howardr said:
Hello! It was nice meeting you the other day.
I used to wonder (early on) whether SL4 was really torques and tweeks (albeit many and major ones), but lately I've come around to seeing it as something radically different. Seems to me that it really may be an entirely different Kenpo (same but different). And, the proper differentia would be anatomical (i.e., SL4) Kenpo vs. conceptual/motion Kenpo. Since that is a fundamental difference in orientation, philosophy and grounding, the common frame of reference might be now of a more superficial nature, which may make it inappropriate to speak of torques and tweeks. In other words, is it really just torques and tweeks or is it that what appears to be torques and tweeks is really an introduction and vehicle for something radically different?
Just a thought.
See you in class.
Well, there you have it. Out in the open, with no room for misinterpretation. "Torques and tweeks" was meant to avoid ruffling the feathers of folks who may have invested years in kenpo, continuing to believe their efforts were well-placed. But, me-thinks you're closer than not. I'm minimizing to avoid controversy, but what da heck...
First off, Howard, I know you had a chance to learn some AK prior to joining Doc's cult of kenpo perfectionists (said affectionately). You've had a chance to see what a class typically looks and sounds like, and even what some of the techniques and forms looked like before Doc started re-tooling them. Kind of anemic by comparison if you run the memory in your mind, si?
"If you reference the perspective of a different starting point,..."
Starting with indexing and the basics, SL-4 immediately stands out as different because the foundational basics are different. What Doc refers to as "indexes" are positional prestretches that make the mind of a plyometrics fan race with the implications of the meanings. The neurophysiological basis for plyometrics is based largely on recruitment of a larger number of muscle fibers in a pre-stretch phase that precedes the gross major movement; that stretch activate a greater number of neuroreceptors in the muscle fibers themselves, meaning that...when released...more of the muscles mass will come into play in the final motion. Also, looking at the work of guys like Sherrington, there are relationships in neural circuitry, such that: When you turn on more of one muscle A (the agonist), that muscles neighbors and helpers are told via spinal cord shortcuts to wake up! Pay attention! Get ready to snap to, boys! Primary agonists and synergists are attenuated at a much higher level than in the standard methods of execution; joint stabilizers otherwise left nearly electrically silent are attenuated, lending stability to the entire kinematic chain (all of the muscles and joints in an arm or leg, and the muscles that connect them to the torso); musculature along the kinematic chains of the "uninvolved" extremity limbs are conjointly attenuated through indexing, causing a substantial and measurable improvement in body-wide stability. Doc's presentation of stepping forward into a neutral bow with a lead hand inward block has so many indexes and structural alignment mechanisms in it that are absent in mainstream kenpo, that by the time you've completed the remaining technique series (with follow-up strikes and foot maneuvers, with the indexes, PAM's, BAM,s etc.), the final product is like, well...kenpo on years of steroids.
Doc prefers reference to the
anatomical alignment of his system, but anatomy is, generally, considered static: The existence and nomenclature of a part, and it's relationship to other parts (i.e., bodypart A is inferior, medial, and anterior to bodypart B). When they look at just the most simple actions of how these parts work at a gross mechanical level, the study switches from "antomy" to "functional anatomy", "biomechanics", "kinesiology", and "physiology". Sub-divisions or specializations also exist: for example, "Neuro-Anatomy", and "Neuro-Physiology". The challenge with classifying Sub-Level 4 as "anatomical kenpo", is the old "parts is parts" saying. Everybody has all the same parts. The way Doc is stacking them, and recruiting them for unified motion and purpose is what really makes SL4 stand out as being radically different from motion kenpo. Now, if you wanna get jiggy with it, add the dimensions of destructive sequencing and meridian mapping to the angle and direction of the indexed strikes, coming from an aligned platform..."Anatomical" kenpo really doesn't do it justice.
When y'all were practicing Short 2...if you remember Short 2 from your pre-SL4-K days, than you know you're doing something completely different, even though you're approaching it in similar phases. Self-Defense techs are grossly recognizeable because of the sequence of counters, and some of the signature movements. But what's done
on the way to the movement, and in the execution of the movement...both by the defender and to the perp... are so dramatically different from what's generally available in kenpo, that there definitely has to be some way to differentiate it. I've heard some guys say, essentially, "Yeah, we do sub-level 4", meaning they throw in some nerve strikes and entanglements, but the reality is,
No...they don't. To be able to secure positional stability before, during, and after each block/strike/maneuver, while breaking a guy down like that, is radically different than motion kenpo.
When y'all were practicing SF3, I asked Doc, "why the change in the opening move of Destructive Twins?". What I thought was simply the stylistic opening of one hand, instead of the closing of both, turned out to be a change in:
1. Indexing before moving
2. Platform stabilization so the stance and torso are strong bases to deliver from
3. A change in the anatomical relationship of the Left shoulder joint, and accompanying attenuation of every muscle crossing the shoulder joint I could think of (and I can think of a lot)
4. A neurophysiological cue from the hand to the brain (fingers straight, carpals forced anteriorly via full wrist extension), and back again to get the open kinematic chain of the left upper extremity to support against approaching resistance...something it was totally incapable of while in the original overhand/closed-fist position.
That kind of structural integrity was simply not possible in the closed-hand version of the opening move. And that's just 1 move in all of short 3. Each of the techniques has this sort of thought and innovation put into completely re-tooling it.
So, yes...tweeking and torquing was an understatement...an intentional one. Some things one could pick up from Doc in a 20 minute hallway conversation, and take years re-formatting their hard drive just to incorporate. For example...palm facing forward, as in a bracing index...fingers bent, or not bent? What are the implications for the signals to and from the brain, and their implications for strength in a forward push vs. rearward pull? That's 4 minutes of show & tell; at least a year of re-training bad habits to actually "show up" with this in your techniques, sparring, and self-defense.
If, in the future, you see me short-changing SL4 by using minimalist terminology, please understand it is simply for the purposes of verbal economy. If you actually read the length of this post, there are many things alluded to, very few described, and lots of words. All to describe only a very few things. SL4 is a voluminous body of information, and must be glossed over lightly if one wishes to do anything else with their night than type. Plus, if you can't "show" the person reading your post what some indexes are, and how they strengthen technique, how many words do you think it would take?
5 Swords is still 5 swords, but with the alignment and attenuation mechanisms in place, it is an awesome 5 swords that rocks the other guy, while preventing you from being budged any direction except the one(s) you choose. If you can figure out how to economically describe the differences by saying something other than "looks a lot like 5 swords, but with some tweeks and torques that make it stronger and more efficient", pleeeeze let me know.
See ya next week Howard.
Dave