Impact adjustments/Bracing angles

[kenposikh]

You will end up in section k, row 118, if you use a forward bow. There is a reason why it has to be a neutral in Striking Serpent's Head, and a forward bow in Thrusting Prongs. It has to do with the catalyst.

Clyde O'Briant covered this topic remarkably well at his seminars in PA a few weeks ago.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Hi Jamie but I am afraid that I have to disagree here, the intent of the attack is all important as I'm sure you would agree with me.

The bear hug grab from the front would cause some initial motion backwards for the defender providing of course the attack is done with intent, to simply allow someone to grab you from the front either implies you trust the person and it's done in fun or in my humble opinion not realistic.

Therefore assuming that we are being forced back a forward stance would certainly stop the backwards motion but I fear not the neutral stance (unless of course some other mechanisms were applied), I'll let Doc jump in if he so wishes.

I am not sure of the term catalyst it is something that I have not heard used before could you explain further please.

 

[kenposikh]

Amrik:

Sorry, for my partial answer.

The F/B is better used when someone is pulling us from the front while the neutral is better when someone pulls us from the the back shoulder but we are also facing him. I haven't mentioned any particular technique.

No apology neccesary my friend.

I am afraid that I can't quite see this try it yourself get someone to pull you from the front and continue the pull will the forward bow stop you moving forward I think not will a neutral stance again I think not although it will be more resistant than the forward bow.

As for your second part I can't see how someone can be pulling you from behind and you are facing them maybe it's cos it's late

good discussion by the way to all

 

[Doc]

Amrik:

Sorry, for my partial answer.

The F/B is better used when someone is pulling us from the front while the neutral is better when someone pulls us from the the back shoulder but we are also facing him. I haven't mentioned any particular technique.

Now, in a different case:In trusting prongs i use F/B because you anchor
yourself so you are more difficult to move.Getting back into a F/B is difficult but it teach you to root. I do it like i am dropping so it's looks like i am slipping back but in reality i'm not.

Re:Using the N/B depends on the your N/B. there many ways of doing it.

What do you think,Amrik?

Yours,

Jagdish

Incorrect as I understand it.

 

[Jagdish]

Can you point out which part. I have read/ written all this late night so i am afraid i might i haven't follow the discussion properly.

Thanks.

Jagdish

 

[Jagdish]

Someone pulling you hair from the front: you use a F/B.

Someone Neck Grab :you use a N/B.

 

[Seabrook]

In Striking Serpent's Head, the catalyst is a HIGH tackle. If you try a forward bow, it won't give you the same brace as a neutral bow and you will be driven back.

Conversely, in Thrusting Prongs, the bear hug is applied LOW. In this situation, a forward bow gives you the brace. Try the same thing in a neutral bow, and once again, you will going for a ride....all the way to the ground.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Michael Billings]

In Striking Serpent's Head, the catalyst is a HIGH tackle. If you try a forward bow, it won't give you the same brace as a neutral bow and you will be driven back.

Conversely, in Thrusting Prongs, the bear hug is applied LOW. In this situation, a forward bow gives you the brace. Try the same thing in a neutral bow, and once again, you will going for a ride....all the way to the ground.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Mr. Seabrook, I have a question about this.

I understand your use of stances in terms of where on the body the pressure is applied. I am fuzzy on the rationale for the TYPE of attack. A low tackle as you reference in Thrusting Prongs is less likely to pin the hands. My understanding of that attack, is that it ideally is against a Front Bear hug, arms pinned. The intitial strike, does create a gap, but it also forces the opponent to put you back down on the ground if he is in the process of trying to pick you up. The stance and drop make it much more difficult to pick you up at all if you settle correctly and are not suspending your own weight for him and are in the process of anchoring thier right arm following the prongs.

My problem with Striking Serpent's Head is that in the ideal, I see it as almost a close range shooting attack to the waist. Why else would your arms be free? They certainly would not be if it is a HIGH bear hug.

Just some thoughts.

-Michael

 

[jonah2]

Mr Billings / Mr Seabrook,

My thoughts on the nature of the two attacks are along the lines of Mr Billings post.

My feelings regarding the use of a forward bow in thrusting prongs is because the bear hug (arms pinned) is an almost impossible attack to drop into a neutral bow as this will require a turning of the torso and hips. Not easy when the intent is a squeeze and lift. The forward bow however only requires the lowering of height and mass combined with the prongs releases the grip his ability to lift you (his intent)

jonah

 

[Jagdish]

Mr Billings / Mr Seabrook,

My feelings regarding the use of a forward bow in thrusting prongs is because the bear hug (arms pinned) is an almost impossible attack to drop into a neutral bow as this will require a turning of the torso and hips. Not easy when the intent is a squeeze and lift. The forward bow however only requires the lowering of height and mass combined with the prongs releases the grip his ability to lift you (his intent)


jonah

Yes, i see the problem the same way.

...but is the F/B the only stance that can be used with maximal efficiency in this case?

Jagdish

 

[kenposikh]

In Striking Serpent's Head, the catalyst is a HIGH tackle. If you try a forward bow, it won't give you the same brace as a neutral bow and you will be driven back.

Conversely, in Thrusting Prongs, the bear hug is applied LOW. In this situation, a forward bow gives you the brace. Try the same thing in a neutral bow, and once again, you will going for a ride....all the way to the ground.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Mr Seabrook,

I have to agree with Mr Billings on this. However further the definition of the word catalyst implies that it causes something to happen so for example the high attack in STSH which in my opinion is a bear hug from close range shooting towards you which causes the opponents head to be high is the catalyts moving into a neutral bow with any speed would cause a rotational force and give the opponent borrowed force which in turn would certainly push you onto your backside if not propel you backwards.

whereas a forward bow stance would certainly provide a body check to your opponent a good brace with the rear foot in this stance especially if you settle you weight quickly and ground your stance.

Having said that you may have to make some adjusting steps before the forward bow is reached but when reached it will enable you to have survived the attack which is all imporant. However trying to achieve a neutral stance in either of the techniques would most certainly end in you not surviving.

Shame we are so far away from each other as I believe it would be interesting for both of us to chat and train together.

Amrik

 

[Bode]

There is a reason why it has to be a neutral in Striking Serpent's Head, and a forward bow in Thrusting Prongs. It has to do with the catalyst.

By catalyst do you mean the attack? Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences.

Using the N/B depends on the your N/B. there many ways of doing it.

I could not disagree more. We are subject to physics just like everyone else. Human anatomy dictates the existence of an optimal Neutral Bow. There are a few exceptions with people who have unusual lower carriages, but they are few. There are many way's of doing a neutral bow, but only one correct way.

Someone pulling you hair from the front: you use a F/B.
Someone Neck Grab :you use a N/B.

Forward bows are not intended to be used as a strong stance for a long duration. When someone is pulling your hair ("Cluthing Feathers" if you have that tech) the forward bow should be considered transitionary. The FB sets up the hips to allow for torque into a NB (which is a structurally superior stance). In addition, as I mention below, there are many other factors which come into play that utilize the initial step into a forward bow. Everything matters and simply saying, "If someone grabs your hair, use a forward bow..." is a bit to simplistic.

My feelings regarding the use of a forward bow in thrusting prongs is because the bear hug (arms pinned) is an almost impossible attack to drop into a neutral bow as this will require a turning of the torso and hips. Not easy when the intent is a squeeze and lift. The forward bow however only requires the lowering of height and mass combined with the prongs releases the grip his ability to lift you (his intent)

I agree. To be clear, I think the problem is that everyone has discussed the end stance without discussing how they ARRIVED at said stance. Basics dictates that we perform a forward bow as a transitionary movement into a neutral bow. In addition, the STANCE is NOT the only mechanism which creates the ability to not be pushed into "row k, seat 121." Concentrating on the stance in this situation without discussing the other mechanisms doesn't do anyone justice. I guarantee Clyde's interpretation involves more than just a solid NB or FB.

 

[Jagdish]

There are many way's of doing a neutral bow, but only one correct way.

That's what i meant.

1.-Forward bows are not intended to be used as a strong stance for a long duration. When someone is pulling your hair ("Cluthing Feathers" if you have that tech) the forward bow should be considered transitionary.


2.-The FB sets up the hips to allow for torque into a NB (which is a structurally superior stance). In addition, as I mention below, there are many other factors which come into play that utilize the initial step into a forward bow. Everything matters and simply saying, "If someone grabs your hair, use a forward bow..." is a bit to simplistic.

1.-Yes in that technique you are using it a F/B and really aware of helping to set up the hips for torque into a NB. Not everybody starts that way.

I thought all stances were transitionary.

2.-I know everything matters. What would be we doing if the attacker grabbed our hair and we were standing with both feet even. I don't think i would be going back i a forward bow. There are other elements to enhance your rooting from your starting position. I don't know if these elements are present in EPAK but i know them from other systems.

My answer was intended to clarify something to Amrik as my previous answers were shorty.

The head is something missed sometimes in bracing yourself.

Also we must also consider in which direction is the opponent pulling the hair: to 12:00,11:00,13:00,...

Why do you think a neutral bow is structurally superior?


Yours,

Jagdish

P.S:Sorry for my poor explanations in this thread. .I am really embarrased.

 

[pete]

Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences.

pinning the arms is significant, since there is little use in pinning the arms above the elbows. to be effective, the pin would occur below the elbow, at the forearm making the force of the 'bear hug' directed low, at the hips. the bracing angle against a force applied at the hips is the F-bow (Thursting Prongs)

arms free, the can be either low at the hip area OR higher at the chest. if it is up high you'd brace with a N-bow. if the attacker is right handed, he's probably got his right shoulder in your chest and his chin tucked and head turned to the left creating target for that left backknuckle to come whipping around (Striking Serpents Head)

if the 'arms pinned' attack is up high (above the elbows) you can answer with Parting Wings or Hooking Wings coming up from the inside or outside to open him up, but still be in the N-bow.

if the 'arms free' attack is low, you'd still brace with the F-bow and can then drop an elbow to his back (Intercepting the Ram)

i was also at clyde's seminar in PA, and along with jamie i 'felt' the difference~

pete

 

[Seabrook]

By catalyst do you mean the attack? Personally I see little difference in the attack with the exception of the arms being pinned. As a result I can see little reason for the stance differences.

I see Striking Serpent's Head for a high tackle, whereas in Thrusting Prongs the opponent is attacking us low. The low attempted bear hug necessitates the forward bow to stop the opponent from driving us back.

About Striking Serpent's Head. Yes, the technique is written for a front bear hug, arms free. But really, who is going to grab us in a front bear hug and just stand there? In reality, the attacker will try to drive us back, and the neutral bow prevents us from being driven into a wall, object, taken to the ground, or what have you. Done from a forward bow, we are not going to be able to stop him.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[pete]

hey jamie... that 'strange thing' seems to be happening again. donna told me you called, try me again over the weekend, after dinner, i'll be home~ pete.

 

[kenposikh]

I see Striking Serpent's Head for a high tackle, whereas in Thrusting Prongs the opponent is attacking us low. The low attempted bear hug necessitates the forward bow to stop the opponent from driving us back.

About Striking Serpent's Head. Yes, the technique is written for a front bear hug, arms free. But really, who is going to grab us in a front bear hug and just stand there? In reality, the attacker will try to drive us back, and the neutral bow prevents us from being driven into a wall, object, taken to the ground, or what have you. Done from a forward bow, we are not going to be able to stop him.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Hi Mr Seabrook,

Have you actually tested this where the attacker does continue the drive back and where you as the defender have to make adjusting steps to try and reach the stance you require.

Please do so and let me know your results I have tested this on my girlfriend and training partner here who is some 80 to 90 pounds lighter than me and she can resist the push back with a forward stance rather than a neutral stance.

Just some thoughts of my own I find this discussion very interesting.

Amrik

 

[Bode]

That's what i meant.

Gotcha. Internet boards are difficult as you don't want to say too much, but you also don't want to say too little.

There are other elements to enhance your rooting from your starting position. I don't know if these elements are present in EPAK but i know them from other systems.

I agree. There are many other ways to root. They are present in some teachers EPAK, but definetly not all. It's less about EPAK and more about the quality of the teacher.

I thought all stances were transitionary.

Some truth to that statement. Even in a NB we are always making adjustments to stay in alignment (For SL4 we use PAM's, BAMs, etc...) However, we do remain in the stance for our defensive posture. The FB is different. It is used primarily to generate torque and momentary stability from a frontal attack.

Why do you think a neutral bow is structurally superior?

Because of the relation of the shoulders to the hips and hips to the feet. This creates a posture which is less likely to dissaassociate the upper carriage from the lower. I.E. you are less likely to bend at the waste. The angle of the body in relation to the attacker also acts as a bracing angle better than that of a FB.

The low attempted bear hug necessitates the forward bow to stop the opponent from driving us back.

Depends on what you do before the forward bow. It is unlikely you could stop someone dead in their tracks by stepping back into a forward bow. I would venture to say impossible unless their was a large discrepency in weight.
I mentioned that what you do before the FB was important. In this instance you must take additional steps prior to stepping back into the forward bow. Perhaps step with the right leg, then left leg back into the forward bow. The attacker smacks into you and you take a quick step back. This forces him to almost fall forward after you, thus misaligning him. The misalignment and his sudden lunge forward (due to you stepping back) will allow you to take your left foot back into the forward bow. Just dropping into a forward bow will not work for most people. I just don't see it.
I agree a forward bow, temporarily, is optimal for Thrusting Prongs. I would argue that you can do the same for STSH assuming you take initial steps to misalign your attacker. In addition to certain other misaligning movements and placement of your hands (more detail than I would like to go into right now), you will not end up in "row k, seat 121." I realize not every kenpo school does the technique the same way, so we might just have to chalk this up to differing techniques. Don't we all, after all, believe our way is the most optimal!

 

[Doc]

Somehow the real question of this string has gotten lost by some. While I was pleased to see the question of "adjusting to the impact' of a bear hug asked, only a couple of people seemed interested in addressing the issue. Most focused on the validity of different stances in different high/low, arms pinned/unpinned, Parting Wings/Thusting Prongs irrelevant scenarios. Some even confused the issue by injecting "pulling" into the equation, and although it is definitely an issue to be explored, it is not a part of the question of dealing with the "Body Momentum" of a "Mugger Hugger" attack, and the resulting Bracing Angle" necessary to "Survive the Initial Assault."

The reality is both the neutral and forward bow have efficacy, however the real question is how you deal with the initial impact and momentum. Regardless of choice of stance, it occurs AFTER the fact. Anytime someone expeditiously attacks you, inertia of their mass is a major factor. In a punching or striking scenario, this is obvious. However, it is often overlooked, or is less obvious to the non street indoctrinated in "seizing" scenarios. This is not surprising considering most are taught to avoid this factor even in "pushing" scenarios where the very attack describes the act itself.

Also there seems to be a focus on a frontal attack, and the reality of techniques like "Captured Twigs" suggests the problem needs to be addressed in more than one direction. A couple of you have experienced some solutions first hand under extreme circumstances against much smaller "victims" when you have played the role of attackers. Perhaps a discussion centered around your experiences of having your momentum stopped will help the exchanges.

Additionally all should keep in mind that Bode is correct when he said there is only one correct neutral bow, but more importantly, there is only one way in these scenarios to resolve issues of "Structural Integrity" regarding either of the discussed stances. There is a "Universal Truth" to the physics of human anatomy that is NOT open to the interpretations of the martial arts. Martial Science doesn't lie and it doesn't care about your style, rank, or martial philosophy.

 

[Jagdish]

I agree. There are many other ways to root. They are present in some teachers EPAK, but definetly not all. It's less about EPAK and more about the quality of the teacher.

That's what i feel. I wonder if our education should touch looking at others arts principles.

Some truth to that statement. Even in a NB we are always making adjustments to stay in alignment (For SL4 we use PAM's, BAMs, etc...) However, we do remain in the stance for our defensive posture. The FB is different. It is used primarily to generate torque and momentary stability from a frontal attack.

The question is if you can be rooted before or when attacked. Many people confuse rooting with low & wide stances. You could be rooted even when you move.

Because of the relation of the shoulders to the hips and hips to the feet. This creates a posture which is less likely to dissaassociate the upper carriage from the lower. I.E. you are less likely to bend at the waste. The angle of the body in relation to the attacker also acts as a bracing angle better than that of a FB.

Good explanation.Thanks. Do you know the WUJI stance (natural stance) where you are just standing facing with the weight evenly distributed to both feet? I feel NB relates to this type of stance.

Also with practice and "age" the stances become more narrow.

Depends on what you do before the forward bow. It is unlikely you could stop someone dead in their tracks by stepping back into a forward bow. I would venture to say impossible unless their was a large discrepency in weight.

I agree.Can you expand more on this.Thanks.

It was me who inserted the pulling factor in this discussion therefore i beg pardon to the rest of the posters.:asian:

One point i want explain is in a STSH situation i have seen how related grappling arts try to contain the attacker by leaning over him, trying to keep their feet out of their reach and step back some steps (the attack was both low tackle and body tackle). Is this a valuble lesson for us to learn from beside it's not in our curriculum?

Doc:Although, the principles applied to the human body are universal and martial science is not open to interpretation (which i agree) there are other body structures that handle the same questions with nearly different answers.My question is if their answers can fit within our framework?


I am always willing to learn.
Sincerely submitted.

Jagdish

 

[Seabrook]

Hi Mr Seabrook,

Have you actually tested this where the attacker does continue the drive back and where you as the defender have to make adjusting steps to try and reach the stance you require.

Please do so and let me know your results I have tested this on my girlfriend and training partner here who is some 80 to 90 pounds lighter than me and she can resist the push back with a forward stance rather than a neutral stance.

Just some thoughts of my own I find this discussion very interesting.

Amrik

Hi Amrik,

You can just call me Jamie....thanks!

Not sure if you remember me? You were helping me through the Book Set at Larry Tatum's LV camp. Remember....I loved his version.

Yes, we tried out the difference between the forward bow and neutral bow on Clyde O'Briant at Larry Tatum's east coast camp a few weeks back.

Interesting discussion, and hope to see you again my friend.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com