EPAK Slapping from another Systems Viewpoint.

[dubljay]

I fail to see how slapping one's self would increase speed and power... being a novice feel free to correct me as necessary. In the argument of slapping your body to gain power and speed is based upon Chi/Ki it seems contradictive to how Chi is supposed to work. I am under the impression that Chi would be disrupted by these slaps... Perhaps I am missinformed.

To me slapping my chest or shoulder is just a timing check for me. It serves as a double reference for my body, the sound and impact of the hand that is striking my body signifies the weapon I am striking the opponent with should be hitting the the target at the same time. This helps me ensure that I am not over reaching the range of my weapons and keeps the flow of the technique. The other perpuse it serves (for myself that is) is that when my hand makes contact with my body I "know" where it is. I have a better sense of where my hand is in relation to the rest of me.

Slapping the opponent I view a method of controling the depth of contact. Open handed I am not quite as concerned with penetrating too far causing harm to my opponent (dummy opponent that is "real life" is another matter); and that is not to say that you can not have a devastating open handed strike. It is my understanding that generally (not always) if you are in range to strike with an open hand, you are in range to strike with a closed fist, so there is no sacrificing of range. Secondly slapping an opponent helps them (again this is IMO and speaking about myself) understand the placement of the strikes. Being a good "dummy" they should be reacting to the strikes you are using, by understanding how the strikes are supposed to make the opponent react they gain a deeper understanding of not just "how" to execute the technique, but "why" the technique designed as such.

Again this is based upon my limited and novice experience... feel free to enlighten me of my errors of judgement or fact.

-Josh

 

[Simon Curran]

Just so that you all know, the "Trejo" posting on here is NOT Frank Trejo. It is my brown belt student, Matt Trejo. But yes, his comment was still meant as "tongue in cheek".



Jamie Seabrook

www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Yes sir, I noticed that it said brown belt by his profile, but made the mistake of taking the post seriously, my mistake and my apologies to Mr Trejo (either of them...)

 

[JenniM]

I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.

Ok may be I phrased my post incorrectly - let me put it another way SL4 works!!! - contest it, question it but to do this you have to have experienced it, worked it and then form your opinion - I have spent 25 years doing motion Kenpo and have been accused in the past of being too analytical, therefore learning SL4 is not an easy task for me given its complexities BUT I'm sticking with it because I've seen, it, practiced it, felt it and know this stuff works. As for my eyesight... perfect 20/20 vision!!:ultracool

 

[kenposikh]

Its all about the sound effects

Sir,

I believe you need to chat to your instructor for the reasons why, as your statement states a clear lack of understanding

 

[kenposikh]

Trejo,

Please ignore my post for if as has been stated elsewhere your statement was tongue in cheek then I apologise for any offence I may have caused

 

[kenposikh]

I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.

Sir,

I would like to raise a couple of points and in no way wish to cause offence.

Your statement above tends to lead me to believe that you are skeptical about the reasonings for slap check etc etc. Therefore I say to be blind is one thing for you have an excuse for not seeing, but to close ones eyes and ears to facts as presented in some of the posts is sheer ignorance. It is all well and good to question reasons for why and to find answers you need to speak vist and feel from someone who knows.

Here is a simple test for you to try

1. stand in a good horse stance and throw an outward elbow to 3 oclock

2. Have someone put there hand on your elbow and then push to see if they can put you off balance.

3. Assuming that you fist is kept close to your body as was stated in another post, this is where it needs to be to brace the strike.

4. You will find that it will be easy to push you off balance.

5. Try the experiment again this time however slap yourself on the font of your chest near to where the shoulder joint is and execute the same outward elbo from there

6. You should now find that even though your fist ends up in the same position as previously i.e. close to your chest that the effort required to put you off balance is considerably increased.

Therefore the slap check does serve a purpose and the how the outward elbow got to is's final point is important as can be seend the end result looks the same.

Herein lies the key to my response the LOOK may be the same however a blind person cannot see it therefore the FEEL is Important.

If the experiment does not work for you then I suggest you pay a visit to someone who can show you what you are doing incorrect. I suggest if you have access then you pay a visit to Dr Ron Chapel who will certainly be able to help.

I wonder about this as well. We do it in the FMA sometimes to whip around a stick/sword strike by slapping the bicep and I am not fully convinced that it makes a great deal of difference.

Not a good Idea to slap the Bicep justs cuts your strike down.

Finally please don't make stupid statements as was said to JenniM she was stating what she knew through testing and not through hearsay etc.

The fact that she has questioned the how and the why and the results she found were positive should make an intelligent person enquire as to how they can discover the results for themselves rather than being derogatory.

Once again I apologise if this causes offence although I do not believe it would as we are all intelligent people here and able to hold a debate on a subject without going to the depths of insults etc.

Thank you

 

[Jagdish]

I think one can "sense" the drills better if one has been previously exposed to correct alignment in one's training.

I have tried the slapping check to outward elbow and the stomping once made neutral bow (advancing or retreating).

In the outward elbow drill i was amazed how quickly you got proper alignment and how the back muscles engaged to the action without execesive tension.( there is much more, of course!).

About this drill i would say that it helps to align yourself quickly and it's vey useful for beginners or people with not 100% control of his body. I know it's also useful for advance practicioners but i just to wanted to point out it' fast advantages. It take years of hard training to get proper alignment of your body in static and dynamic situations.

When stomping after retreating to a N/B it was like getting braced and having a forced that was coming upward-forward.

Yes, there are advantages to this material but once must experiment with it and it will take a long time to discover "these little wonders" without being a blind follower or an anti-slapping positioned fighter. What i mean is the best way is to experiment without being conditioned.

Also one should (in theory) expand fron these.
TTFN

Yours,

Jagdish

 

[MHeeler]

I've got two words for you: Double blind. Until then, it's contestable and most assuredly questionable.

Arnisador,

Apparently, no-one from the Martial "Science" University understands the concept of "double-blindedness." Makes me at least a little bit skeptical about the "science" involved.

Science is merely the method by which we test our database of knowledge, no matter the subject. Think back to grade school science classes and remember the "Scientific Method." Unfortunately, most of us left those lessons back there in our childhood. If this method, or some variation, isn't used, then it's really not science. We can call it science or scientific, but unfortunately, the actual experimentation and testing process is all too often absent.

Double blind refers to this testing process. Some posters apparently took this as a reference to eyesight and/or open-mindedness. Unfortunate misunderstanding. Double blind simply means that both parties involved in an experiment/test are unaware of the methods of the test. The person administering the test is not allowed to know which person gets the "real" deal and which gets the "placebo." (In quotes because we're not really talking about drug trials, but our current topic instead.) Also, the person receiving the technique is not allowed to know which they are receiving. This process removes several errors inherent in the testing process, known as biases. This is why the gold standard of scientific testing is the "double blind, randomized clinical trial." Randomization is another topic altogether involving statistical analysis, and my math is a little rusty.

Any basic science text ought to include this information. But, I'm sure that a little effort with a search engine could yield the same results.

Scientist wannabe,
MH

 

[Bode]

Arnisador,

Apparently, no-one from the Martial "Science" University understands the concept of "double-blindedness." Makes me at least a little bit skeptical about the "science" involved.
MH

Keep in mind that not everyone in the Martial Science university is a scientist. The name suggests a way of looking at the application of Martial Arts. A methodology. I am aware of what a double blind test is as I am sure others are. Some of the people on this forum are simply passionate about what they are learning and will defend it. Especially when the medium of communication distorts or misrepresents the point someone is trying to make. (Misunderstanding of double blind)
The scientific method:

Quoting some website
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Obviously it doesn't say anything about a double blind. Is a double blind always required? No. In fact, double blind is used in clinical trials or drug testing when the objectivity of the patient is required. (The only test in Kenpo this seems applicable to is nerve striking)

Physicists don't use a double blind because they are not worried about observer bias. They propose a hypothesis, predict the existence of some phenomena, and test it. We all know that if I extend my arm straight out in front of me it will be fairly week on the vertical plane. Do I need a double blind to test that? No, it's physics. The supporting muscles are greatly reduced (deltoid is the major support muscle, Dr. Crouch?) such that it is impossible to be AS strong in that position.

Within our coursework we are continually hypothesising and testing (scientific method). I test on people who don't know martial arts and even those who do, but outside of my school. We are encouraged to go to other schools and test our teachings.

If you wish to hold us to the gold standard of double blind, fine, for everything we do we will perform such a test. Then 700 years from now when all the tests are done we might actually have learned something. Point is, there is no time for this except for perhaps very contentious points (such as nerver strikes). Other tests are more in line with physics than testing drugs on human patients.

How many schools are you aware of that encourage such testing? Rather, many, in my experience teach a technique and say, "Do it this way...cause it works."

 

[Michael Billings]

I think the most important thing here is the ability to recreate the same conditions and render the same effect. We can argue about whether it is applied kinesiology, SL-4, Dim-Muk, or Dillman no contact knockouts. This is a bit specious I know. Rather open the mind a bit, as Mr. Parker said "... it only works when it is open."

Do pressure points work in the back of the neck, sure they do. Is it because I am "grounded", or my energy flow is correct, or I am maintaining the correct anatomical positioning to maximize the power of my strike, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum.

I can tap the pressure points, my student goes out. In a fight, if I miss them, that is ok because Kenpo allows a margin of error. Almost anyone falls down with a hard strike to the neck. Although I may try for the pressure points, with a very relaxed heavy hand, if I miss them due to my own incompetence, lack of training, or just nerves and adreniline, I am fairly confident the guy will still go down.

SL-4's framework, from my limited understanding, and the bit I have learned and tried over the past several years, allows you maximize the structural advantages you possess, by #1 - Learning them, #2 - learning how to take advantage of other's who do not have this insight into their own body.

I have a great story about a student last night who may be 150 pounds on a rainy day wearing a coat. Extremely skilled and proficient in AKKI Kenpo, BJJ, and TKD. I had a 250 pound guy and he sparring Kenpo-style (no gloves, pads, except mouthpiece and cup) going about 50% speed so we can bring self-defense techniques (or part of them) into our free sparring and eventually get rid of the tournament style stuff all together. The 250 pounder picks him up a few times for others to punch him (did I mention we were doing multiple opponents?), anyhow, it was way too easy. So I worked with his hooking, then anchoring his heel, hip, and shoulder on one side, actually adding weight instead of suspending himself for the other guy to throw. Could not get him off the ground and he still had an arm and leg for the 2nd opponent. Part of this involves slapping your own body to activate or cue the weight distribution/balance break.

Well, I got way off topic, not good, but it was a great class with over 3 hours of sparring or grappling. Lots to learn about your own body and a good place to play with this is when someone else is leaning on you and you figure out how to "make" your center, immovable.

<< OK, Twilight Zone Music Inserted HERE>>

-Michael

 

[MHeeler]

Keep in mind that not everyone in the Martial Science university is a scientist. The name suggests a way of looking at the application of Martial Arts. A methodology. I am aware of what a double blind test is as I am sure others are. Some of the people on this forum are simply passionate about what they are learning and will defend it. Especially when the medium of communication distorts or misrepresents the point someone is trying to make. (Misunderstanding of double blind)
The scientific method:
Obviously it doesn't say anything about a double blind. Is a double blind always required? No. In fact, double blind is used in clinical trials or drug testing when the objectivity of the patient is required. (The only test in Kenpo this seems applicable to is nerve striking)

Physicists don't use a double blind because they are not worried about observer bias. They propose a hypothesis, predict the existence of some phenomena, and test it. We all know that if I extend my arm straight out in front of me it will be fairly week on the vertical plane. Do I need a double blind to test that? No, it's physics. The supporting muscles are greatly reduced (deltoid is the major support muscle, Dr. Crouch?) such that it is impossible to be AS strong in that position.

Within our coursework we are continually hypothesising and testing (scientific method). I test on people who don't know martial arts and even those who do, but outside of my school. We are encouraged to go to other schools and test our teachings.

If you wish to hold us to the gold standard of double blind, fine, for everything we do we will perform such a test. Then 700 years from now when all the tests are done we might actually have learned something. Point is, there is no time for this except for perhaps very contentious points (such as nerver strikes). Other tests are more in line with physics than testing drugs on human patients.

How many schools are you aware of that encourage such testing? Rather, many, in my experience teach a technique and say, "Do it this way...cause it works."

I apologize. I wasn't trying to make a back-handed statement about the MSU. It just struck me as silly that the original poster's meaning was so misconstrued. However, it is precisely this methodology that I question. There are accepted standards of research that all institutions of higher learning must abide by. Not to mention, the very idea of scientific testing implies reproducibility and falsifiability (I may have just invented a word here ).

No, double blind settings are not always used or required. And, they are not explicitly implied by any definition of the scientific method. I never said they were. However, through several decades of experimental experience, it has become accepted that double-blinding and randomization are keys to reducing errors in the scientific process. These are used not only for drug trials, but also many types of scientific testing, from psychological to marketing and sales. In addition, double blinding is used not only to ensure the patient's objectivity, but also the tester's (i.e., reducing confirmation bias and positive outcome bias).

Physicists, while they may not utilize double blinding, DO very much have to worry about observer bias. All experimenters do. This is why studies are repeated both by the original experimenter as well as many others, and at other universities. This ensures that error alone does not account for any significant findings. And, I further propose that, if it would be feasible to do so, double blinding would enhance the accuracy of all tests, including physics. For the most part, it would seem to me that physicists are unable to utilize double blinding for the sole reason that the experimenter MUST know something about the method and purpose of the test in order to correctly interpret what happens. Most lay people are not able to accurately observe esoteric scientific data without some prior training.

Which brings me back to "martial science." What we do does not require much higher learning. As the head of MSU often states, you can quite easily learn what to do and how to do it without knowing why it works. And no, I'm not holding you to any standard. Furthermore, I personally haven't seen any martial arts instructors engage in testing their teachings either. However, when you proclaim yourself to be a university, and that you are teaching a science, you put yourself in league with other such institutions who hold themselves to high standards.

Thanks,
MH

 

[arnisador]

Not a good Idea to slap the Bicep justs cuts your strike down.

Hmm, perhaps Filipino martial arts practitioners don't understand stick-fighting very well. I'll look into it.

Finally please don't make stupid statements as was said to JenniM she was stating what she knew through testing

It isn't tested unless it's tested in a double-blind study, as your post eminently demonstrates. If it's good enough for her, though, that's great.

we are all intelligent people here and able to hold a debate on a subject without going to the depths of insults

I didn't insult anyone. I made a standard objection. Yet, you've described my statements as stupid and derogatory, and accused me of being insulting. I do find your post rude and insulting. It's also ignorant (look this word up; it doesn't mean what you think it means). See e.g. MHeeler's post.

 

[arnisador]

Keep in mind that not everyone in the Martial Science university is a scientist.

Ah, I didn't realize it also offered liberal arts majors!

Is a double blind always required? No.

True. But even a single blind testing protocol is a step up. Grab 20 people off the street. Do a (safe) technique on them. Do it the SL-4 way half of the time and the "classical" way half of the time, randomized. Have unbiased observers rate the effectiveness of the technique. Not perfect, but it starts to approach a scientific method. Better would be to train 10 volunteers in the SL-4 way of doing one technique, 10 the classical way, and have them perform the technique on other volunteers, and have the results rated. Hard? Yes. But strong claims, like someone at a "science university" claiming that a technique is unquestionably superior to another, merit strong proof.

If you wish to hold us to the gold standard of double blind

No, that isn't always necessary. But I didn't put Science and University in the school's name...are you arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for your own labeling? That you don't believe your own hype? Is it a scientific approach, or just a very specialized approach? Specialization does not a science make.

How many schools are you aware of that encourage such testing? Rather, many, in my experience teach a technique and say, "Do it this way...cause it works."

Ah, OK. So, ignore the "Science University" part and just reckon it as yet another commercial school with an unusual marketing campaign? Shall I infer from your comments an opinion about its degrees as well? Fair enough. I am convinced by the logic of your argument!

 

[arnisador]

Ok may be I phrased my post incorrectly - let me put it another way SL4 works!!! - contest it, question it but to do this you have to have experienced it, worked it and then form your opinion

I'm glad you like it and I have no problem with that. I'm sure it's every bit as good as other forms of Kenpo. Who knows, maybe it's better! But, if only acolytes can form an opinion, group-think is always a danger. Yet, I wouldn't try to form an opinion of any art without seeing it demonstrated live. I've had experiences with many Kenpoists but never, to the best of my knowledge, an SL-4 practitioner. I actually find the approach as described interesting and am not trying to deride it as being less effective than some other form of Kenpo--I'm discussing it as best I can on a web board. That is why we're here, no?

 

[Simon Curran]

Well, I got way off topic, not good, but it was a great class with over 3 hours of sparring or grappling. Lots to learn about your own body and a good place to play with this is when someone else is leaning on you and you figure out how to "make" your center, immovable.



-Michael

For what it's worth, sir, it doesn't look to me as if you strayed from the topic, you showed anecdotal evicence for a principle.:asian:

 

[Doc]

Here's an article I found this morning.. what are your thoughts and comments?

Amazing how EPAK crosses into other Systems

*Author*
Jeremy Bays is an experienced martial artist and writer who holds a black belt in Chun Do Kwan Taekwon-do,
Chinese Kempo jiu-jitsu, and is currently working in Kali and Jeet Kune Do. He lives in Farmland, Indiana with his wife and two daughters.


Slap! Slap! Slap! This is a sound that you will hear upon entering into an American Kenpo, Shaolin Long Fist, or various other styles of karate and kung fu's class. People seem to be slapping themselves while performing the techniques of this system. Have you ever wondered what they were really doing? Have you ever wondered if the martial artists themselves knew what they were doing?

In this article I will attempt to give ONE possible explanation f or this odd looking movement. Please understand that there are as many more explanations as there are stars in the heavens. This is not THE ANSWER for this rebounding motion, but instead it is MY ANSWER.

The Technique:

Observe a high ranking American Kenpo stylist and you might notice this person will appear to slap themselves, usually on the chest area, while performing the various hand techniques of the art. One hand will go out to strike the opponent, then rebound off their body and go out and strike the attacker again. This process gets repeated at very high speeds in a movement. Please understand that there are as many more explanations as there are stars in the heavens. This is not THE ANSWER for this rebounding motion, but instead it is MY ANSWER.

The Technique:

Observe a high ranking American Kenpo stylist and you might notice this person will appear to slap themselves, usually on the chest area, while performing the various hand techniques of the art. One hand will go out to strike the opponent, then rebound off their body and go out and strike the attacker again. This process gets repeated at very high speeds in a

To rebound the technique off the body
To minimize the harm done to the attacker (training partner)
To indicate where the technique will land on the attacker by striking yourself in the same spot
To ensure that the strike is given in a relaxed, whipping manner
Some people I spoke with had not idea why they did this motion in their forms.

My Reason for Slapping Myself:

I tend to view the martial arts from a TCM (Traditional Chinese Medical) viewpoint. I find value in the theory of Chi (Qi, Ki, parna, life-force, energy). I believe that there are several locations on the human body where the Chi can be affected. These areas are commonly called pressure points and the art of manipulating these areas can do by many names including: kyusho, dim-mak, vital point applications, hyul-dul, and a host of other names. It is from this tradition that I draw the following theory in regards to slapping yourself.

Try this simple experiment with a partner:

First, locate the pressure point called Lung One on yourself. This point is located where the arm and shoulder meet. It lies about one inch under the clavicle (collar bone) towards the arm. Press around with light, finger tip pressure until you find a painful spot. Now find the same pressure point on your partner using the same method of light, fingertip pressure.

Next, strike your partner in this area VERY LIGHTLY!!!! This strike is not a full cocked punch but instead more of a heavy push. Just give your partner a little tap and then ask them to remember the amount of pain they felt.

The next step is now to strike yourself in Lung One with a slapping motion and then rebound off that slap and strike your partner in Lung One. Again, please PLAY NICE and go not hit them hard. Ask your partner to remember the results of this strike and compare it to the first one. If you were on target the effects of the second strike (with the self slap) should be much greater.

This is due to the fact you are doing several things with this technique:

You are maintaining a 'soft body'
You are executing a whip-like strike
You are attacking a pressure point on the body (a cluster of nerves in this case)
You are 'programming' in your mind the exact location of Lung One on your partner by first striking there on yourself.
Try this out with several of your techniques to is if your results are not greatly improved. Remember, this technique is not for everyone or for every situation. This movement is greatly telegraphed if the attacker can see you slapping yourself or knows what you are doing. Only use this technique when you have the attacker in a position where they can not see you due to some obstruction in their line of sight or some movement of deception you have preformed.

Here is a good technique to try this combination on. It is the classic Delayed Sword: from American Kenpo’s curriculum.

Attacker reaches out with the right hand to grasp the collar or lapel of the defender. Defender steps back to perform a right inward block (strike) to the attackers radial nerve area.

Defender then steps into a cat stance and executes a low front snap kick to the attackers exposed abdomen, bladder, groin, or femoral artery region. This action will double the attacker over, obstructing the vision, allowing the time needed by the defender to perform the 'self-slapping' motion before the follow-up strike. The defender then executes the self-slap and strikes at a target of opportunity.

Rubbish.

 

[kenposikh]

I didn't insult anyone. I made a standard objection. Yet, you've described my statements as stupid and derogatory, and accused me of being insulting.

Sir,

I am not a scientific person and have done as you suggested, I therefore Apologsie for my comments which caused you offence.

 

[arnisador]

I am not a scientific person and have done as you suggested, I therefore Apologsie for my comments which caused you offence.

Thank you, sir. I accept this, and understand your good intent. It's all about learning for all of us here! I'm enjoying learning some of the philosophy behind the SL-4 approach, which appeals to my scientific mind.

 

[Bode]

Ah, I didn't realize it also offered liberal arts majors!

Ah, OK. So, ignore the "Science University" part and just reckon it as yet another commercial school with an unusual marketing campaign? Shall I infer from your comments an opinion about its degrees as well?

Statements like that make this seem more like a personal or directed attack, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt given your other posts.

First, Martial Science University, is, and I said this earlier, an approach to the arts. I have an Masters of Science in Computer Science. Does that mean I have very formal training in every aspect of the scientific method? No. The MS in Computer Science suggests that my degree is founded on logical thought and clearly defines how we approach computers. In a scientific logical way.
You are trying to argue semantics with me and we are not on the same page.
Computer Science.
Replace computer with Martial and you have Martial Science. Same thing. It's an approach to a particular subject, which in this case is all subjects Martial.
In computer Science I could have a focus or area of expertise. Artifical Intelligence for instance. In Martial Science it just so happens to be Kenpo.

The University part of Martial Science implies an institution of higher learning. Many schools (not kenpo specific) are black belt factories. I think everyone agrees on this. And of course, there are exceptions. Karate or Martial Arts is so ubiquitous now that there is no way to differentiate ours from the Take Your Do school down the street. These Take Your Do type schools are so common that people go, "Martial arts don't teach you how to fight, it's a sport."
In addition, a university often offers a range of courses. We have, under MSU, JuJitsu, Kenpo, Aikido, and Iiado... right now.

Ah, OK. So, ignore the "Science University" part and just reckon it as yet another commercial school with an unusual marketing campaign?

Commercial. No. Commercial schools accept everyone with a paycheck and a decent attitude. Marketing, no. Our school doesn't market. We have a very small number of students and no specific school location. (We use another schools). You will never find a pamphlet, flyer, or otherwise saying, "Come on down and learn SL4." Everyone who visits is given prior approval. Everyone who wants to join is subject to a background check. People are often turned away.
The goal is to change the approach to the martial arts. Human anatomy dictates how certain movements should be performed, just as physics dictates how a bridge can be built to achieve peak structural integrity.

Do we offer a liberal arts degree? You must be joking. Seems like and antagonistic comment.

But strong claims, like someone at a "science university" claiming that a technique is unquestionably superior to another, merit strong proof.

I don't remember anyone saying that. You have your way, we have ours. I am williing to bet that anyone on this board will defend their art's methods with great enthusiasm, as do the people on this board defend SL4.
When I post I try to discuss my reasoning in a very logical way, which is a requirement for SL4. In the end do I believe in my school more than others, yes. Does that make me bad? No. I can learn a lot, and have, by going to other schools or seminars. I appreciate all the arts as should anyone. I talk about SL4 in all my posts because it is what I know. Maybe I have knowledge in a few others areas, but SL4 is my focus.
Read this article
For a good summary of how logical and scientific our approach is.

 

[arnisador]

First, Martial Science University, is, and I said this earlier, an approach to the arts. I have an Masters of Science in Computer Science.

My understanding is that your school offers college degrees. That is what led me to ask. As an aside, the 'science' in 'Computer Science' is often helpd by computer scientists to be misleading. It's more akin to engineering--in fact, it's not accredited through ABET, and witness also the rise of Software Engineering programs. In my experience, computer scientists don't see themselves as scientists per se, though you are right that the M.S. degree or a variant is generally the degree of choice.

As to being antagonistic, that's not my goal. University programs is a subject with which I am familiar and in which I take a particular interest.

The goal is to change the approach to the martial arts. Human anatomy dictates how certain movements should be performed, just as physics dictates how a bridge can be built to achieve peak structural integrity.

Is it that simple? Two pitchers throw the ball in different ways. Each achieves good effects. Should everyone be emulating Tom Seaver? It's not clear to me that there's a single ideal sports technique everyone should be using.

There are standard programs in kinesiology, sports performance/medicine/etc., biphysics/biomechanics, physiology, etc., that seems to cover these issues. However, having one with a focus on martial arts sounds good to me! I'm told they exist in for example Korea, but less so here.

For a good summary of how logical and scientific our approach is.

The link is interesting, but I think you're confusing 'logical' and 'scientific' with 'pedantic' and 'detailed'. It's argued like a humanist taking a position, not like a scientist supporting one.

In any event, Martial Science University seems an inflated name for a group that has no physical school, a free web site, lacks a cohort of academically trained staff (correct me if I am mistaken here--it's not clear from the web pages), doesn't grant degrees or if it does they have "no indication of skill, knowledge, or ...ability" (from the web page cited above), and so on. It's great that you take the martial arts seriously, but that doesn't make for "an institution of higher learning" as you say.

If you like it, great. It actually has an appraoch I find interesting. But wordiness is not the same as science, and I find the certainty inspired by the pseudo-philosophical tracts as on the link you gave to be grossly unsupported. But if it's just an unscientific personal belief, I have no beef with that.