Heel up Heel Down and at which level.

[Touch Of Death]

I was reading the heel up heel down debate on another site and I couldn't help but notice that the general consensus is that beginners should have the heel down and black belts may experiment with the heel up and even adopt the new stance as their own provided they understand why they are doing it and have spent their whole colored belt days with the heel down. My question is, why not teach both from the get go, given both ways are usefull in different circumstances? I mean, a bracing angle is not needed when you chase and you don't need to chase when you need the bracing angle for an oncomming force. (And since you said it, Robert) why wait till Black?
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

For the same reason that I do not give developmental composition students essays by Micheal Foucault to read. And, because getting the bloody heel down is difficult for beginners, because they typically lack the stretch, kinesthetic awareness, and knowledge of stances upon which any meaningful variation has to be based.

The fact of the matter is that teaching kenpo students all these variations, early on, has produced a lot of terrible kenpo and phonyism. It has little to do with teaching students--and a lot to do with the instructor's showing off how just how cool he is. And the truth is, students who aren't taught basics like this at the outset are very unlikely to go back at, say, brown belt, rip out their bad wiring, and learn the proper stance.

Then too, "heel down," should be taught first so that a basic template--an unconscious pattern--is established, and can be referred back to whatever one does later.

 

[Rainman]

Heel up or heel down:

Forms: Heel down
Sets: Heel down
Techniques: Heel up and heel down (depends)
Freestyle: Heel up and heel down (both because you are in transition)

So it depends on circumstance, whether you are offensive or countering. Each has its place and each has particular advantages. Weight distribution is still 50/50 to the contact patch.

Some things to consider: mobility, telegraphing, strength of stance, stability of stance and application of stance.

Rainman

 

[TwistofFat]

And the truth is, students who aren't taught basics like this at the outset are very unlikely to go back at, say, brown belt, rip out their bad wiring, and learn the proper stance.
QUOTE]

I agree 100%. I took EPAK for years and had to travel all over the east coast to learn (some good teachers, many not). I settled in the south and began to train with an established instructor to go from 1st brown to get to 1st black. (I had trained in a whole host of other MA styles in between). The first thing Mr. Meyer asked me to do was Long Form 1 and never looked at my hands...it was not pretty. For a long time I had to reconstruct and in many ways started over. Almost a year later I am beginning to understand the value of my foundation. I 'cheated' my stances for years because I thought it was the end game...I was wrong. I hammer into the entry belts the value of forward, reverse, horse, etc. bows. I have also changed the method of my attacks from 'arm centric' to low line attacks when I see weakened foundations. It has fundamentally changed my Kenpo for the better. (Now I get why Mr. Planas would say establish your base to most of questions...).

Regards - Glenn.

 

[Touch Of Death]

For the same reason that I do not give developmental composition students essays by Micheal Foucault to read. And, because getting the bloody heel down is difficult for beginners, because they typically lack the stretch, kinesthetic awareness, and knowledge of stances upon which any meaningful variation has to be based.

The fact of the matter is that teaching kenpo students all these variations, early on, has produced a lot of terrible kenpo and phonyism. It has little to do with teaching students--and a lot to do with the instructor's showing off how just how cool he is. And the truth is, students who aren't taught basics like this at the outset are very unlikely to go back at, say, brown belt, rip out their bad wiring, and learn the proper stance.

Then too, "heel down," should be taught first so that a basic template--an unconscious pattern--is established, and can be referred back to whatever one does later.

Robert,
Thank you for answering. However, it just seems to me that waiting for black belt to learn to fight like a black belt is counter productive. As you know, many students go on to other interests before they reach black belt and may never get to the level required for "heel up". In fact almost all your students will leave before black. Its pretty safe to assume however that these people will continue to practice and even end up in a fight or two. Why shouldn't they be given the tools(information) to deal with different situations? They are going to see black belts use heel up, and they will ask why. Who says heel down is proper? wouldn't heel up be proper for certain situations, and heel down proper for others? Heel up corrects a lot of bad habbits that beginners fight with heel down. My instructor often would call me "Dr. Duck" when my toes would veer out during a stepthrough or when steping to the rear.
Long story short, I feel that this is one of those, "wait twenty years to learn to fight" issues. And in a system that has all of its students striving to learn that next "advanced technique" (they may never use), I don't see making a one or the other choice (given your goals) as all that complex. Chase or settle... its that simple.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just tell 'em that they aren't black belts--provided that they even notice the differences, which they probably won't.

I repeat: when you let students leave the heel up in all their basic stances, they are far less likely to learn different options. And incidentally, there are cat stances and twists to be learned, which will certainly teach people how to get the heel up and down far more rationally.

The basic philosophical difference here lies in the fact that I'm pretty sure as a teacher that you have to respect the level you're at--and the level they're at--and teach those lessons, not the ones you're struggling with. There are such things as more and less advanced students, after all...

What is more, letting students get away with sloppy form--and c'mahn, in practice what we're talking about is sloppy form--on the grounds of, "getting them to move," is a good way to make sure that they never develop real power, good balance, and strong movement. Especially in a system whose students sometimes rush forward too fast.

No, it's not a matter of waiting twenty years for anything. A student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward; no problem there. But this willy-nilly "advancement...," nope.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Just tell 'em that they aren't black belts--provided that they even notice the differences, which they probably won't.

I repeat: when you let students leave the heel up in all their basic stances, they are far less likely to learn different options. And incidentally, there are cat stances and twists to be learned, which will certainly teach people how to get the heel up and down far more rationally.

The basic philosophical difference here lies in the fact that I'm pretty sure as a teacher that you have to respect the level you're at--and the level they're at--and teach those lessons, not the ones you're struggling with. There are such things as more and less advanced students, after all...

What is more, letting students get away with sloppy form--and c'mahn, in practice what we're talking about is sloppy form--on the grounds of, "getting them to move," is a good way to make sure that they never develop real power, good balance, and strong movement. Especially in a system whose students sometimes rush forward too fast.

No, it's not a matter of waiting twenty years for anything. A student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward; no problem there. But this willy-nilly "advancement...," nope.

How much more condescending can you be? You assume, wrongly, that all black belts are omniscient and omnipotent -- and I, along with many many others on this site, can show you great examples to the contrary. That's like saying "because I'm the mommie, that's why" when your child asks a question and you don't have a ready answer. Then you state that a student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward.

So which is it????!!!!

I certainly hope you teach as wisely as you (sometimes) write (elsewhere) in this forum. I'm disappointed, Robertson. KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

I could go over my teaching credentials with you, explain further, but what's the point? When you've made up your mind based on air, and aren't reading what I'm writing? I can, for example, tell you that your sort of rudeness is the flip side of obsequiousness....somehow, I'll bet that if I demanded you call me "Doctor," or "Sensei," or "Kawasaki," or something, you'd hush right up.

Silly me, I guess I'm thinking that the way Mr. Parker taught, and the way he wrote about kenpo, might just be good enough. I guess I thought those generations of teachers, painstakingly trying to ensure that students leanred their basics first, knew something. I guess the endless repeating of, "Learn the basics," on these forums was supposed to be taken seriously.

Of course, personal remarks are easier than explaining your position.

And what this leads me to suspect is that you cannot explain your position, or that you haven't thought through why one teaches basics, such as getting the heel down.

Which I explained. And I see you successfully twisted my comment about simply making sure that the student has a good grasp of basics at their level, before pushing them forward, into some sort of contradiction...WHEN IN FACT THIS COMPLETELY AGREES WITH THE IDEA OF RESPONDING TO WHAT EACH INDIVIDUAL STUDENT DOES RATHER THAN SIMPLY IMPOSING A RIGID PROGRAM. What you want to do isn't freedom: it's the imposition of a rigid program. It's just that it's YOUR rigid program, which you're transmitting without thinking, so it's OK. It's YOUR set of shibboleths, so it's no shibboleths at all.

Among the martial arts basics your teachers might've taken a little time with--courtesy, and leaping to conclusions about opponents. But hey, if you want to teach and learn this way, mazeltov. Have at it. Take it as condescending, narrow-minded, stupid, ignernt, or what you will. And when your students turn out to have little respect for form, or for their Forms, and develop no power, wellp, then you'll know.

I repeat: in a forward bow, the back heel should be on the ground. For everybody. If you don't do that, it's not a forward bow. It may, after patient training, be something equally good or even better.

 

[kenpo tiger]

somehow, I'll bet that if I demanded you call me "Doctor," or "Sensei," or "Kawasaki," or something, you'd hush right up.
don't bet on it.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Now, having not done my "flip side of obsequiousness", did you read what I wrote?

Apparently not. I was not attacking you personally. What I asked was, if you feel that only black belts are capable of discerning the difference between heel up and heel down, then why do you say that a student who "gets" stances is given more faster? Certainly non black belts are capable of rational thought.

And, if you ever have the opportunity to speak to any of my students (despite their lack of black belts), you will no doubt be surprised that what I STRESS is proper stances and stance changes. What I DO NOT AND WILL NOT DO is assume that they are ignorant (your words, I believe).

I just find it amazing that someone as obviously educated and steeped in kenpo (3rd degree black belt notwithstanding) can be so obtuse at times. I'll say it again - I'm disappointed. KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

"How much more condescending can you be? You assume, wrongly, that all black belts are omniscient and omnipotent...."

And previously:

"I certainly hope you teach as wisely as you (sometimes) write (elsewhere) in this forum. I'm disappointed, Robertson."

And also: "I was not attacking you personally."

So who's this guy you're talking to? Boy, I'd be pissed, if I were he.

I can't for the life of me understand why I'm actually having to defend the radical, wacky idea that stances are the basis of martial arts training, or the radical, wacky idea that students at different levels have different capabilities, or the radical, wacky idea that martial arts training takes time.

And incidentally--in referring to, 'ignernt," I was telling you to go right ahead and leap to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm being an idiot, that I'm ignorant. Me.

In point of fact I yield to nobody at all on these forums in valuing the intellectual approach. However, if you think that the primary focus of martial arts training is the conscious, analytic mind, you might want to seriously rethink.

And I'm still waiting to read a coherent, reasonable explanation of why you would want to throw out the way Mr. Parker taught basics, the way all the books insist upon stance basics, for this other stuff. Really--just explain. Leave off the nonsense, and just explain...something more than screaming slogans and personal insults, please. Just explain.

Because where I come from, again, screaming is usually taken as a sign of inability to clearly explain. After all, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd see that we're not even all that far apart. Surely you don't do, or teach, the forms with heels up and toes out?

For everybody else: get that heel down. First.

 

[kenpo tiger]

"How much more condescending can you be? You assume, wrongly, that all black belts are omniscient and omnipotent...."

And previously:

"I certainly hope you teach as wisely as you (sometimes) write (elsewhere) in this forum. I'm disappointed, Robertson."

And also: "I was not attacking you personally."

So who's this guy you're talking to? Boy, I'd be pissed, if I were he.

I can't for the life of me understand why I'm actually having to defend the radical, wacky idea that stances are the basis of martial arts training, or the radical, wacky idea that students at different levels have different capabilities, or the radical, wacky idea that martial arts training takes time.

And incidentally--in referring to, 'ignernt," I was telling you to go right ahead and leap to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm being an idiot, that I'm ignorant. Me.

In point of fact I yield to nobody at all on these forums in valuing the intellectual approach. However, if you think that the primary focus of martial arts training is the conscious, analytic mind, you might want to seriously rethink.

And I'm still waiting to read a coherent, reasonable explanation of why you would want to throw out the way Mr. Parker taught basics, the way all the books insist upon stance basics, for this other stuff. Really--just explain. Leave off the nonsense, and just explain...something more than screaming slogans and personal insults, please. Just explain.

Because where I come from, again, screaming is usually taken as a sign of inability to clearly explain. After all, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd see that we're not even all that far apart. Surely you don't do, or teach, the forms with heels up and toes out?

For everybody else: get that heel down. First.

Firstly, since I teach children's classes for the majority of my teaching time, what I teach is basics. I emphasize stances because they are the basics in any martial art, not just kenpo. We all know that a solid base is what we need for, among other things, balance -- hence keeping the heel down or up, as appropriate. They also learn basic punching and kicking skills, and how to listen and, by extension, take instruction.

Secondly, because I teach children, the way I approach things is going to be different than that of someone who teaches adults. Adults may or may not take instruction; they will do what they feel is comfortable or just plain how they want to do it. Children, for the most part, do not have these pre-conceived notions of what the 'right' way is. They are little sponges who will listen - even my four year olds - and mimic what they see me or another instructor do and absorb it all. Also, their motor skills and coordination are not fully developed yet, so keeping it very simple and sticking to the basics is less frustrating to them and certainly appropriate. Granted, I have one four year old who is already extremely coordinated and has a mean reverse punch as well as incredible form in his basic stances. However, he's the exception.

Thirdly, I suffer from rank blindness. I believe that a person knows what he knows, be it kenpo or another martial art, and the color of the belt isn't necessarily indicative of ultimate knowledge or skill. I've met some pretty incompetent black belts. Should I be in awe of them because of their belts despite their appalling lack of knowledge of their art?

The whole purpose of belonging to this forum is, for me, to read the posts and learn from people who've been around in kenpo and other martial arts for a whole lot longer than I have. After a while it becomes apparent who knows what. And where else would I be able to ask questions of some of the highest ranking kenpoists around? It's healthy, to my way of thinking, to question. And it's how I learn.

Questioning and personally attacking someone are miles apart, and I do not believe in jumping all over another person in the forum because I disagree with him or her. If you interpret my questioning as attacking you, well, there's nothing I can do to change your mind, is there? KT

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I could go over my teaching credentials with you, explain further, but what's the point? When you've made up your mind based on air, and aren't reading what I'm writing? I can, for example, tell you that your sort of rudeness is the flip side of obsequiousness....somehow, I'll bet that if I demanded you call me "Doctor," or "Sensei," or "Kawasaki," or something, you'd hush right up.

Silly me, I guess I'm thinking that the way Mr. Parker taught, and the way he wrote about kenpo, might just be good enough. I guess I thought those generations of teachers, painstakingly trying to ensure that students leanred their basics first, knew something. I guess the endless repeating of, "Learn the basics," on these forums was supposed to be taken seriously.

Of course, personal remarks are easier than explaining your position.

You know, Robert, in "The Study" I've always enjoyed your comments.

Maybe because I was at the same end of the political spectrum as you I refused to notice how insufferably arrogant and ego-centric you really are.

It makes me wonder about the utility of intellect without basic social skills.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Touch Of Death]

You know, Robert, in "The Study" I've always enjoyed your comments.

Maybe because I was at the same end of the political spectrum as you I refused to notice how insufferably arrogant and ego-centric you really are.

It makes me wonder about the utility of intellect without basic social skills.


Regards,


Steve

First of all, let me say I really like Robert and I also agree with his political views; however, when it comes to Kenpo, it seems as if as if I am dealing with a different person. I'm a bit of a relativist when it come to MAs, and have a hard time dealing with (what I consider) dogma. To be fair though, Robert is speaking to EPAK Kenpoists specificly, and I can only imagine what it must sound like to an "outsider", but adherance to the basic curriculum is not that wild of and idea. I however don't feel "anyone's" program is the end all be all of MAs, and when someone attemps to trump an argument with, "Thats the way Mr. Parker did it.", my first answer would be, "Oh yeah, what year was that?"; because, his teachings changed and devloped from year to year to the point where black belts from the sixties did not move like his black belts from the seventies. That being said unless someone asked Mr. Parker a few days before his death, we may never know his final position on the issue; because Mr. Parker, was also on a Journey.
Sean

 

[Michael Billings]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Michael Billings
-MT Moderator-

 

[hardheadjarhead]

First of all, let me say I really like Robert and I also agree with his political views; however, when it comes to Kenpo, it seems as if as if I am dealing with a different person. I'm a bit of a relativist when it come to MAs, and have a hard time dealing with (what I consider) dogma. To be fair though, Robert is speaking to EPAK Kenpoists specificly, and I can only imagine what it must sound like to an "outsider", but adherance to the basic curriculum is not that wild of and idea. I however don't feel "anyone's" program is the end all be all of MAs, and when someone attemps to trump an argument with, "Thats the way Mr. Parker did it.", my first answer would be, "Oh yeah, what year was that?"; because, his teachings changed and devloped from year to year to the point where black belts from the sixties did not move like his black belts from the seventies. That being said unless someone asked Mr. Parker a few days before his death, we may never know his final position on the issue; because Mr. Parker, was also on a Journey.
Sean

I wasn't addressing any issues dealing with Kenpo, and make no claims towards knowing anything in that field. Whether he is speaking to a Kenpo person specifically or not is beside the point I was making. His treatment of KT wasn't warranted.


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, I'll try to make sure that I agree all the time.

meanwhile, I am still waiting to see an explanation of what precisely is wrong with teaching the basics clearly and simply.

My character, or lack of it, is irrelevant to that. And regrettably, I do not allow myself to respond in kind to this sort of nonsense: it's terrible manners.

And so is the attempt to gang up on someone who simply disagrees, and to do this by commenting personally upon thiem rather than discussing the ideas, however ill-presented.

Have we been hanging out with "Swift Boat Veterans," a little too much?Get the heel down. It's as essential as manners.

 

[MisterMike]

Terrible manners

There's a Japanese term likened to that of "the pot calling the kettle black" and that is: mekuso hanakuso o warau: lit. eye mucus laughs at nose snot.

 

[pete]

rather than whining over "robert" this and "robert" that, let's deal with the heel...

if the trade off of the heel-up, is gaining speed at the expense of stability, then the answer becomes simple... when a root, or connection to the ground can be demonstrated consistently in the standard stances, along with full body unity in moving between thoses stances, then guided experimentation may begin. at this point, the heel-down stance has become internalized and heel-up would become situational. eventually, both will be internalized, and utilized appropriately. no short cut, just hard work and hard training.

for the record, my heel is down and will be for a while... like "robert" said, i've got cats, twists, wide kneels, etc to keep my heels busy.

"pete"

 

[rmcrobertson]

Let me re-post the post that got me into trouble with all the other (besides myself, that is) sixth graders:

"Just tell 'em that they aren't black belts--provided that they even notice the differences, which they probably won't.

I repeat: when you let students leave the heel up in all their basic stances, they are far less likely to learn different options. And incidentally, there are cat stances and twists to be learned, which will certainly teach people how to get the heel up and down far more rationally.

The basic philosophical difference here lies in the fact that I'm pretty sure as a teacher that you have to respect the level you're at--and the level they're at--and teach those lessons, not the ones you're struggling with. There are such things as more and less advanced students, after all...

What is more, letting students get away with sloppy form--and c'mahn, in practice what we're talking about is sloppy form--on the grounds of, "getting them to move," is a good way to make sure that they never develop real power, good balance, and strong movement. Especially in a system whose students sometimes rush forward too fast.

No, it's not a matter of waiting twenty years for anything. A student who gets the stances early should be pushed forward; no problem there. But this willy-nilly "advancement...," nope."

Sorry, I've seen considerably worse.

I continue to await a discussion of the ideas. And I'm afraid I consider it inappropriate to respond in kind to remarks such as, "how insufferably arrogant and ego-centric you really are," delivered by people who don't know me from a hole in the wall.