Impact adjustments/Bracing angles

[kenposikh]

Hi Jamie,

Yes I remember you had such a great time in Vegas and made lots of new friends and met old friends again.

Hope to see you again too. Maybe at the BKKU summer camp in england perhaps?

Take care my friend

Amrik

 

[MJS]

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.

Just a few questions for you sir-

Reading a few of the posts, some are looking at one tech. more of a higher grab than the other. Am I safe to assume that you are looking at them the same, the difference being arms pinned vs not pinned?

You are not using a set stance. ie: fb for one tech. and nb for the other, but instead, whichever one feels right at that moment?

Mike

 

[Doc]

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

Its not the art that's lacking, it's the teachers. And for the record, it's not always the teachers fault unless he ignores the obvious after a long period of time.

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.

Absolutely.

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.

If I unerstand you correctly, the natural stance and neutral bow obviously share some things but are completely unrelated in practice because of alignment factors, intent, and purpose.

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

Only if you come from a style of instruction that inappropriately utilizes wide and deep stances to compensate for the lack of knowledge of how to arrive at stability otherwise.

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?

Absolutely not. That is a "sport" technique that has no signnificant application in street combat.

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?

The Universal Truth of proper human anatomy is unforgivng and absolute, however differances relate more to philosophy of application influnced, by many factors including culture of origin.

 

[Bode]

Jagdish, I believe Doc responded to the questions you asked. If you needed more clarification on something I wrote, ask away.

Reading a few of the posts, some are looking at one tech. more of a higher grab than the other. Am I safe to assume that you are looking at them the same, the difference being arms pinned vs not pinned?

Yes, I am looking at them the same way, but only because of what happens BEFORE I settle into my stance. The initial goal is to reduce the attackers momentum, strength, and to survive the initial assault. Simply dropping back into a forward bow without reducing the attackers forward momentum could result in a damaged knee. Imagine all that pressure. You step back at the point of impact, wham, that's a lot of pressure to be putting on a joint, even as strong as it is.
So the question is, how, in your Kenpo, do you reduce the attackers forward momentum and strength without taking the brunt of the blow?

The fact that the arms are pinned vs not pinned should not make a large difference in how you can absorb the attack and settle into your stance. After all, is it the stance that makes your base strong or is it the placement of the arms? The upper body, even if attacked high, will not bend if you are in a forward bow (this notion came up in the thread). However, the mechanisms and timing necessary to align the upper body with the lower are not well known.

You are not using a set stance. ie: fb for one tech. and nb for the other, but instead, whichever one feels right at that moment?

Not really. We always hit a forward bow as a transitory stance into a neutral bow. If we are still only talking about surviving the initial assault (SIA) and not including retaliatory strikes, then we end in a bow for both STSH and Thrusting Prongs. After the SIA, we absolutely shift our stances to generate torque, etc... As I said though, what we do BEFORE settling into the stance is what's important.

 

[Jagdish]

Its not the art that's lacking, it's the teachers. And for the record, it's not always the teachers fault unless he ignores the obvious after a long period of time.

Yes, but if someones lacks a good teacher, crosstraining should be done not for getting ranks but to complement or to get to the essentials in order to improve what you already have.

Absolutely.

:ladysman:

If I understand you correctly, the natural stance and neutral bow obviously share some things but are completely unrelated in practice because of alignment factors, intent, and purpose.

Agreed.

Only if you come from a style of instruction that inappropriately utilizes wide and deep stances to compensate for the lack of knowledge of how to arrive at stability otherwise.

I want to refer also to what is called small frame of movements: narrow stances and short range moves which appear after decades of practice.

It appears you are barely moving.

Doc:after many years of practicing, do you feel your NB different?
Just as an example: I have seen senior practicioners of different arts practicing without flexing much their knees.For some it's a age issue but in reality they are more rooted than the youngsters.

I wonder that after many decades of practice one can reach a wuji type of stance (may be dimensionally) when one executes a NB.:idunno:

Absolutely not. That is a "sport" technique that has no signnificant application in street combat.

Yes, but the second part of this is that the defender steps back few steps and the attacker finds himself lying on the ground and gets beaten. :erg:

MMA tournaments have shown that you can't prevent any move 100%.

In some cases i see streetfights with gloves.:xtrmshock

The Universal Truth of proper human anatomy is unforgivng and absolute, however differances relate more to philosophy of application influnced, by many factors including culture of origin.

I am always amazed by the few out there who can use the W.C. body structure efficiently. Now, you won't deny that they have an odd B.S, will you? :lol:

Yours,

Jagdish

 

[Doc]

In this age of multimedia education, it seems everyone's answer to learning since Mr. Parker passed is to "crosstrain," and a lot of that by video. That's a "sport concept I do not subscribe to. If people looked more to other disciplines to "educate" themselves I would be more inclined, but "training" is another issue. When you "train," the assumption is, going in you already have a significant knowledge of a partiular activity and you are training to hone your skills and abilities. In sport you train because the activity is a limited function activity and all of it's variations can be learned rather quickly. Then you train to enhance your ability to the highest function level possible.

The problem with cross training is, ".... going in you don't know what you don't know, so how do you know what you need to know and how to know it?

 

[Jagdish]

In this age of multimedia education, it seems everyone's answer to learning since Mr. Parker passed is to "crosstrain," and a lot of that by video. That's a "sport concept I do not subscribe to.

If people looked more to other disciplines to "educate" themselves I would be more inclined, but "training" is another issue.

Sir:

Could you expand more on this? I think i "research" on different styles' method of training, stances, techniques,structure,etc but in some way i can because i have a basic base( read as essentials) of some arts besides training in kenpo. And i try to integrate that knowlege to my kenpo but i am not saying i am adding for the sake of adding.:asian:

When you "train," the assumption is, going in you already have a significant knowledge of a partiular activity and you are training to hone your skills and abilities. In sport you train because the activity is a limited function activity and all of it's variations can be learned rather quickly. Then you train to enhance your ability to the highest function level possible.

The problem with cross training is, ".... going in you don't know what you don't know, so how do you know what you need to know and how to know it?

When is one REALLY ready to do so?:idunno: