Heel up Heel Down and at which level.

[MisterMike]

From my experience and analysis, I find it is easier to push-drag from a neutral bow when the heel is on the floor. If you are pushing from the back leg, and the heel is down, you have a more solid link to the ground surface because there are less points of flex. You simply extend the knee and hip.

If the heel is up, you are relying on your calf muscles to hold the position of the ankle/foot while pushing off.

I guess the moral is the less number of places you can bend, the more rigid you are. Granted we can do a lot more than push-drags from a neutral bow, so I think the situation should dictate.

 

[Touch Of Death]

From my experience and analysis, I find it is easier to push-drag from a neutral bow when the heel is on the floor. If you are pushing from the back leg, and the heel is down, you have a more solid link to the ground surface because there are less points of flex. You simply extend the knee and hip.

If the heel is up, you are relying on your calf muscles to hold the position of the ankle/foot while pushing off.

I guess the moral is the less number of places you can bend, the more rigid you are. Granted we can do a lot more than push-drags from a neutral bow, so I think the situation should dictate.

Heel up vs heel down = push drag vs launch.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree. If I might add a note, it'd be that students often seem to have real problems with keeping their heel turned out and their toes in (which makes "launching," off that back foot pretty difficult) , or b) doing a king of fencer's lunge forward, where the back foot stays in place with the toes out, and the stance elongates like crazy.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I agree. If I might add a note, it'd be that students often seem to have real problems with keeping their heel turned out and their toes in (which makes "launching," off that back foot pretty difficult) , or b) doing a king of fencer's lunge forward, where the back foot stays in place with the toes out, and the stance elongates like crazy.

That is why I think new students should be introduced to heel up. Just to be "at ready" for heel up while in a heel down stance will correct the duck syndrome.
Sean

 

[Ping898]

Personally, I learned heel down intially. Then maybe around purple or blue belt our instructor brought in the concept of heel up (though I was one of those who noticed, but never did it because I didn't know the real behind it.) He explained why you do it, when you do it and when practicing rear kicks or sparring it was expected of you to do it. I don't think you should tell a student because they aren't a black belt they shouldn't do something. If that student has the basics learned well and seems proficient enough to handle the reasons why something is done a certain way. I think that limits a student. Though I do believe you should be taught heel down because that is the way a majority of the stances are and the way most techniques at the beginning are taught.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Heel up vs heel down = push drag vs launch.

Sean are you asking about this in terms of throwing rear hand strikes only? Or for any situation? Learning how to correctly come up and maintain balance on the ball of the foot is important for situations where a soft bow or a close kneel is called for, and these stances are addressed early on in Stance Set and then Stance Set II.

In my opinion heel down initially when learning a rear strike like a thrusting punch as it provides a stable base as part of a forward bow, and I think heel down makes sense for teaching people to lunge forward for sparring situations. In fencing the rear foot for a lunge is kept flat to push forward using the entire surface of the foot.

I don't think it would be harmful for people to play with it earlier but for me personally Brown I was a good time for experimenting in general, as I had developed a good foundation for stances and was ready to learn intermediate material. Things begin to become more internalized and less mechanic and it's easier to adapt at that point. I don't think it is too far a stretch to begin experimenting with throwing say a rear thrusting punch with the heel up at this point since balancing on the ball of the rear foot has already been learned through basic stance practice. It's just being applied in a slightly different situation.

I would however like to hear what people think in terms of the power that a rear thrusting punch generates with the heel down as opposed to the heel up. So, in terms of generating power, which foot position is considered most effective and why?

MJ :asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Sean are you asking about this in terms of throwing rear hand strikes only? Or for any situation? Learning how to correctly come up and maintain balance on the ball of the foot is important for situations where a soft bow or a close kneel is called for, and these stances are addressed early on in Stance Set and then Stance Set II.

In my opinion heel down initially when learning a rear strike like a thrusting punch as it provides a stable base as part of a forward bow, and I think heel down makes sense for teaching people to lunge forward for sparring situations. In fencing the rear foot for a lunge is kept flat to push forward using the entire surface of the foot.

I don't think it would be harmful for people to play with it earlier but for me personally Brown I was a good time for experimenting in general, as I had developed a good foundation for stances and was ready to learn intermediate material. Things begin to become more internalized and less mechanic and it's easier to adapt at that point. I don't think it is too far a stretch to begin experimenting with throwing say a rear thrusting punch with the heel up at this point since balancing on the ball of the rear foot has already been learned through basic stance practice. It's just being applied in a slightly different situation.

I would however like to hear what people think in terms of the power that a rear thrusting punch generates with the heel down as opposed to the heel up. So, in terms of generating power, which foot position is considered most effective and why?

MJ :asian:

If you believe speed adds to power then naturaly the heel up forward bows are more powerfull. That is,you are launching your mass faster. However, you are not settling, which means you won't get the stopping power of sticking a bracing angle. Instead you end up using your target to stop your forward momentum. (see Remo Williams' floater stroke in the first few "Destoyer" novels) lack of a target can not only throw out your shoulder but propell you forward into a complete punch stepthrough. What I find fascinating is that you are verbaly in a classic deep Kung Fu or karate hardstyle stance if only for an instant. By allowing your self to "float" past the point of no return your left leg becomes naturaly positioned to deliver (Mike Tyson style) death with the left hand.
Sean

 

[kenpo tiger]

Heel down. Body torque to throw the punch. Because of my size, it's not brute strength but a combination of some strength and good mechanics (i.e., practice of basics!) I've been experimenting with up/down since I began martial arts, due to the nature of each - Japanese, Korean, and now Kenpo. Each has its own set of 'givens', but I find that good mechanics (practice of basics) wins out each and every time. KT

 

[Touch Of Death]

Heel down. Body torque to throw the punch. Because of my size, it's not brute strength but a combination of some strength and good mechanics (i.e., practice of basics!) I've been experimenting with up/down since I began martial arts, due to the nature of each - Japanese, Korean, and now Kenpo. Each has its own set of 'givens', but I find that good mechanics (practice of basics) wins out each and every time. KT

Heel up is not bad body mechanics. Its just different. Kenpo is, "The balance of being out of balance". The torque will happen just as quick with heel up;however, there is no "switch stance" back to a neutral without a target to bounce off of. Lots of torque to be had though.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Again, I don't think of "heel up," as bad body mechanics at all--nor would I consider it bad kenpo. For me, the issue is one of teaching/learning, which I think starts out with, "heel down." After all, there are stances--the reverse cat stance, for example--that teach heel up fairly early. As do some of the variations of step-throughs...

 

[mj-hi-yah]

If you believe speed adds to power then naturaly the heel up forward bows are more powerfull. That is,you are launching your mass faster

I believe... I believe... Thanks Sean makes sense...

 

[rmcrobertson]

If the heel is up, it isn't a forward bow. It may be something equally good, but it isn't a forward bow.

OK, let the yelling commence...

 

[Touch Of Death]

If the heel is up, it isn't a forward bow. It may be something equally good, but it isn't a forward bow.

OK, let the yelling commence...

I HATE IT WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU!!! But what should we call a forward bow without brakes?
Sean

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

I HATE IT WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU!!! But what should we call a forward bow without brakes?
Sean

Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.

DarK LorD

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.

DarK LorD

I have a question. For those of you who would throw a rear arm thrusting punch with the heel up:

We use the close kneel for a punch to the body as in Desperate Falcons, but if the punch is to the head I wouldn't be dropping my weight that low, although the weight distribution would still be 50/50. So I'm wondering would you still consider this a close kneel in that circumstance? I think the question is, is it still a close kneel if you are not a hand span from the ground?

Thanks,
MJ :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Technically, no it's not. Or if you prefer, technically it's a really crappy close kneel...of course, the stances get modified and adapted all the time as students develop.

But again, to me the real question is one of teaching--and working out of--good basic templates. Attention stances, horse stances, neutral bows, forward bows, and all the rest (but beginning with those four) provide templates on which students can build. No templates, well, it's that whose house-built-on-sand thing.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hmmm, a close kneel comes to mind, being as the close kneel is nothing more than a forward bow with the knee one hand span from the ground, feet are turned to the exact same position, difference being, the weight has shifted to 50/50 in the close kneel.

DarK LorD

I suppose, but once again its more verbal because you don't have to stop, but if you did you would hit a close kneel; however you just launched all of your body weight on to your front leg, and then past.
Sean

 

[GAB]

I have come to this late, thats good because I get to look and see.. The first thing I noticed was, the same barbs by TW and RMacR, (are you married).

Next, I would have to say, with my background, the better your foundation is, the better for stability, but not flexability in movement, but not always. (quick huh)?

In the early days of Kajukenbo, the stance was very strong, yet the hands were and are today very fast. In teaching those early katas they were the katas of the Okinawan lineage, along with the stance of the later Japanese, some say earlier. (depends on who you are reading), it is moot, which came first the reptile or the egg. (the egg of course)

The information that is avaliable from the Mainland is far from correct if looking for lineage, but for new systems who cares about lineage, it is only as old as the person who developed it, (in reality).

This is going to get deep so get your waders.

We start out with the one penny a day doubled and we (some) know how quick that adds up to big dough.

Well the same thing happened with Katas and Techs. Someone had one borrowed two, now they have three and got two more and added six quick techs per, then cut them back or in halve then they have ten little Katas..

Now while borrowing and taking with out permission (no copy right) we have solid stance and cat stance we mix and now we have both in varing degrees.

When turning with the upperbody you can have a strong stance and be able to deliver kicks or throws or punch's, move the right heel up and twist and you have an ability to move to your attackers left and maybe, hit, kick, throw or escape to a better position.

I really don't understand the arguement when applied to real situations...

Time in grade has some benifits, but the forms that are being used dictate what you are doing in the dojo, the fight or movement by your advisary dictates what you do in the altercation. If you have to worry about your heel in the air or on the ground you need to go back to the basics...

We can go on further and try to compensate for size and the ability to srike while in a moving position (Ali), boxer vs puncher, Ah, the western "sweet science" pretty simple.

Go to a gym and workout with boxers, you will get a good idea about strength and movement, different styles, is it really that hard to understand? Not from where I am standing.

Ps. if you look at EPs first book and then check his second book you will see much different thought. Why??? Different people wrote it. (No copy write)
<(...

Gary

 

[kenpo tiger]

I have come to this late, thats good because I get to look and see.. The first thing I noticed was, the same barbs by TW and RMacR, (are you married).

Next, I would have to say, with my background, the better your foundation is, the better for stability, but not flexability in movement, but not always. (quick huh)?

In the early days of Kajukenbo, the stance was very strong, yet the hands were and are today very fast. In teaching those early katas they were the katas of the Okinawan lineage, along with the stance of the later Japanese, some say earlier. (depends on who you are reading), it is moot, which came first the reptile or the egg. (the egg of course)

The information that is avaliable from the Mainland is far from correct if looking for lineage, but for new systems who cares about lineage, it is only as old as the person who developed it, (in reality).

This is going to get deep so get your waders.

We start out with the one penny a day doubled and we (some) know how quick that adds up to big dough.

Well the same thing happened with Katas and Techs. Someone had one borrowed two, now they have three and got two more and added six quick techs per, then cut them back or in halve then they have ten little Katas..

Now while borrowing and taking with out permission (no copy right) we have solid stance and cat stance we mix and now we have both in varing degrees.

When turning with the upperbody you can have a strong stance and be able to deliver kicks or throws or punch's, move the right heel up and twist and you have an ability to move to your attackers left and maybe, hit, kick, throw or escape to a better position.

I really don't understand the arguement when applied to real situations...

Time in grade has some benifits, but the forms that are being used dictate what you are doing in the dojo, the fight or movement by your advisary dictates what you do in the altercation. If you have to worry about your heel in the air or on the ground you need to go back to the basics...

We can go on further and try to compensate for size and the ability to srike while in a moving position (Ali), boxer vs puncher, Ah, the western "sweet science" pretty simple.

Go to a gym and workout with boxers, you will get a good idea about strength and movement, different styles, is it really that hard to understand? Not from where I am standing.

Ps. if you look at EPs first book and then check his second book you will see much different thought. Why??? Different people wrote it. (No copy write)
<(...

Gary

I think you may be referring to me, KT, as TW is a tkd person and I don't think she's been in this thread other than possibly reading it. And, no, there's no bond between me and Robertson (that's what I call him) except for kenpo and an unspoken agreement to disagree with one another frequently. We're pretty good entertainment, aren't we?

Your comment about whether one should be worrying about heel up vs. heel down in an altercation is a good one. (My point also.) And that is why the applications of both should be taught as necessary, not saving it for one of those mysterious 'you get when you're a black belt' things. Your attacker doesn't know what your rank is. KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

For the last time: the point is one of establishing a decent template, not of freezing a student into a primitive stage for all time.

And theoretically speaking, I'd advise deconstructing the artifically-constructed binary opposition between, "dojo," and "altercation," which only serves to reinforce the fantasy of warriorhood (enacted in contradistinction to the practitioner of mere katas) in the field of the Imaginary.

Otherwise, one ends in a discursive reinforcement of the very concept of frozen training ostensibly opposed, a reinforcement aided and abetted by the recitation of cliches. The recitation of internal contradictions then becomes apparent, insofar as the subject-presumed-to-know simultaneously advocates a, "practicality," (in which the heel becomes irrelevant) and a repetition of the previously-despised "basics."

One must add: indeed yes, one learns the basics, and sets, and forms, so as to dispose of such concerns at advanced levels. Nonetheless, this demands a constant reinspection and recognition of the, "disposable," fundamentals.