Heel up Heel Down and at which level.

[kenpo tiger]

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.

I don't know that Gary or I are viewing fundamentals as 'disposable'. I've stated my thoughts on basics upthread and elsewhere.

People do martial arts for a variety of reasons. I won't argue with your little discourse on the fantasy of warriorhood, as I agree that there are probably a number of people who embrace it. Indeed, some people begin a martial art with that very thought in mind.

Personally, I am more than willing to perform the 'how', provided the payoff is the 'why' at some point in my training. I have been reading (omg - books!) about kenpo as well as going back into the archives on this site. The emphasis is almost always on 'how' (thank you, Doc) - learning the tech or form, your 'interpretation' of the tech or form. Threrfore, my interpretation is that one cannot perform the 'how' unless one has the basics internalized to the point of getting them to flow without any conscious thought. KT

 

[pete]

let's put aside specific belt ranking requirements for a minute, and look at it as just attaining a level of proficiency and consistency. we don't want to dump too much material, especially seemingly contradictory material, on a student too soon. stance set one at white belt, stance set two 3-4-5+ years later at brown-2... why don't we teach concave stances and one legged stances earlier? 'house built on sand thing", yes?

i'll repeat, 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.

no, kt, the attacker doesn't know your rank or your ability... but, our curriculum teaches knife defenses at brown, and gun techs after black. is this too late? heck, i don't even like introducing that club attack technique we have in yellow.

mj pointed at desparate falcons as an example of using the left close kneel to deliver the right punch to the body. a similar stance/strike is applied in dance of darkness, only this time attacking the spine using a left punch from a right close kneel (built-in mirroring? ahh, another time another thread).

why would those applications work in using the close kneel (or heel up) while delivering the strike, while say, the right punch in attacking mace or the left handspear in five swords may not...

pete

 

[kenpo tiger]

let's put aside specific belt ranking requirements for a minute, and look at it as just attaining a level of proficiency and consistency. we don't want to dump too much material, especially seemingly contradictory material, on a student too soon. stance set one at white belt, stance set two 3-4-5+ years later at brown-2... why don't we teach concave stances and one legged stances earlier? 'house built on sand thing", yes?

i'll repeat, 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.

no, kt, the attacker doesn't know your rank or your ability... but, our curriculum teaches knife defenses at brown, and gun techs after black. is this too late? heck, i don't even like introducing that club attack technique we have in yellow.

mj pointed at desparate falcons as an example of using the left close kneel to deliver the right punch to the body. a similar stance/strike is applied in dance of darkness, only this time attacking the spine using a left punch from a right close kneel (built-in mirroring? ahh, another time another thread).

why would those applications work in using the close kneel (or heel up) while delivering the strike, while say, the right punch in attacking mace or the left handspear in five swords may not...

pete

Our curriculum teaches what it does because our instructor, as you know, has choosen when he introduces things sub-Brown. I agree with you on that club tech in Yellow to a degree. I think there needs to be a mix of what's taught at each level, appropriate to that level. You (that's a collective you) can say that certain things should be introduced to the 'more advanced' student as she/he is ready for it, but how're you going to know if they can handle something if it isn't there for you to observe in an embryonic form?

I would have to question what is hidden in the techs you reference to make a difference as to heel up or down. The 'how' of each of the Brown techs is obvious, because by that point it can be assumed that one has done enough kenpo to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how the attacker is reacting. But the 'why'... KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

Among the reasons for drills on basics, sets, and forms is that they allow students--and instructors--to keep a running check on progress.

Students who cannot consistently hit--and employ--a forward bow in a set like Coordination Set 1 are (granted, not always, but nearly always) not in any sense prepared to start fiddling around with stances they do not understand and cannot actualize.

As for the, "whys," well, my previous post--and Mr. Chap'el's posts, additionally--suggest rather stongly that "whys," all too easily become substitutes (and I would say, defenses against) actually enacting the, "how."

But then, as is often pointed out to me, instructors had better be themselves actualizing stances and all the rest, or their students aren't going to pay them the slightest attention.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson: Students who cannot consistently hit--and employ--a forward bow in a set like Coordination Set 1 are (granted, not always, but nearly always) not in any sense prepared to start fiddling around with stances they do not understand and cannot actualize.

Where did this come from?

I happen to agree with you (omg - TWICE in one thread - what am I thinking?!), but I think there's a lot more to that set than stances - chambering for the kick, for one.

Just out of curiousity, when is it taught in your school? And Coordination Set II? I'm one of those who actually enjoys both of these sets - I find them challenging and good practice. KT

 

[GAB]

Yes it is Kenpo Tiger, sorry about that.

RmacR, As far as fantasy of warriorhood those thoughts are from you, all I can say to that remark is OK, if you say so. You keep that thought and we will both be secure in our own worlds.
Get um Tiger. Regards, Gary

 

[pete]

Our curriculum teaches what it does because our instructor, as you know, has choosen when he introduces things sub-Brown.

yeah, i've found that steve's curriculum is pretty unique, yet seems to remain fairly consistent in principle with others.

I would have to question what is hidden in the techs you reference to make a difference as to heel up or down.

i'm not thinking about what may or may not be hidden, since what may be hidden to some are more obvious to others... and vice-verse!

i'm just looking at that point in time during those techs, how i've gained positional advantage, dimensional checks, and available targets and range of motion for the next sequence. honestly, l look at those as close kneels for a reason, and not as modified forward bows... but that may very well be just my level of understanding...

pete

 

[dcence]

Hey guys,

Been a while. I just got sick of all the nit-picking and cheerleading (not that I ever did that, LOL). But I thought I would drop in and this is an interesting topic.

To me, it (heel up or down) is a matter of degrees. I don't always hit with the heel down, and it is neither a neutral bow, forward bow, close or wide kneel, but something in between those stances, depending upon the circumstances.

I agree with Robert, that at first we should teach good solid basic stances, neutral bow, forward bow, etc. Later, a student should start to notice how difficult it is to shuffle forward and hit in a forward bow with the rear heel down, and they see you using a stance that isn't a true forward bow, nor is it really a wide kneel or a close kneel. So when do you teach this modification? When you start teaching someone to launch forward and strike with the rear hand, or when you teach them a push drag -- and to me that is pretty early.

In our association we use the terms, modified forward bow and modified neutral bow to designate those varying degrees of stance between neutral bow and forward bow. (To me, these are neither wide nor close kneels as those stances have a different height element to them not in the neutrals and forward bows.)

So for me the spectrum is (1) standard neutral bow (both heels on the ground), (2) modified neutral bow (neutral bow with rear heel up to facilitate launching), (3) modified forward bow (forward bow with the rear heel up to facilitate speed and mobility like when you are striking with the rear hand when shuffling forward), and (4) standard forward bow (when you need the structurally reinforcement of the bracing angle). We officially teach these nuances in Blue Belt, so a student has a good idea of how to get that bracing angle and solid stability in a standard neutral and forward bow. But they are informally taught these nuances earlier because people start launching long before Blue.

If you are stepping back and then going into a forward bow, like in Alternating Maces, I think it makes sense to hit the standard neutral bow and forward bow, heel planted in both, but if you intend to launch forward with or without with rear hand strike, trying to plant your heel robs you of your mobility and momentum. And, many times when you are simply pivoting in place, the modified stances come in handy without much, if any, sacrifice of back up mass, but a large increase in speed.

I mean, how many boxers do you see hit true forward bows with the heel down, and they can still knock your block off. Just my take on the topic.

Derek

 

[RaysOnAwaV]

Thank Mr. Ence, Two boxers that come too mind are Roy Jones Jr and Oscar De Loya. IMO these two boxers have excellent footwork, which results in extremely fast hands. Like you stated by rotating on the ball of the foot it allows for rotational torque, marriage of gravity, depth of penetration and back up mass.

Salute,

Ray Maynard

 

[mj-hi-yah]

To me, it (heel up or down) is a matter of degrees. I don't always hit with the heel down, and it is neither a neutral bow, forward bow, close or wide kneel, but something in between those stances, depending upon the circumstances.

In sparring situations we can find ourselves mid-way between stances when our opponent may thoughtlessly choose to attack us, or we may decide to launch ourselves with heel up down or somewhere in between as an opening arises, so I agree that practically speaking it has to depend on the circumstances in reality, and we will more likely be transitioning or doing varying degrees of all stances when fighting in terms of defense and offense.

So when do you teach this modification? When you start teaching someone to launch forward and strike with the rear hand, or when you teach them a push drag -- and to me that is pretty early.

Yes especially when we begin training in sparring. In our school that is at blue belt.

In our association we use the terms, modified forward bow and modified neutral bow to designate those varying degrees of stance between neutral bow and forward bow. (To me, these are neither wide nor close kneels as those stances have a different height element to them not in the neutrals and forward bows.)

I would think that we all must engage in these maneuvers at some point, but may not all have specific terminology for the varying degrees. Sometimes in our school we will say transitional or use the term modified as well.

So for me the spectrum is (1) standard neutral bow (both heels on the ground), (2) modified neutral bow (neutral bow with rear heel up to facilitate launching), (3) modified forward bow (forward bow with the rear heel up to facilitate speed and mobility like when you are striking with the rear hand when shuffling forward), and (4) standard forward bow (when you need the structurally reinforcement of the bracing angle).

Thanks for sharing your understanding of all of this. Having this terminology makes it easier to convey.

If you are stepping back and then going into a forward bow, like in Alternating Maces, I think it makes sense to hit the standard neutral bow and forward bow, heel planted in both, but if you intend to launch forward with or without with rear hand strike, trying to plant your heel robs you of your mobility and momentum. And, many times when you are simply pivoting in place, the modified stances come in handy without much, if any, sacrifice of back up mass, but a large increase in speed.

These are good examples, and I think in doing techniques in the "ideal phase" the stances can mostly be more exacting, but in the reality of a fight they have to be more transitional or modified. Since sparring starts at blue for us footwork must be dealt with.

artyon:

Oops... that's leading a cheer! :wink: LOL

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to post this!

MJ :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nice explanations: in summary, the question is whether it's a choice, or an accident.

I contend that if you don't train in good stances--as they're written--you cannot possibly learn the options in any meaningful fashion.

Incidentally, the backs of some technique cards often have basic sparring meaneuvers, starting at yellow belt stuff.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Nice explanations: in summary, the question is whether it's a choice, or an accident.

I contend that if you don't train in good stances--as they're written--you cannot possibly learn the options in any meaningful fashion.

Incidentally, the backs of some technique cards often have basic sparring meaneuvers, starting at yellow belt stuff.

The hope would be to make it more of a choice and the more we train the more I believe that that can become actualized. I can only speak from my intermediate point of view and as much as I'd like for it all to be purposeful at this point for me alas it is not, but I would imagine that with many years of experience there are less if any "accidents". I agree about the basics, and that's interesting about the yellow belt stuff.

 

[psi_radar]

We call the heel-up position an Engaged Forward Bow.

I prefer the EFB in most situations, though not all; dcence's example of Alternating Maces is a good case in point.

I agree with a slow introduction of these modifications; even though I had a particularly hard time getting the textbook forward bow down, all the more reason I should have practiced it over and over again rather than cheating it.

My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid.

To explain, think of a connect-the-dots picture as a SD technique. The dots are proper stances hit and the impact of strikes at proper targets. The connecting lines (transitions) make up the majority of the picture and give it meaning, but it's the dots that define the action of drawing and therefore the end result.

Maybe I'm spouting here, but I make sense to me!

 

[kenpo tiger]

dcence said: So for me the spectrum is (1) standard neutral bow (both heels on the ground), (2) modified neutral bow (neutral bow with rear heel up to facilitate launching), (3) modified forward bow (forward bow with the rear heel up to facilitate speed and mobility like when you are striking with the rear hand when shuffling forward), and (4) standard forward bow (when you need the structurally reinforcement of the bracing angle). We officially teach these nuances in Blue Belt, so a student has a good idea of how to get that bracing angle and solid stability in a standard neutral and forward bow. But they are informally taught these nuances earlier because people start launching long before Blue.


Along with MJ, I thank you for posting this. I skimmed through your post last night and re-read it just now. She's covered pretty much what else I would say. My only question is related to another point made upthread: do you give any sort of explanation of launching at the lower belts or leave well-enough alone? KT

 

[kenpo tiger]

We call the heel-up position an Engaged Forward Bow.

I prefer the EFB in most situations, though not all; dcence's example of Alternating Maces is a good case in point.

I agree with a slow introduction of these modifications; even though I had a particularly hard time getting the textbook forward bow down, all the more reason I should have practiced it over and over again rather than cheating it.

My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid.

To explain, think of a connect-the-dots picture as a SD technique. The dots are proper stances hit and the impact of strikes at proper targets. The connecting lines (transitions) make up the majority of the picture and give it meaning, but it's the dots that define the action of drawing and therefore the end result.

Maybe I'm spouting here, but I make sense to me!

Makes sense to me too. Like the snapshot analogy. KT

 

[mj-hi-yah]

My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid.

To explain, think of a connect-the-dots picture as a SD technique. The dots are proper stances hit and the impact of strikes at proper targets. The connecting lines (transitions) make up the majority of the picture and give it meaning, but it's the dots that define the action of drawing and therefore the end result.

Maybe I'm spouting here, but I make sense to me!

This is a great visualization! It's not just all in your head, now it's in mine too...hee hee oh and I see KT's too!

 

[psi_radar]

This is a great visualization! It's not just all in your head, now it's in mine too...hee hee oh and I see KT's too!

Muhhaaahaaahaa. My plans are coming to fruition... :EG:

I always liked that analogy too. When learning stance set two, we often said "bam" when we had the stance where we wanted it, then started the transition to the next. I still do it now and then out of habit. The "bams" are like the connect-the-dot dots. Funny to hear a whole room of people saying "bam....bam......bam.....bam...."

 

[kenpo tiger]

Muhhaaahaaahaa. My plans are coming to fruition... :EG:

I always liked that analogy too. When learning stance set two, we often said "bam" when we had the stance where we wanted it, then started the transition to the next. I still do it now and then out of habit. The "bams" are like the connect-the-dot dots. Funny to hear a whole room of people saying "bam....bam......bam.....bam...."

Funny - I do the same thing.

The Emeril line of kenpo. KT

 

[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

Clyde,
I think having your heel up, and stopping would be bad form; however, passing through such a position would be proper form. But given we agree it is not a forward bow, then why not introduce this method in your offensive techs as a lesson in changing up your timming?
Sean

 

[dcence]

My undertanding of Kenpo stances is that, ultimately, they are snapshots of the apex of proper motion. That is, the stances encourage proper movement by setting a certain ideal or position to attain at some point through transition; 90% of the technique is not in a particular stance, but getting there--especially as one becomes faster and more fluid.

I agree, with one caveat: I do think that hitting or moving with the rear heel up can be considered "the apex of proper motion" if you understand why you are doing that on that particular move. In other words, it can be "ideal" to have the rear heel up, if that is what you intend to do for the right reasons. Heel up stances don't have to be transitional (like, on the way to a "real" stance), but can be an end in and of themselves.

Once someone learns to use these heel up stances properly, they can hit harder, move quicker, be more mobile and perform with much more effect.

Derek