Hand placements and the neutral bow

[Marcus Buonfiglio]

There was an interesting discussion on the neutral bow on another thread. It was discussed how people were taught to achieve the neutral bow. Everyone addressed the dimensions of depth and width of the stance but no one talked about how they captured, or if they captured the dimension of height. My question is two fold. 1) How are you taught to capture the dimension of height in your neutral bow? And 2) if you are taught to capture the dimensions of Height, Width, and Depth in your stance are you also taught to capture those same dimensions with your hand/arm placement while engaging yourself into the neutral bow in preparation for battle?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...I don't want to be impolite, but would you mind just posting what you think, and then we could all discuss it? It's probably just me, but I don't much care for taking a test...and again, sorry if this seems impolite and I know that these threads often seem to start as you're starting this one...but I always seem to get the feeling I'm about to be ambushed...

Now back to the question...first, I don't understand what you mean by, "capturing the dimension of height." I just keep m'elbows in, hands midline, nothing fancy. Second, I don't think a neutral bow would be the first move in, "battle," (is this the same as, "trouble?") but more like the third or fourth...I seem to recall something about, "there is no first move in karate..."

Thanks.

 

[Marcus Buonfiglio]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Uh...I don't want to be impolite, but would you mind just posting what you think, and then we could all discuss it? It's probably just me, but I don't much care for taking a test...and again, sorry if this seems impolite and I know that these threads often seem to start as you're starting this one...but I always seem to get the feeling I'm about to be ambushed...

Now back to the question...first, I don't understand what you mean by, "capturing the dimension of height." I just keep m'elbows in, hands midline, nothing fancy. Second, I don't think a neutral bow would be the first move in, "battle," (is this the same as, "trouble?") but more like the third or fourth...I seem to recall something about, "there is no first move in karate..."


Greetings Mr. Robertson,
I went back and reread my post and agree that it could be viewed as an ambush. I assure you that it was not. My intentions were honorable and my question sincere. Please allow me to rephrase.

When relearning the neutral bow I was told that it is the primary weapon in Kenpo. The understanding and application of the neutral bow is paramount. It will allow you to bring all other weapons to battery from a correct anatomical alignment of the skeletal structure. In order to achieve this anatomical alignment you must address the 3 dimensions that our body operates in. These dimensions, as we all know are height, width, and depth. Width is addressed using heel toe alignment. Depth is addressed using knee heel alignment. I was taught that to apply anatomical alignment to the dimension of height you capture the articulated angle of the knee while walking. Essentially freezing your motion while walking (not casually strolling but walking with a sense of purpose) and allowing the body to achieve its own height. As you freeze this action you simply set the heel of the bent leg down while still maintaining the bend in the leg. Your are now properly set (by your own anatomical standards) to move efficiently. This is how we articulate achieving the dimension of height in our neutral bow. I would like to hear other practitioner’s methods.

The second part of my question deals with the placement of the hands/arms. We go through great lengths to address the placement of our feet to allow our body to operate efficiently in the 3 dimensions yet most Kenpoists I see don’t carry their hands/arms in a position to dominate the dimensions of height width and dept within their outer rim. Without getting too wordy we use a formula that addresses 4 points of placement within each of the 3 dimensions. This gives us 12 points to address in dominating the space contained within the outer rim. Visually similar to how a boxer holds his hands. You stated as to how you place your hands/arms “just keep m’elbows in hands midline, nothing fancy” but you didn’t say why. I am curious to hear how others hold their hands/arm and why.

I agree that the neutral bow is not the first move. The first move for me is aligning my mass correctly to allow me to move it while simultaneously bringing my weapons to battery starting the process of dominating my outer rim.

As far as battle being the same as trouble. I believe there is a distinct difference. Battle is when you in an aggressive physical confrontation. Trouble is when you didn’t see that patch of grease on your pants and sit on the couch that your wife just had cleaned. Actually upon further thought with the example that I just gave and knowing my wife me thinks that they could be one and the same.

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by Marcus Buonfiglio

. I was taught that to apply anatomical alignment to the dimension of height you capture the articulated angle of the knee while walking. Essentially freezing your motion while walking (not casually strolling but walking with a sense of purpose) and allowing the body to achieve its own height. As you freeze this action you simply set the heel of the bent leg down while still maintaining the bend in the leg. Your are now properly set (by your own anatomical standards) to move efficiently. This is how we articulate achieving the dimension of height in our neutral bow. I would like to hear other practitioner’s methods.

Wouldn't just bending your knees until you can't see your toes while you're in a neutral, horse, or forward bow work just as well? It's worked with everyone I've ever taught and they've always seemed to get the idea, Seems to be alot simpler to explain than angle of articulation.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[satans.barber]

That's teh way I've always been taught to set height as well - once you're feet are lined up properly for width (heel to toe) and depth (knee to heel when kneeling) then height should be set such that you can just see the tip of your toe over your lead knee.

Although, of course, everyone's built different and these things need adjusting sometimes (however Vertruvian we may be...), but that's the general rule we use.

Ian.

 

[KenpoTess]

while in a Neutral bow I keep my forward hand on center line, lead hand in a horizontal parry position, my vertical rear hand is open slightly different depth than the lead hand, guarding my solar plex and upper body with both elbows close to body,
This allows me to snatch my opponent with my lead hand cancelling his height, depth and width depending on what I 'do' with him.

Tess

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry to go all English teacher, but I have a lot of trouble with phrases like, "bringing my hands to battery." I don't care for the pseudo-military language, and I also find such phrasing unnecessarily confusing. Why not just, "when I have to put up my hands?"

I think it's actually an important point, too, because it helps hide what really happens. I guess I wasn't clear, but the couple of times I've had to put my guard up, it's been about the fourth or fifth move in events...

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo
Wouldn't just bending your knees until you can't see your toes while you're in a neutral, horse, or forward bow work just as well? It's worked with everyone I've ever taught and they've always seemed to get the idea, Seems to be alot simpler to explain than angle of articulation.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Actually that is the correct anatomical methodology that happens to mirror the walking anaology but much simpler.

 

[Marcus Buonfiglio]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo
Wouldn't just bending your knees until you can't see your toes while you're in a neutral, horse, or forward bow work just as well? It's worked with everyone I've ever taught and they've always seemed to get the idea, Seems to be alot simpler to explain than angle of articulation.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Hey Clyde thanks for your input.

You have had good results with it Clyde so the answer is obviously yes. My thoughts on that method is this. My son (15 yrs old) is 5'9" 150 lbs 3-4% body fat (high end swimmer) and wears a size 11 1/2 shoe. I am 5'9" 190 lbs (won't go into body fat exept to say that it is more than his ) and my shoe size is 9 1/2. He would have to bend his knees more than I to not be able to see his toes yet we are the same heigth and when we walk we carry the same stride. I would think that as a starting pointthe method you described would be a good but would eventually need fine tuning. Just my observations.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Marcus Buonfiglio
Hey Clyde thanks for your input.

You have had good results with it Clyde so the answer is obviously yes. My thoughts on that method is this. My son (15 yrs old) is 5'9" 150 lbs 3-4% body fat (high end swimmer) and wears a size 11 1/2 shoe. I am 5'9" 190 lbs (won't go into body fat exept to say that it is more than his ) and my shoe size is 9 1/2. He would have to bend his knees more than I to not be able to see his toes yet we are the same heigth and when we walk we carry the same stride. I would think that as a starting pointthe method you described would be a good but would eventually need fine tuning. Just my observations.

Actually the methodology outlined by Mr. O'Briant and others maintains its validity because body geometry differences are automatically taken into consideration, as necessary in human movement and posture. Your premise that the height must be equal to the gait height is flawed for the reason that "stride height" is in itself a variable predicated on various factors, including, stride length, speed, and even a fatigue factor.

From any perspective stance heights as well as the stances themselves are dedicated to the circumstances at hand. A neutral bow for example is still a neutral bow even as you drop in height until the rear heel leaves the floor, at which time it becomes a wide kneel.

Although there are some absolutes for structural integrity, human anatomy does allow for variances in body geometry within tolerances that do not substantially change the integrity or definition of a specific stance. Of the variables, height is the least specific and is the reason most in the arts do not specifically address it with such finite definitions.

Hand positions can have an impact in stances, however most hand positions too are dedicated to external stmulus as is the stance itself. It would be more pertinent if the question regarding hands was relegated to wrist tension and open versus clenched fists, in my opinion.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry to go all English teacher, but I have a lot of trouble with phrases like, "bringing my hands to battery." I don't care for the pseudo-military language, and I also find such phrasing unnecessarily confusing. Why not just, "when I have to put up my hands?"

I think it's actually an important point, too, because it helps hide what really happens. I guess I wasn't clear, but the couple of times I've had to put my guard up, it's been about the fourth or fifth move in events...

Sort of like in law enforcement when rookies say, "I exited the vehicle with great urgency." Instead of "I got out of the car as fast as I could." Certainly specific finite language has its place however, but only when absolutely necessary to define that which cannot be simply defined or stated.

 

[Brother John]

If you set your feet/legs w/the proper depth & width and hide the toes, height is taken care of automatically. Sort of the reverse of what my instructors lesson that I called the "Two IS Three" lesson, if you check/negate two of your opponents dimensions... the third is automatically checked/negated as well.
I don't know if this is a 100% of the time kind of "Law", but it's served me very well thus far; and I guess same thing applies in other areas... take care of two dimensions and the third is taken care of already.

Doc, any guidance/input????

As the attitude of the arms/hands...
I tend to keep my lead hand finger tips up and elbow anchored roughly along my centerline. The back hand is generally held with the fingers up at a 45 degree angle, palm just infront and below of my solar plexus...forearm paralel to the floor. Really the bend of the back elbow can't be said to be anchored I don't think, but the arm is bent so that it is very circular... feels stronger to me. As I move in reverse the lead hand threads the bend of my back hand to become the lead hand, as I move forward the rear hand threads the bend of my lead hand. (never really 'thought' about that motion but that's what happens... picked it up from my two teachers.) The hands/arm positions seem best suited for interception along many angles as well as good for attack on those angles as well. Also, keeping the lead arm 'anchored' in a more or less 'bracing angle' makes it stronger and keeps the elbow down to protect my midsection. The threading motion of my hands feels very economical and fluid.

I'm rambling now....
later yall..
Your Brother
John

 

[Doc]

If you set your feet/legs w/the proper depth & width and hide the toes, height is taken care of automatically. Sort of the reverse of what my instructors lesson that I called the "Two IS Three" lesson, if you check/negate two of your opponents dimensions... the third is automatically checked/negated as well.
I don't know if this is a 100% of the time kind of "Law", but it's served me very well thus far; and I guess same thing applies in other areas... take care of two dimensions and the third is taken care of already.

Well in my opinion it is definitely not a 100% kind of law. As an example controlling height and width will not yield substantial benefits when it comes to depth under many circumstances, etc.

As the attitude of the arms/hands...
I tend to keep my lead hand finger tips up and elbow anchored roughly along my centerline. The back hand is generally held with the fingers up at a 45 degree angle, palm just infront and below of my solar plexus...forearm paralel to the floor. Really the bend of the back elbow can't be said to be anchored I don't think, but the arm is bent so that it is very circular... feels stronger to me. As I move in reverse the lead hand threads the bend of my back hand to become the lead hand, as I move forward the rear hand threads the bend of my lead hand. (never really 'thought' about that motion but that's what happens... picked it up from my two teachers.) The hands/arm positions seem best suited for interception along many angles as well as good for attack on those angles as well. Also, keeping the lead arm 'anchored' in a more or less 'bracing angle' makes it stronger and keeps the elbow down to protect my midsection. The threading motion of my hands feels very economical and fluid.

Your rambling explanation of hand position actually makes sense to me and conforms with the defensive posture anatomically associated with certain aspects of a "startle reflex" and is therefore quite valid. Protection of the rib-cage, arms bent, hands open, palms slightly forward and fingers pointed upward are all acceptable and actually desired. Some prefer to close their hands not realizing a stable posture under those circumstances is not possible with tightly clenched fists.

 

[Michael Billings]

Brother John,

I also liked your description of the hands. I teach it very simularly. What I do not "teach" is the Threading as you changed stances. I really like this and plan to incorporate is as the old "flapping chicken wing" hand change or "swinging gate" change violates P of O and Economy of Motion ... I do correct these anyway by the way, but it is usually just a shifting of the hands and I am non-specific, when I could be much more so.

Thanks for a "Kenpo" thing I learned today.

Oss,
-MB

 

[kenpo2dabone]

Originally posted by Doc
Protection of the rib-cage, arms bent, hands open, palms slightly forward and fingers pointed upward are all acceptable and actually desired. Some prefer to close their hands not realizing a stable posture under those circumstances is not possible with tightly clenched fists.

I have found that it works both ways. It takes muscle tension to close ones fist as well as flatten the hand such that the fingers point straight up or out. I find that putting my hands in a fist but not clinching them tight works best for me. I can also see validity in haveing the hands open but not forcing them to be flat as well.

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

 

[Brother John]

I apreciate the feedback guys!

Have a WONDERFUL Kenpo day!
Your Brother
John