Maintaining Stability While Moving

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

P.S. - I have no idea why people call me at home, when they know I'm teaching, and then don't answer their own phone.

Well I woulda called you on the school line, but you were teaching. And the problem is...from the time you leave the house for the bat-cave to battle LA traffic, to the time you are actually available to take a call is like...8 friggin hours.

So, now I gots 2 questions for you on the table, and the answer is?....(chirp...chirp).

Regards,

D.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Pardon me for jumping in, the simple answer is yes. Now Doc and Dave don't be mad at me I know theres more but hey I thought I could answer that one.


Amrik running for cover

No need for running. Michael: Yes. The stance sets, short forms, SD techs, have all been revisited to include these mechanisms. So when you hit your stance for Delayed Sword or Attacking Mace, you include the BAM's & PAM's necessary to maximize your own alignment, while messing with the bad guys. Each move to the next piece of each technique has multiple corrective pieces in it to re-establish alignment, in the event it's been compromised during transition.

Takes longer to learn the techniques, but the basics are way more solid once grasped.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Doc]

Pardon me for jumping in, the simple answer is yes. Now Doc and Dave don't be mad at me I know theres more but hey I thought I could answer that one.


Amrik running for cover

 

[Doc]

First, I'd like to take the time to Thank both Dave and Doc for their replies! They've been very well thought out replies. I do plan on giving the experiment that Dave talked about, a try.

I do have a question. This is in regard to something Dave said, so I'd be happy to hear replies from Dave or Doc.

You mention stepping back and then doing the stomp to get a more stable stance. Is this same idea applied during self defense techniques?

Mike

Yes sir, this is not an isolated mechanism. Its part of basic footwork that must be done at the appropriate time and circumstance to create the proper relationship between the upper and lower platforms of the body to create a solid cohesive connection between the two.

There is nothing more basic than proper footwork, yet few know its intracacies, or when and how to impliment it for maximum anatomical effect to support the action at hand. Our basic Stance Set One teaches these mechanisms and proper transitions, that include the Foot and Head Indexes, and the proper Outside Cover mecanisms at the 101 (yellow) level.

 

[Doc]

No need for running. Michael: Yes. The stance sets, short forms, SD techs, have all been revisited to include these mechanisms. So when you hit your stance for Delayed Sword or Attacking Mace, you include the BAM's & PAM's necessary to maximize your own alignment, while messing with the bad guys. Each move to the next piece of each technique has multiple corrective pieces in it to re-establish alignment, in the event it's been compromised during transition.

Takes longer to learn the techniques, but the basics are way more solid once grasped.

Regards,

Dave

I would probably take exception to the term 'revisit,' in as much as I never actually 'visited' the material in the commercial arena. However for those who learned from that perspective, it is a big time revisit and relearning of what they thought they knew.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I would probably take exception to the term 'revisit,' in as much as I never actually 'visited' the material in the commercial arena. However for those who learned from that perspective, it is a big time revisit and relearning of what they thought they knew.

I think I just got raspberried.

 

[Dan G]

Edited: Accidental Double Post

Dan:

 

[Dan G]

What you are asking is akin to what I've said about posture previously to you, and how important it is. Than once the proper posture is established, than you must also move properly and specifically to maintain or re-establsh structure. This allows you to move MORE fluid and explosive utilizing correct posture, the mechanisms of transition, and back to a stable solid posture again.

Remarkably, no one else had a question on the information I gave about the bodies ability to 'disassociate' its many parts and the information in that post, other than my 'marketing' motives for using the term "Martial Science" which was actually already defeined in the post. To assemble, write, and disseminate such information is extremely time consuming, and such a lack of intelligent responses is discouraging. Remakable. Anyway, understanding that type of information in many ways is the key as you and I have discussed before.

Like others have already said, plenty of thinking time needed to digest your previous post. Thanks again for taking the time to share your knowledge and experience.

Your post prompts me to ask something that I've been pondering for a bit, "what is the value of "disassociated" motion?" I have seen you and your senior students demonstrate the importance of correct body alignment, and am in no doubt whatsoever of the value of correct alignment and structure... but what about sacrificing alignment and structure... is there a use for it?

Specifically, manipulative arts like Aikido (from the little I have experienced) emphasise body mechanics heavily, but also seem to sacrifice alignment/use disassociated motion more readily and for longer periods in an interaction in order to achieve more sensitivity to the motion of an attacker, encourage severe misalignment in an attacker ( e.g falling over), or create openings for attack.

The small amount of Wado karate I have seen also relied heavily on a push drag jab involving a lateral shift off the 12 o'clock line (nagashizuki), I think this forward leap and sideshift is something from the jujutsu heritage in the system... I am not sure if this is a motion that sacrifices alignment...it feels "soft", and with hindsight the movement of the rear leg seems to me to break alignment. It doesn't strike me as the most powerful way of hitting an attacker, but it seems to be a very good way of gaining or exploiting an opening, and I always liked the technique for the way it exploited timing as it was normally done as the attacker intiated a forward step or a jab. I am not 100% sure if this is a technique that sacrifices alignment, but if so it seems to be a deliberate strategy in the system, trading maximum effectiveness for a disruptive hit ...

I am not sure if I am asking the question as well as I could, is difficult to express it well in writing...

I am very interested to know whether disassociated movement can have intrinsic merit as a strategy, a transitory aid to mobility, or an aid to gaining extra sensitivity to the attacker's movement when in contact manipulation range... or is it a case of ineffective, more effective, most effective?

Yours,

Dan:asian:

 

[Doc]

"what is the value of "disassociated" motion?"

Please substitute the word “movement” over the abstract and conceptual “motion.” Motion can only be defined in very general terms whereas movement can be specific.

I have seen you and your senior students demonstrate the importance of correct body alignment, and am in no doubt whatsoever of the value of correct alignment and structure... but what about sacrificing alignment and structure... is there a use for it?

I think you missed the point of the post Dan. You see the human body has to be able to do both in order to be the living and breathing machine it is. Otherwise, you would move like a 1960’s robot, stiff, inflexible, and rigid.

The secret is to command both consciously at will. We are constantly performing functions that are detrimental to the machine, but machine is also very forgiving through the disassociate mechanism. However, if consistently and repetitively abused, the machine will break down usually in the form of injury or sustained pain as a warning.

Specifically, manipulative arts like Aikido (from the little I have experienced) emphasizes body mechanics heavily, but also seem to sacrifice alignment/use disassociated motion more readily and for longer periods in an interaction in order to achieve more sensitivity to the motion of an attacker, encourage severe misalignment in an attacker (e.g. falling over), or create openings for attack.

Your point is well taken, however they don’t sacrifice alignment. It is very purposeful much as we do. We just do it, (in some cases) much different then they in an art that emphasizes form over function, much like the ballet of my daughter.

I am not sure if I am asking the question as well as I could, is difficult to express it well in writing...

You’re doing fine Dan, and I’m sure you can appreciate the difficulty in non-hands on answering as well.

I am very interested to know whether disassociated movement can have intrinsic merit as a strategy, a transitory aid to mobility, or an aid to gaining extra sensitivity to the attacker's movement when in contact manipulation range... or is it a case of ineffective, more effective, most effective?

Most effective arts do it at some point, and usually as a defensive strategy. A boxers “bob and weave” is a good example. “Russian Systema” also uses it quite effectively; much like can be seen in older Chinese perspectives of study. Nevertheless, keep in mind when the body moves to this disassociated mode, it is usually to perform a specific task, and you are only disassociated from a particular direction or angle of resistance. If you were completely disassociated, the body would collapse to the floor in a heap.

You cannot sustain ‘direction structure’ at all angles simultaneously under load, but you can focus your structure to compensate for load in a particular direction or manner to serve a directed purpose. You can sustain internal structure in all direction simultaneously in what we have termed the “Statue Effect,” as you have seen.

 

[IWishToLearn]

I just have to say. Dr. Chapel & Dr. Dave - you two continue to amaze me.

 

[JamesB]

James when I say feet moving toward each other, I mean anatomically as your body reads and understands it. This is always predicated on the stance/posture assumed and where you want to take it. From a properly Indexed neutral bow, when you 'drag-step' properly forward or reverse, your feet do not move toward each other but instead operate and move on their own plane that does not violate the heel/toe width line. Therefore, the stance may shorten, but technically the feet are occupying their own plane, and are not moving directly toward each other. When the feet move parallel to the pelvic bone, the body senses this as a lateral movement and breaks down front to back alignment and stability which is no longer supported

This has actually helped to clarify some thoughts I've been having regarding this transition from neutral bow and the feet moving 'in their own planes' as you say. I'd not thought of it that way before (different planes) so that's an interesting perspective.

'Feet moving together' makes sense too I think - so for normal walking (i.e. a step forward / back) the body does not interpret this action as you feet moving towards each other (even though they sort of do from an external perspective), because each foot/leg is in it's own plane of travel within the natural gait.

That is a different scenario, and from a proper Indexed horse stance, movement can only be lateral because the stance lacks depth, however the stance is not designed to support that action and will break down as well.

I'm not sure I understand this difference quite right so let me try and be clear that we're talking the same scenario. Comparing a neutral-bow aligned to 12 o'clock (i.e the normal toe-heel line), and a horse-stance aligned to the same direction - i.e. a 'side horse' with the body completely turned to face 9 whilst one's head still looks to 12. One foot 'in a hole' as you say

I *think* what your saying, is that you wouldn't want to drag-step from the horse, because it has no width, and therefore the feet move within the same plane. The body interprets this as 'feet moving together' and the stance has less stability?

If I understood this correctly this is very surprising (to me). However it does explain alot about the value of attaining proper width in a neutral bow - keeping the feet either side of the 'toe-heel' line actually improves structure because of the 'plane thing'. This is something I'd never appreciated before at any rate, but then I'm not confident I'm understanding you quite right. Should I be able to test this difference? i.e. have someone drag-step from a neutral-bow, and then do the same from a horse - should there be a testable difference in the resulting structure?

From a proper neutral bow stance, anywhere in the sequence of proper footwork will yield substantial effect. However, optimum energy is derived when either foot is at the end of its movement cycle, with a BAM (not Slap-check)

BAM! got it! thanks

 

[Doc]

This has actually helped to clarify some thoughts I've been having regarding this transition from neutral bow and the feet moving 'in their own planes' as you say. I'd not thought of it that way before (different planes) so that's an interesting perspective.

'Feet moving together' makes sense too I think - so for normal walking (i.e. a step forward / back) the body does not interpret this action as you feet moving towards each other (even though they sort of do from an external perspective), because each foot/leg is in it's own plane of travel within the natural gait.

Exactly. The gait causes a change of depth of the stride relative to the body, but technically each foot maintains it own plane of movement. When you understand that the physical act of walking is an 'inverted pendulum' and a controlled fall, then it is easy to visulize.

Although some (not you) feel this is too technical, and sometime I agree, a teacher must have this knowledge of human movement to correct student activity, even if the student doesn't understand why the instructor wants it a certain way.

So when someone asks 'why,' this is what they get. The truth is students would better serve themselves by working the physical movement in an effort to become warriors, as opposed to attempting to be complete scholars at the same time. They need to learn, the 'why' in training is information dispensed 'as needed.' And as much as some would like otherwise, you cannot learn to be a warrior and a scholar at the same time. One does not serve the other.

I'm not sure I understand this difference quite right so let me try and be clear that we're talking the same scenario. Comparing a neutral-bow aligned to 12 o'clock (i.e the normal toe-heel line), and a horse-stance aligned to the same direction - i.e. a 'side horse' with the body completely turned to face 9 whilst one's head still looks to 12. One foot 'in a hole' as you say

Awwwwwww but you made a mistake. You said "horse stance." A "horse stance" has no depth. A "side horse stance" has no width. Two very distinctly different scenarios. My answer was for the horse stance as stated by you. Remember, in anatomical terms, you must always be specific and precise.

I *think* what your saying, is that you wouldn't want to drag-step from the horse, because it has no width, and therefore the feet move within the same plane. The body interprets this as 'feet moving together' and the stance has less stability?

Moving in a side horse width width is acceptable because the 'head' when properly Indexed is what determines relatively the difference between width, and depth, and determines structural direction. When the head is indexed to form a side horse, what was width now becomes your depth, and width and depth reverse roles. Training Horse - no depth but width. Side Horse - no width but depth.

If I understood this correctly this is very surprising (to me). However it does explain alot about the value of attaining proper width in a neutral bow - keeping the feet either side of the 'toe-heel' line actually improves structure because of the 'plane thing'.

Precisely sir.

This is something I'd never appreciated before at any rate, but then I'm not confident I'm understanding you quite right. Should I be able to test this difference? i.e. have someone drag-step from a neutral-bow, and then do the same from a horse - should there be a testable difference in the resulting structure?

When your test model is worked within the appropriate parameters, it easily testable.

The neutral bow speaks for itself, but make sure the chin is Indexed up. There is a natural tendancy in human movement when we exert concentration on a specific task, the chin drops into "contemplation position."

For a SIDE HORSE, the head is INDEXed in the direction of travel, and this will allow the now front to back movement structure with feet occupying the same plane.

Stand in a TRAINING HORSE looking properly Indexed forward, (NOT looking the direction of travel) and drag step latrally. You will feel the body breakdown. Once the head is INDEXED to the direction of travel, the directional structure will shift as indicated by the head and structure returns. Be sure to use all of the other mechnisms as you know them.

Consider for everything you do that may break your structure, there is a Compensating Mechanism. That is what makes the body unique. Really good teachers like I had will rattle this stuff off like nothing because they understand dynamic human movement. How can anyone consider themselves a teacher of human movement of any kind, let alone the kind that demands effective interaction, if they don't truly understand human movement?

That is the difference my friend between a Martial Arts Instructor, and a Martial Science Teacher. I have never studed the arts for effectiveness, only to understand why it doesn't work relative to the 'Martial Science" I was taught and learned. This life long study has yielded significant information that allows me to pick unsound movement apart effortlessly.

 

[JamesB]

Awwwwwww but you made a mistake. You said "horse stance." A "horse stance" has no depth. A "side horse stance" has no width. Two very distinctly different scenarios. My answer was for the horse stance as stated by you. Remember, in anatomical terms, you must always be specific and precise.

doh!

Moving in a side horse width width is acceptable because the 'head' when properly Indexed is what determines relatively the difference between width, and depth, and determines structural direction. When the head is indexed to form a side horse, what was width now becomes your depth, and width and depth reverse roles. Training Horse - no depth but width. Side Horse - no width but depth.

got it

For a SIDE HORSE, the head is INDEXed in the direction of travel, and this will allow the now front to back movement structure with feet occupying the same plane.

Stand in a TRAINING HORSE looking properly Indexed forward, (NOT looking the direction of travel) and drag step latrally. You will feel the body breakdown. Once the head is INDEXED to the direction of travel, the directional structure will shift as indicated by the head and structure returns. Be sure to use all of the other mechnisms as you know them.

ok I understand this now, everything depends on the direction the head is looking as I've been taught. My initial confusion led me to believe that a side-horse might not be appropriate for movement because the feet occupy the same plane in the direction of travel, however the 'head indexing' compensates for this.

I'm assuming now, that even if there may be some small difference between the neutral-bow (head indexed to 12, feet in separate planes), and a side-horse (head indexed to 12, but feet in the same plane), it is not significant enough for me to spend time any more time pondering..within this context of course.

thanks for your time
James

 

[Robert Lee]

If you look at a forward step you would push off your rear foot. Then slide the rear forward rear step you push off with the lead foot and the drag the lead back. Side step Say in a right lead you want to step to your right use the lead right foot then slide the left rear agin for the left lead you would use the left first stepping left then slide the rear over. If in a right lead and you want to step left use the rear foot first stepover slide the lead left lead just the opposite But then you may also want to fient with a step and it can come up natural then step back outAny stance beyond what you would use as main structure. Is mobile and fliud then back to your position. And motion is unpredictable At times you just react and recover back No thought of stance but being effective