EPAK Slapping from another Systems Viewpoint.

Guess I missed that thread... I've been on frickin jury duty for what seems like an eternity. I guess I can find some solace in the fact that we got the chance to crucify a serial child molester but that's a bit off topic.

As far as the slapping thing, I've always approached it purely from a physics standpoint. During the execution of a back-knuckle, for instance, we know what we are trying to do and our opponent does not (that is unless your opponent is your training partner and you just called out the name of the technique you are about to do :uhyeah: ). Since we know what we are trying to do and have hopefully trained so that we can effectively execute this back-knuckle, in this case as a follow up strike, we may create an elastic collision against our own bodies by utilizing the infamous kenpo grunts and groans (i.e. breathing) to take advantage of the natural elasticity of our skin and muscles to create a trampoline type effect off of our own body. We may absorb a little bit of the force as is evident through small little bruises, but from here we direct the "rebounding" energy into our opponent in the hopes of creating an inelastic collision (i.e. all power is transferred to the target, our body movement via hips and so forth is what keeps our strikes in motion after point of contact should this be required). This allows us to build speed and power and redirect it back towards our specific targets in hopes of damaging their structural integrity. For those who may not understand the physics but like movies. I submit the scene from Armageddon where they "slingshot" around the moon in order to build up speed and redirect their movement towards their target. They merely used the moons intrinsic gravity field the same way we use our bodies intrinsic elasticity. While not a perfect example, it certainly was the only one I could come up with that was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer :armed:

If you never used the principle of rebounding then you would be putting a tremendous amount of strain on your muscles and ligaments (i.e. generating a large moment of force, or torque, in an extremely localized area) as you internally tried to start and stop each movement. Combine this with the fact that most people, despite their overwhelming insistance, are not moving in a very efficient anatomical manner then you have a recipe for all sorts of fun joint and tendon injuries.

I also find that it helps me with targeting via tracking and point of reference. In this case the rebounding seems to help me harness the fast twitch and muscle memory reactions that go along with repetitive practice and execution of movement.

:deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse
 
arnisador said:
Yes, absolutely. If it can't be studied by a disinterested scientist, but only by someone taught to see it in a certain way, then we've left the realm of science and entered...what? Religion, where believers only are welcome?
Click to expand...
Sir,

I agree and understand where you are coming from with this and this is why myself and JenniM have a hard time with SL4 we both find it hard to take things on face value and generally strive to find out why. This is why I sometimes try things out on friends of mine I don't tell them what I'm trying to achieve or what the result will be but ask if they notice a difference and if so what.

I think however that we have stayed from the original topic and maybe need to start a new thread on Experimentation and studies of methodology or something do you agree.
 
MHeeler said:
Some posters apparently took this as a reference to eyesight and/or open-mindedness. Unfortunate misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
I think a dual misunderstanding has occured here - my comment on eyesight was meant "tongue in cheek" to lighten the post somewhat - obviously failed!! :shrug:
 
arnisador said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes!! Not easy to discuss complex issues on a web board but unless we can all get together, its the next best thing - it'd be a boring world if we were all the same and hey SL4 seems to be the "hot topic" of the moment and the subject of lively debate and that's a good thing and very interesting to hear non-SL4 practitioner's perspectives on what they have read about it - keeps us on our toes and hopefully one day you will experience working with an SL-4 practitioner and them with you - until then web boards it is
smileJap.gif
 
I can not speak in terms of science, or pseudo-science, since I am not a scientist.
I can not speak of the validity of various types of university degrees, since I do not have one.
I can not speak of MSU's right to call themselves thus, because I don't understand the criteria necessary for accreditation.
In short, I can only trust, and therefore speak of, my own experience.

The original topic of this thread was in regards to slapping in EPAK, personally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, up until recently, I didn't really have any idea as to it's application, beyond rebounding, as has already been mentioned numerous times.
I was, however, recently exposed to some of the teachings of Doc, and his SL4 Kenpo approach in a seminar setting, including one application of a slap check.
I found, through my perhaps less than scientific experimentation, that in the particular example to which I was exposed, the slap check did perform a function, which improved the particular basic to which it was being applied.
Can I explain how or why? No I can't, I just know what I experienced.
Can I replicate the results? Yes I can, and have been trying to adjust my methodology in performing said basic since.

Like I said, this is just my less than qualified, but rather "enlightened" opinion, based upon my personal experience, once again anecdotal evidence, but at some point there must come a time where anecdotal evidence is also construed as admissable, granted just because more people say it is so, doesn't necessarily make it so, but at some point we have to start taking people on their word.

Thanks,
Simon
 
JenniM said:
I think a dual misunderstanding has occured here - my comment on eyesight was meant "tongue in cheek" to lighten the post somewhat - obviously failed!! :shrug:
Click to expand...
Yep. I just re-read the post, and you're right (well, that's obvious, as you're the only one who knows your intent). I guess I'm not nearly as smart as I like to fantasize. In response to your "tongue in cheek," consider me "foot in mouth."

MH
 
SIMONCURRAN said:
I can not speak in terms of science, or pseudo-science, since I am not a scientist.
I can not speak of the validity of various types of university degrees, since I do not have one.
I can not speak of MSU's right to call themselves thus, because I don't understand the criteria necessary for accreditation.
In short, I can only trust, and therefore speak of, my own experience.

The original topic of this thread was in regards to slapping in EPAK, personally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, up until recently, I didn't really have any idea as to it's application, beyond rebounding, as has already been mentioned numerous times.
I was, however, recently exposed to some of the teachings of Doc, and his SL4 Kenpo approach in a seminar setting, including one application of a slap check.
I found, through my perhaps less than scientific experimentation, that in the particular example to which I was exposed, the slap check did perform a function, which improved the particular basic to which it was being applied.
Can I explain how or why? No I can't, I just know what I experienced.
Can I replicate the results? Yes I can, and have been trying to adjust my methodology in performing said basic since.

Like I said, this is just my less than qualified, but rather "enlightened" opinion, based upon my personal experience, once again anecdotal evidence, but at some point there must come a time where anecdotal evidence is also construed as admissable, granted just because more people say it is so, doesn't necessarily make it so, but at some point we have to start taking people on their word.

Thanks,
Simon
Click to expand...
I think, at the least, that there has been much miscommunication. I don't think that anyone here is trying to imply that your personal experience is in any way invalid. Likewise, no-one is saying that any SL-4 student is wrong in stating his/her opinion. This IS only an internet forum. We're all here spouting off about our own personal experiences and opinions. If we weren't allowed to do so, this site, and several others, would be completely without purpose.

I think the issue in contention is referring to the MSU's name and the "degrees" it is conferring. The word university usually carries with it the connotation of "higher learning." When you hear of Harvard University, you don't need to have been there to have some idea of what it is, what it's like, the people you may find there, etc. When you call yourself an university, it implies all of these things, and more. This is not even getting into the topic of degree accreditation. This term carries quite a bit of weight in itself.

The word science itself has been misconstrued and misapplied, not just on this forum, but in society at large. It's often been used to justify/validate erroneous and fallacious claims ad nauseum. However, science means something, and it implies a lot more. To refer to your post, anecdotal evidence is never admissable in scientific inquiry. Sorry. By its very nature, anecdotal evidence has no scientific value whatsoever. For a full discussion, I'll refer you to one of my favorite websites, The Skeptics Dictionary: http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html. Now, this is not to say that your statement has no value. I'm sure that people who know you and trust you value your opinions quite highly, as I do of people I trust and respect. It just doesn't hold water when it comes to science.

Regards,
MH
 
Are people just getting to indepth about titles here

science

Ā• noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.



university

Ā• noun (pl. universities) a high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done



degree

Ā• noun 4 an academic rank conferred by a college or university after examination or completion of a course.

sounds good enough for me. If you dont like the system he is using talk to him directly or sign up for the course or attend a seminar and find out more. People whos reputations I trust implicitly have, and they have no arguments. If its true knowledge you seek, then seek it. If you discredit after seeking it out, well that of course is a different matter.

Any way, all this is alittle off thread

Respectfully

Jonah
 
SIMONCURRAN said:
I can not speak in terms of science, or pseudo-science, since I am not a scientist.
I can not speak of the validity of various types of university degrees, since I do not have one.
I can not speak of MSU's right to call themselves thus, because I don't understand the criteria necessary for accreditation.
In short, I can only trust, and therefore speak of, my own experience.

The original topic of this thread was in regards to slapping in EPAK, personally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, up until recently, I didn't really have any idea as to it's application, beyond rebounding, as has already been mentioned numerous times.
I was, however, recently exposed to some of the teachings of Doc, and his SL4 Kenpo approach in a seminar setting, including one application of a slap check.
I found, through my perhaps less than scientific experimentation, that in the particular example to which I was exposed, the slap check did perform a function, which improved the particular basic to which it was being applied.
Can I explain how or why? No I can't, I just know what I experienced.
Can I replicate the results? Yes I can, and have been trying to adjust my methodology in performing said basic since.

Like I said, this is just my less than qualified, but rather "enlightened" opinion, based upon my personal experience, once again anecdotal evidence, but at some point there must come a time where anecdotal evidence is also construed as admissable, granted just because more people say it is so, doesn't necessarily make it so, but at some point we have to start taking people on their word.
Click to expand...

I think this is great. It's how most of us proceed. I've learned some enlightening things about stick-fighting recently that I'm trying to work in to my repertoir.

I do question whether the body's elasticity is the real explanation--to the contrary, I'd guess it's fairly inelastic for these purposes. You don't get the size of bulge that you do in a basketball hitting the floor, for example. But you can get a rebound inelastically (think billiard balls). Indeed, more energy is transferred to motion that way as less goes to deforming the elastic body.

Someone knowledgeable could make a model and do the calculation--this is within the realm of science.
 
Ooo, deja vu. Much of this thread re visits, with much better focus and specificity, a past dicussion on whether or not the term "science" could be used in the discussion of Martial Arts; I can't add much to it other than to say that it's been enjoyable to read, so thanks. My only point (in a calm, quite voice and a friendly tone): those who are only weakly grounded in some of the basics of scientific pursuit (perhaps because they stand outside of them) will see them as easily argued away. They won't see that this arguing away belies their understanding of the rigors of the method. Think "pseudo", if you must, you critics (and kudos to you, by the way) but by all means, follow the other mandate of the method: investigate. If it's a big deal to ya, show up and get your Official-Member-of-The-Method lab smock dirty :).
 
Good question from the thread starter. Would have been interesting to hear some explanatations on "slap checking" from non-kenpo people. I have seen some interesting "slap checking" from traditional silat practitioners, and when I asked what they were doing was told that:

1. It is a good way of distracting an attacker.

2. It optimises body alignment and energy.

The explanation was somewhat vague, but the execution was convincing. Interestingly the explanation also shared common ground with Doc's martial science (from my very limited knowledge). So what's my point? Had I not previously seen Doc in action I would never have noticed the subtlety of motion in the silat demo, and I wouldn't have thought to ask questions. It would be interesting to get an SL4 analysis of some of the advanced motion in other systems - e.g. Aikido.

By way of background I am not a student of SL4, and have only met Doc in person twice. However, I personally consider him, and his students Mr. Angell and Perez to be phenomenal martial artists, and exceptional instructors.

My view is that Doc (like his instructor SGM Parker) has undertaken an immense project in creating a martial educational system that has:

1 - a defined and coherent terminology.

2 - a body of concepts and principles that can be communicated, tested, and replicated.

3 - highly advanced content, including (in the case of SL4) rational and testable explanations for "chi" type effects.

4 - first class students that do credit to his system and his instruction.

5 - a system that works at an optimum level of effectiveness.

Even from the very small amount of SL4 material I have been exposed to I can see that Doc has created a model (models?) that enable a practitioner to conceptualise, replicate and communicate advanced martial arts/science principles.

If the system works (and it does) and it can be replicated (and it can) what more is required? The test of a model or hypothesis is in replication/prediction of results.

Some posts seem to speculate that Doc and MSU is in some way creating an artificial air of mystery for some unspecified commercial gain. I am positive that this is not the case, but if anyone has doubts I would encourage them to meet Doc or his students face to face, rather than speculate and insinuate online. They are good people with skill and integrity - it is immediately apparent upon meeting them.

Other posts seek to place a burden on Doc to either prove or disseminate his knowledge if he wishes to refer to SL4 as a martial science. Doc is actively teaching, does seminars, and he contributes to discussions such as this thread. Nonetheless, neither he nor any other martial artist or scientist, or whatever is under any obligation to the world at large to share their knowledge. What happened to the idea that martial arts/science tuition was a privilege to be earned?

It strikes me that the posts doubting Doc come from people that have not yet met the man. That is a shame, but understandable as SL4 has to be experienced to be fully believed. Doc has convincing explanations for the utility of "slapchecking" and that is just the tip of the iceberg. SL4 is a significant development in martial arts/science education. Irrespective of style or system it is worth learning more about it.

Respectfully,

Dan
 
First, I'd like to say that I neither have the sort of time nor the interest to engage in a continual back and forth, as you apparently do. Nevertheless, I'll try to address this once more under the assumption that I haven't been sufficiently clear and that you are honestly trying to understand the issue.

Second, I won't be reiterating the main thrust of my prior post since, as far as I can tell, that's been ignored by you. Instead, I'll limit myself to addressing the comments you made in response to my last post.
arnisador said:
This is common in medicine and psychology, which seem relevant here. However, other methods could certainly be viable. The current method seems to be "anecdotal evidence" which isn't terribly scientific--that might suggest an area of inquiry, not end it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I acknowledged that double-blind studies are useful in certain contexts. And I'm glad you recognize the viability of other methods as well. However, I'm unclear why you suppose that the method of validating SL4 is by means of anecdotal evidence. I don't recall, but I'm certainly open to correction on this, that any SL4 proponent, much less instructor, has claimed that the objective validity of SL4 is established (primarily or otherwise) by anecdotal evidence. (As you yourself mention, such testimony may motivate investigation, however, it does not scientifically prove the truthfulness of those claims.) Therefore, barring evidence to the contrary, I must conclude that your claim here is a strawman.
arnisador said:
If it can't be studied by a disinterested scientist, but only by someone taught to see it in a certain way, then we've left the realm of science and entered...what? Religion, where believers only are welcome?
Click to expand...
Again, in my mind, this is a distortion. Who said anything about SL4-testing requiring learning "to see it in a certain way?" That's an additional inference of your own that I don't believe is contained within my statement. Nor do I see how you would get this proposition from what I wrote. SL4's a religion? Come on. You're really stretching credulity here. Do I really need to spell it out for you? I simply made the relevant point that the laboratory itself includes someone who is capable of accurately relaying the SL4 material. To jump to your conclusions of "religion" and "believers," seems, to put it mildly, irresponsible.
arnisador said:
Of course a double blind study is only one possible approach...but given the power people have to see what they want, it seems very appropriate here. But, I'm open-minded.
Click to expand...
and
arnisador said:
So, train 10 undergraduates the SL-4 way, 10 the classical way. Don't tell them what or why. Run your test. It's not perfectly blinded because the instructors know what they're teaching and may talk up one method over another, but it's a start.
Click to expand...
What myself and others have been laboring to get across to you is that, in essence, that sort of "experiment," in a variety of fashions, has been performed already by many more individuals than you suggest. There have been dozens upon dozens of "classically trained" Kenpo practitioners who, skeptical of SL4, were given physical actions to perform without foreknowledge of their intended purpose or expected outcome, and who have with great consistency observed a successful conclusion as predicted by SL4 principles. To anticipate a likely objection: to my knowledge (and I may be wrong) such data has not been formalized or documented for peer review. Could it be? I'm sure it could. However, as already mentioned by another, there is a finite supply of time and energy. I for one am quite satisfied to have an active head instructor rather than one who exclusively writes for the martial arts public.
arnisador said:
But, wouldn't you agree that many pseudo-scientists also start from a solid grounding in "normal science" (Kuhn)?
Click to expand...
No, actually I wouldn't. Certainly not as stated. I don't subscribe to Kuhn's shifting paradigms of knowledge.
arnisador said:
I'm not sure why you quote Mills' outdated language. The scientific method is now well understood. I'd think Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the true issue here at this point--do the SL-4 practitioners agree that there could in principle be experiments that would falsify their claims of superiority?
Click to expand...
Outdated language or not, that doesn't affect the veracity of Mill's principle. But in truth, the language seems perfectly clear to me (and fundamental to the method of science). In fact, that was partly why I quoted Mill; the other reason being that Popper's criterion of falsifiability is itself unfalsifiable. It's the attempt by the positivists to salvage a comprehensible theory of meaning in the wake of their failed verifiability theory. Unfortunately, for positivists, among other mortal blows to the criterion of falsifiability is its inability to handle particular-affirmative categorical propositions (e.g., some swans are white). See Blanshard, Reason and Analysis, 1962. But I think that gets us a bit off track.
 
I do like Popper (but don't disagree with the criticisms above), but yeah, it gets us off track. Besides, I'm not sufficiently well versed in Feyerabend's thoughts to defend the matter further.

You argue against anecdotal evidence, but in saying that "that sort of "experiment," in a variety of fashions, has been performed already" (and what follows), you clearly are prepared to accept it. It isn't just the after-analysis that's missing. One needs to consult the statistician prior to the experiment. At the least, you have left yourself open to the Fallacy of Positive Instances. This is no form of proof; it's just the sort of casual reasoning science guards against. I see you understand the issue, so I assume you mean it's good enough for you. It's good enough for me as a martial artist...but not as a scientist. But, I'm unclear how scientific MSU seeks to be.

When I said "see it in a certain way" I was rephrasing your comment from your earlier post: "I don't think a "blinded" (non-biased) researcher would be able to adequately explain the material without being instructed in its proper employment, thus "unblinding" him". I'm not sure what you mean by needing an SL-4 interpreter as it were, but surely you can't be arguing for an (intentionally) biased researcher? In the stage of setting up the experiment, quite possibly...but if it can't actually be run by disinterested physiologists (or what have you--experimental psychologists are actually very good at this sort of thing), I find that suspicious. Can you be more specific about why and how an SL-4 experimenter would be needed?

I'm surprised that you would disagree that many pseudo-scientists begin their arguments from widely-accepted scientific principles. We must be meeting different types of quacks. I've had an angle trisector barge into my office and I assure you that he knew his geometry very, very well. Alexander "let's blow up the moon and move the Earth to a better orbit" Abian certainly knew his math. and physics.

Perhaps to heed the call for topicality, further discussion should be moved to The Study or The Great Debate, as appropriate.
 
Dear Sir:

I was just wondering if you got further applications of slapping (to oneself or to the opponent) through years of experience or were all learned from Master Parker? Also the same question applied to Master Parker.

Thanks in advance, :asian:

Yours,

Jagdish
 
Jagdish said:
Dear Sir:

I was just wondering if you got further applications of slapping (to oneself or to the opponent) through years of experience or were all learned from Master Parker? Also the same question applied to Master Parker.

Thanks in advance, :asian:

Yours,

Jagdish
Click to expand...
No, I actually began the process under my first teacher Ark Wong, so Mr. Parker and I had similar roots (at different time periods) for some of the information. But study in those days was difficult because for most teachers, English was their second language. Although I had my own interpreter in my school mate Douglas Wong, (Ark Wongs nephew), it was only when I met Ed Parker did he began to explain things I had learned it terms I could truly begin to understand. He continued learning and understanding applications as I have since he passed away.
 
Sir:

1.-Do you think if someone eliminates the slapping part of Master Parker's art it could/would affect his effectiveness and /or his completeness?

2.-Which is the brother art? Are we talking about twin brothers or of a Big Brother?

Yours,

Jagdish
 
Jagdish said:
Sir:

1.-Do you think if someone eliminates the slapping part of Master Parker's art it could/would affect his effectiveness and /or his completeness?
Click to expand...

It is actualy more complex than that. The elimination of the "slapping" in the context of how he used it in his personal method, would seriously violate basic physical principles of efficient anatomical movement. Without it you don't have Ed Parker Kenpo at its best, but instead a derivative of lesser content.
2.-Which is the brother art? Are we talking about twin brothers or of a Big Brother?
Click to expand...

Depends on who is teaching and their understanding of applications on both sides of the fence. Some interpretations of FMA, as well as some interpretations of Silat, are examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Kenpo Justsu?

Previous Thread

Three phases of movement

Next Thread

Similar threads

DavidCC
Stomps and Slaps
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
12K
Doc
Doc
Carol
What are slap checks?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Ceicei
Ceicei
JamesB
Elbow strikes
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Doc
Doc
S
Slapping...?
Replies
16
Views
3K
Cujo
C
mook jong man
The annoying slap drill.
Replies
7
Views
2K
Ben Grimm
B

Latest Discussions

Back
Top