical deficiencies that force them to compensate to perform a particular activity. Usually it is a single activity. However that does not translate to what we're talking about. The example you gave was about compensating for what otherwise was a normal physical person, who desired to play basketball and thus adapted over many years of training a singular thing. Martial artist must train thousands of movements not one jump shot. And your example, with the exception of that one shot, had to play the game dribbling, moving, and passing just like everyone else.

In limited physical activities there can always be anomolies, but not often even there. Coaches know the optimal way to execute gleened from years of previous coaches experiences. Keith Wilks started playing when he was small and learned to 'swing' the ball around his head to help him get the ball up and never lost that trait, and became very succesful with it. But the rest of his game was by the coaches book.

The misunderstnding of tailoring in the arts is a modern one. You may 'tailor' for a given set of circumstances that present themselves, but you to not 'alter' the methodology, choosing instead to just use a different correct methodology. The exeption is if you're only doing one or two things, you could spend years concentrating on that one thing, and ultimately make it work for you. Martial artist have no such luxury of working on one thing for years, however in sports it possible. But even there its rare. That's another story.

You may hav to spel a word inkorectly bekaws u never lurned write or contex an stil be undastood. But all the letters you used were correct to do it. Had you made up your own letters, you would be incapable of communicating in writing.

"Tailoring and altering are not the same thing. You may tailor to the circumstances, but you do not alter the physical methodology." - Ron Chapél

Thanks for your opinion. :asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes me too, only i live too fart away. Doc can you name a chinese or okinawan form that particularly stands out to you as teaching indexing through posture as you mentioned?

Respectfully,
Marlon

My suspicion is that this lies in most, if not all of the traditional systems, and is not exclusive to SL4 kenpo. It is just a matter of how well it is understood and taught.

If an instructor has a less than perfect grasp of body mechanics and proper movement, he can only teach to that level (and just how do you measure "perfect", anyway?) But I believe that the traditional arts that place a heavy focus on basics all contain this notion. It is just that finding teachers of that caliber, to successfully teach these ideas, is becoming more and more difficult.

 

[Doc]

My suspicion is that this lies in most, if not all of the traditional systems, and is not exclusive to SL4 kenpo. It is just a matter of how well it is understood and taught.

If an instructor has a less than perfect grasp of body mechanics and proper movement, he can only teach to that level (and just how do you measure "perfect", anyway?) But I believe that the traditional arts that place a heavy focus on basics all contain this notion. It is just that finding teachers of that caliber, to successfully teach these ideas, is becoming more and more difficult.

As usual sir, on the money. The things in SubLevel Four Kenpo are not new, or even some kind of innovation. Call it old school Chinese if you will, but the trick is finding someone who knows and understands, and willing to teach.

 

[Flying Crane]

The things in SubLevel Four Kenpo are not new, or even some kind of innovation. Call it old school Chinese if you will, but the trick is finding someone who knows and understands, and willing to teach.

Now this raises another interesting issue: differences from system to system.

For example, Tibetan White Crane and Wing Chun are two systems that I have some experience with. They are polar opposites in how they approach fighting, both in philosophy and in technique.

White Crane is as long-armed as they get. It uses high stances and relies on mobility to charge and overwhelm, and hit-and-run. Large, circular, even "exagerated" strikes are thrown using a full-body pivot and torque, while keeping the shoulder and arm relaxed. Tremendous power can be generated this way.

Wing Chun is about as short-range as you can get, without becoming an actual grappling and wrestling style. Techniques are tight to the body and rely heavily on dominance of the centerline. The training stance is a strange, knock-kneed stance that burns your legs. Movement is decisive, but short and minimal, compared to White Crane.

So the question arises: is one of these arts "correct", while the other is "incorrect"? and how would one make that judgement?

My own suggestion is that they are both "correct" in their own way. They simply approach the problem differently, but with their own set of principles. As long as the principles are adhered to, it is "correct" in the context of the system.

But another point can be raised. For example, the knock-kneed stance of Wing Chun can lead to knee problems for some people, or at least exacerbate existing problems. One might argue that this stance is "incorrect", regardless of the fact that the system relies on it as a training stance. If it can lead to injury, or magnify existing injury, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with it, despite any positive development that its use can lead to.

Anybody wanna comment on this? thx.

 

[Doc]

Now this raises another interesting issue: differences from system to system.

For example, Tibetan White Crane and Wing Chun are two systems that I have some experience with. They are polar opposites in how they approach fighting, both in philosophy and in technique.

White Crane is as long-armed as they get. It uses high stances and relies on mobility to charge and overwhelm, and hit-and-run. Large, circular, even "exagerated" strikes are thrown using a full-body pivot and torque, while keeping the shoulder and arm relaxed. Tremendous power can be generated this way.

Wing Chun is about as short-range as you can get, without becoming an actual grappling and wrestling style. Techniques are tight to the body and rely heavily on dominance of the centerline. The training stance is a strange, knock-kneed stance that burns your legs. Movement is decisive, but short and minimal, compared to White Crane.

So the question arises: is one of these arts "correct", while the other is "incorrect"? and how would one make that judgement?


My own suggestion is that they are both "correct" in their own way. They simply approach the problem differently, but with their own set of principles. As long as the principles are adhered to, it is "correct" in the context of the system.

I agree. Most of the differences between the traditional Chinese Arts are philosophical based on a variety of factors. One of them for example, is environmental, and explains the differences in philosophy between Northern and Southern Traditional styles.

But the more you examine the core, the more you see they are alike arriving at similar goals. Think of them as different kinds of trains running on different tracks, but all running properly principled with the same destination.

Keep in mind,

"Styles do not have principles. Styles have philosophical concepts or methodologies of training. But all styles (although many don't), should comply with the physical laws associated with most efficient human movement. They should not be subject to 'artistic' change for personal preferences or philosophy for the sake of a style." - Ron Chapél

But another point can be raised. For example, the knock-kneed stance of Wing Chun can lead to knee problems for some people, or at least exacerbate existing problems. One might argue that this stance is "incorrect", regardless of the fact that the system relies on it as a training stance. If it can lead to injury, or magnify existing injury, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with it, despite any positive development that its use can lead to.

Anybody wanna comment on this? thx.

Well sir, you have found a pefectly good example. Wing Chun is based on female anatomy, and the female knee inherently is turned inward from the wide pelvic bone, and is anatomically misaligned. This position is perfectly natural for a woman but not for most men.

Consider the inception of most 'styles' was based on a smaller window of viability as well. Many styles philosophically promote hyperextension and flexibility, for a 'style' of movement and execution that gave specific skills for a short period of time, in warriors who were not expected to live long, in a population that lived only slightly longer. The knee, hip, shoulder, etc joint problems created were not important. Most would die before they became major issues in ones quality of life. The conditioning of body parts by continued striking that ultimately created debilitating arthritic conditions are similar 'style mandates' that have no place or relevance today.

Ed Parker created a modern art if you will, sans the cultural accoutrements with a focus on self-defense. This had never been done before. Many of the cutural aspects of the arts have nothing to do with defending yourself, but rather promoting a cutural artisitic philosophy. Parker was in the process of distilling the physical aspects of the art from the artistic cultural mndates, to a practical application process that focused on self-defense from an American perspective. Many still hang onto cultural aspects while promoting strict self-defense. in many cases, these are incompatible. Thus many modern day martial artist are having significant joint problems, and hip replacement has now become commonplace. We as modern practitioners must learn to know the difference between 'art and style' mandates, over practicality.

Really good obs sir.

 

[HKphooey]

Now this raises another interesting issue: differences from system to system.

For example, Tibetan White Crane and Wing Chun are two systems that I have some experience with. They are polar opposites in how they approach fighting, both in philosophy and in technique.

White Crane is as long-armed as they get. It uses high stances and relies on mobility to charge and overwhelm, and hit-and-run. Large, circular, even "exagerated" strikes are thrown using a full-body pivot and torque, while keeping the shoulder and arm relaxed. Tremendous power can be generated this way.

Wing Chun is about as short-range as you can get, without becoming an actual grappling and wrestling style. Techniques are tight to the body and rely heavily on dominance of the centerline. The training stance is a strange, knock-kneed stance that burns your legs. Movement is decisive, but short and minimal, compared to White Crane.

So the question arises: is one of these arts "correct", while the other is "incorrect"? and how would one make that judgement?

My own suggestion is that they are both "correct" in their own way. They simply approach the problem differently, but with their own set of principles. As long as the principles are adhered to, it is "correct" in the context of the system.

But another point can be raised. For example, the knock-kneed stance of Wing Chun can lead to knee problems for some people, or at least exacerbate existing problems. One might argue that this stance is "incorrect", regardless of the fact that the system relies on it as a training stance. If it can lead to injury, or magnify existing injury, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with it, despite any positive development that its use can lead to.

Anybody wanna comment on this? thx.

Great stuff Crane!

 

[Flying Crane]

Consider the inception of most 'styles' was based on a smaller window of viability as well. Many styles philosophically promote hyperextension and flexibility, for a 'style' of movement and execution that gave specific skills for a short period of time, in warriors who were not expected to live long, in a population that lived only slightly longer. The knee, hip, shoulder, etc joint problems created were not important. Most would die before they became major issues in ones quality of life. The conditioning of body parts by continued striking that ultimately created debilitating arthritic conditions are similar 'style mandates' that have no place or relevance today.

Thank you for the dialog, and this part especially makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Carol]

Wayne, Michael, Doc, Marlon... :asian:

 

[Sigung86]

Wayne, Michael, Doc, Marlon... :asian:

I had absolutely nothing significant to add. However, thanks for thought material guys. This discussion all occurred while I was teaching and then spending extended hours on attempting to get my budding "eBay Career" off the ground, and so, I had to wait until this morning.

However, it was an interesting conversation we had last night after class. Some students do get it. Last night I ran a 2 hour class of just basics, and working on getting the appropriate limbs in the appropriate places, correctly.

After class we normally go to a local Denny's for "dessert" and such. One of my newer students, a thinking man's thinking man, came in and began to assail virtually everything I know, or think I know about physical attributes of the techniques we use versus simply learning and applying excellent basics. I showed him that four fundamental techniques, inward block, outward block, a correct punch, a ball kick and the addition of the neutral bow to the square horse stance repertoire, could easily expand to 64 or so seperate techniques. After 2 1/2 hours of this type of discussion, he decided that he had made a good choice in getting into Kenpo.

That led to a whole different thought for me. I posited this position before here and got no, or very little original thought or input. It is that the original material taught by SGM Parker on the 8 mm tapes and the knowledge of the forms short 1, short 2, and short 3, when worked with the application of correct physiology, such as that done by Doc, would make one Hell of a great self defense system. And, without the need to make the extra 150 something and 400 something techniques that make up, what I consider to be the two "main" branches of Kenpo. Um... That would be EPAK and Tracy's.

Just a quick question, if I may... Of those who might take the time to read this post of mine... Have you done any experimentation with the material that Doc and some of his folk have put out here, or something that you may have glommed onto during these types of discussions? And (sorry this makes the second part) have you modified anything that you currently do in your technique, or style, based on that experimentation?

Just curious.


thanks,

Dan

 

[DavidCC]

I can't stop slapping myself! (that sounds a lot worse than it is LOL)

And, since I strated practicing a littel SL-4 my wife says that now she cant' study while I'm practicing because the "Chapel stuff is too noisy" haha boom-slap-pop-slap-BOOM! LOL

I've spent a little time playing with our base SK techniques to incorporate proper indexing and the "management" of alignment (positive and negative) the timing of our techniques, for monitoring (threat level and body reaction), for posture control (PAM and BAM) etc.

Working with SL-4 material has refreshed my motivation to make sure the basics are as solid as they can be. 1/4 inches, 10 degrees... everything matters.

Also, we are looking at the beginnings of our techniques : recovering from (or taking advantage of) your natural instinctive reaction to an attack. Especially for attacks that feature grabs, pushes, etc.