Purpose of Hand Isolations from Horse Stance in Long Form #1

[Michael Billings]

I did not say anything about "dropping into a horse stance" nor was I implying you were "thrown against a wall" in a fight. You are more on track with "Environmental Considerations" and blocks that are isolations being fully articulated action for the purpose of teaching range of motion and other Principles or Concepts I noted above. That does not remove it from the realm of possibility that you use the entire motion.

An example was when an arrest was happening in my office, two federal marshall's were present, and the offender came over the desk at me. While the marshalls are drawing their weapons, I do an outward block from a seated position, this was 13 or so years ago. I am speaking from personal experience, not a hypothetical training issue.

PRACTICE - don't debate, before it is too late!

 

[dcence]

Punches are fast. Blocks have to be fast just to catch up considering the punch usually starts moving first. Really, your only hope is that the block should have less distance to travel to intersect the punch, and stepping into an appropriate stance to create an angle of deviation makes it possible for the reaction to beat action.

The blocks diagrammed in Inf. Insights while in a horse stance to me have little use beyond illustration purposes because you are generally going to block while stepping into a narrower stance, such as neutral bow.

When you step into a neutral bow, the "box" does not swing with your body and retain the same shape as in a horse stance. The box actually changes shape as you change your width dimension. The "box" narrows and changes from a square (as in a horse stance) to a rectangle. You still block to the opposite corner, you just don't travel so far because the width of your box has decreased. Mr. Mills calls this "compressing the box", where the width of the box narrows to conform to the width of your shoulders as viewed from12:00. It basically is the same as moving within your "outer rim". If your outer rim gets compressed because you have narrowed your width, you shouldn't still execute blocks based on the outer rim of a horse stance.

Personally, I don't generally teach blocks out of a horse stance anymore exactly because of this. Blocking out of a wide width stance such as a horse stance will be the exception rather than the general rule, and I don't want to train myself or my students based on the exception, but rather on the rule, the general rule being blocking out of a stance with a narrow width such as a neutral bow.

As far as sweeping across to get to a round house punch, as suggested by Robert, I can see the point, but if my block has to pass clear across my body and then some to get to the strike, I personally would rather use my other hand to pick up the strike. And if there is time you would step forward into a zone of santuary where the right hand has little or no responsibility to block (ala Calming the Storm), or step back far enough that I don't have to reach across my body to block the punch. Reaching too far across the body to get to a roundhouse leaves one too exposed to the attacker's left punch that would presumably follow.

When a punch is thrown the natural reaction is to chase the punch with your block anyway, even if the punch is too wide to hit you in the first place. I will do it all the time -- throw a punch wide to see if they will chase it, and if they do, exploit the window opened by their overextension. Any training that teaches onoe to reach too far, I believe, reinforces that bad habit.

To me, executing basics repetitively out of a horse stance has more to do with tradition rather than practicality. I can still see some small value in learning to execute from a wide width stance, but to me it is less useful than practicing from a neutral bow where the bulk of defending yourself should happen.

Star block -- I have my students only practice it in a neutral bow so that the proper and practical dimensions of the blocks are learned from the beginning.

I still use a horse stance to practice strikes, as you can still punch from a horse stance and get the right angle of delivery as if you are punching from your other wide angle stances (i.e., the forward bow). But then again, I train my students more from a forward bow once they learn the rudimentary movements in a horse stance.

One last thing, when practicing blocks from a neutral bow, I don't have my students block and then leave their hand in the blocking position. They block and immediately retract the blocking hand to a neutral position. A blocking hand left out too long is too easy to trap and control, and also leaves other zones of the body exposed. It better either be on its way to strike immediately after the block or be retracted to a more neutral position, because that is another thing I like to do -- draw the block and trap it. Learning alternating blocks out of a horse stance, I feel, reinforces a bad habit of leaving a block in an extended position. I just don't see the practicality of practicing 'thrusting" blocks, as opposed to snapping blocks that return to a neutral position after contact or even hammering blocks that hit through the target.

Derek

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Billings:

How's that for environmental awareness? Two federal Marshalls are arresting someone in your office and you are still sitting down behind your desk. Why? Doesn't prudence demand that you watch for the fight or flight scenario? Hopefully, most times the would be arrestee will acquiesce and go quietly, but there is always that chance. I'd say you got lucky, but that's just my opinion not actually having been there.

Mr. Ence:

Thanks for your insight, always appreciated.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm with Michael.

First off, please read what I write. What I've repeatedly noted is that this "ideal," block may not get reached in every move, but should be built in as a template.

Second, yes I can follow you around the clock, thanks for the phrasing. The block I described hardly runs to 8 or 8:30; indeed, the hand ends at the opposite shoulder, at approximately 10:30, as you claimed contradicted what I wrote. And it ends at a 45-degree angle, in your own description, as I noted a post or two back.

Third--you are confusing what an advanced practitioner does with what a novice student needs to learn to get where you are. By "improving," this stuff, you are burning bridges students need to cross.

Fourth--it is important to practice "thrusting," blocks to preserve the binary oppositions sketching out two opposite ends of a spectrum within which we eventually learn to find the appropriate movements. How are you teaching Short 1? Without the separation between the two initial blocks?

Fifth--perhaps your left hand does nothing in the "initial," move of Calming, but mine actually blocks...I need it.

Sixth...folks, look at the blocks in "Inf. Insights." Horse stance, neutral bow, whatever...elbow to midline, fist to opposite shoulder. As I remarked, "sophisticated basics," sure. But if I'm reading correctly, you're talking about changing the basics themselves.

Seventh--my guess is, if you looked at what you and I actually do, it's pretty damn much the same. Yes, sure, "compressing the box," fine, but the damn hand still ends up in the same position.

Eighth...am I hallucinating, or do the forms repeat and repeat the kinds of alignments I'm arguing for? Sure, sure, Arthur C. Clarke was right..."any sufficiently-advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic," but look at the forms...where do the hands go?

Ninth--to repeat, and sorry, but some of you folks are confusing what a very-advanced practitioner should do with what students should be taught. It's a long trip to sophistication...why cut off the road again and again?

 

[Michael Billings]

Yahoo,

Don't criticize until you are there ... and I prefer Michael to "Billings", but it is a good name and I am proud of it, just not used to reading it the way you wrote it, as it is usually prefaced by "Mr." or something else less complimentary.

Circumstances dictated my actions, I considered getting out of my chair and backing toward a wall, but that was not necessary in this case. I am not sure that I would have anyway, it is a big desk they have to come across, and rather than aggravate the offender more, I was still talking calmly, basically because I was the one telling him he was going to jail. The outward extended block was to his supporting arm, as his punch was coming from real far away, with the result being his face hitting my desk (slightly assisted by my other hand.) Funny story but was not at the time. He ends up apologizing for his actions, and I did not have to press charges as he picked up a new Federal felony and went to the US Bureau of Prisons.

Now what was my point ... oh yeah, I don't appreciate your rudeness!

-Michael

 

[Fastmover]

We all can not even agree how to do an inward block and yet the Kenpo community is supposed to come together? Right! We all have the belief that what we are doing is the devine truth. Im glad to see that we are all passionate about our journey, BUT I do not understand this mentality of "Im absolutely right and your absolutely wrong?"

As for the rudeness that seems to be going on, that seems to be flowing both ways.

To contribute to this discussion a little on blocks:

1. doesnt the outer rim narrow going from a horse stance into a neutral bow?

2. Shouldnt all blocks be contained within your outer rim to keep from over expossing yourself?

3. If so wouldnt this decrease the amount of travel time or sweep area for the blocks?

4. As we advance in skill and knowledge, there is no doubt that we should use this within our movements. Specifically compact or motion.

Ok let me have it.........

 

[dcence]

Hi Robert,

What I've repeatedly noted is that this "ideal," block may not get reached in every move, but should be built in as a template.

If you are talking about blocks out of a horse stance to be ideal, I don't consider a block whose alignment is one that you will not use in your techniques to be ideal. The ideal block is the one you will use more often than not -- specifically one done out a neutral bow.

you are confusing what an advanced practitioner does with what a novice student needs to learn to get where you are. By "improving," this stuff, you are burning bridges students need to cross.

Blocks that follow the proper path and actually have the proper structural alignment upon contact are elementary, not sophisticated. If we teach a student to block using the wrong paths and alignment only to change them later, we are wasting time and effort and developing bad habits.

Fourth--it is important to practice "thrusting," blocks to preserve the binary oppositions sketching out two opposite ends of a spectrum within which we eventually learn to find the appropriate movements. How are you teaching Short 1? Without the separation between the two initial blocks?

Thrusting blocks are important, and let me clarify, it is the lock-out that most people do at the end of a thrusting block that is a bad habit. Anyone worth their salt will trap the block, or exploit the hole created by a lock out block. It is not something I want my student to learn. Hammer through, snap it back, or riccochet to another target, but don't lock out a block.

As far as binary oppositions, I prefer consistent, correct repititions to carve a 'groove' of properly aligned motion. The path of a block should cover the spectrum, not major variations in the path of delivery.

Fifth--perhaps your left hand does nothing in the "initial," move of Calming, but mine actually blocks...I need it.

Check what I wrote -- I use my left hand to block and this is exactly my point. Techniques for horizontal circular attacks teach you to block with your rear hand, not for your lead hand to reach clear across your body. Yet this is precisely what a block from a horse teaches, to reach across your body. Bad habit in my opinion when no technique uses this sweeping action clear across to the other shoulder.

Sixth...folks, look at the blocks in "Inf. Insights." Horse stance, neutral bow, whatever...elbow to midline, fist to opposite shoulder. As I remarked, "sophisticated basics," sure. But if I'm reading correctly, you're talking about changing the basics themselves.

Change the basics, not at all. Just change the way they are taught so that proper alignment is taught consistently from the first day and in every aspect. You must be referring to an inward block, and from a neutral bow the block should be elbow at midline, hand to opposite shoulder. However, doing this in a horse stance actually creates a different body alignment than when in a neutral bow. I don't want a different alignment taught in basics from what I will do in a technique. We don't teach bad grammar in elementary school only to correct it when used in real life. We may tolerate a level of bad grammar, but not actively teach it. To me teaching blocks out of a horse is teaching bad grammar we will have to clean up later in the techniques.

What is a regular complaint -- basics need work. Well is it any wonder when the student spends hours in a horse stance learning basics executed at an incorrect angle and alignment?

Seventh--my guess is, if you looked at what you and I actually do, it's pretty damn much the same. Yes, sure, "compressing the box," fine, but the damn hand still ends up in the same position.

Exactly! From a neutral bow we should do a block with the same alignments, tailored for body types. That "damn" horse stance actually teaches you to execute blocks with a different alignment than what you use in your techniques.

Eighth...am I hallucinating, or do the forms repeat and repeat the kinds of alignments I'm arguing for? Sure, sure, Arthur C. Clarke was right..."any sufficiently-advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic," but look at the forms...where do the hands go?

Maybe you are hallucinating or maybe the way you do the forms. Again, forms aint fighting, basics ain't fighting -- but they should be done as if they were. To do something one way in the safe vacuum of a horse stance or even forms, only to do it another way when a guy is actually swing at you is not logical and a waste of time and effort.

Ninth--to repeat, and sorry, but some of you folks are confusing what a very-advanced practitioner should do with what students should be taught. It's a long trip to sophistication...why cut off the road again and again?

To repeat, properly aligned basics are elementary not sophisticated. I don't believe in short cuts, but neither do I believe in unnecessary detours such as learning basics with one alignment only to change that alignment when you actually are asked to use that basic.

I am just stating what I do, not what you should do. If you want to continue teaching: Here is how a block is done in a horse stance, which, by the way, is something you should never be using when you are defending yourself, and here is how you do it from a neutral bow, which, by the way, is what you will use when defending yourself, that is your choice. To me it seems like wasted time and effort, and actually creates a bad habit that has to be corrected and unlearned later on.

Thanks for your dialogue.

Derek

 

[Michael Billings]

Fastmover,

You are right! I am sorry that I digressed into personal feelings re: someone else's judgement. Lord knows I know better. I should have left his comment alone, and criticism of me, i.e.

Orig posted by KenpoYahoo:

...and you are still sitting down behind your desk. Why?

I do know better than to rise to the bait, but hey, I guess I am human.

Thanks for bringing the Thread back around.

Sorry All

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, OK.

Several things occur.

First off, there actually is right and wrong. It's not simply a matter of everybody's opinion is equally good.

Secondly, I'm sorry, but nope. The alignment of blocks, the "outer rim," etc., doesn't change. The orientation, and the angles at which things work, change...but that's not the same thing. And the bit about, "elongating," the, "box," no, I don't think so. It's simply that the angle at which the "box," is seen changes.

As for the worthlessness of blocks, punches, etc. out of a horse stance. Sorry that folks disagree, but while I don't have Mr. Ence's rank (nor should I), I do have a fair amount of teaching experience. And as it happened, I primarily learned to teach kenpo from Larry Tatum, who seems to do a fairly-good job of it...

I actually don't bother to differentiate for students what's "useful," and "useless." In the first place and again, if you'll look at the techniques, the endings, the forms, two-man set, you will see a horse stance used again and again. In the second, "sophisticated basics," does not mean that the moves of, say, a block are changed...it means that their application, and the practitioner's comprehension, changes. In the third, those, "unnecessary detours," contain all sorts of info...for example, forward and reverse motion, if we're just talking about Short 1.

Sorry, but I think there's actually a limiting of what basics teach going on here--which is more than just the most direct, "most-efficient," strike or block or whatever.

As for the discussion of why students won't work basics...well, to rebut, maybe it's because we instructors aren't teaching students to value them, because we're busy rushing on to the next thing....nor do I get how blocks out of a horse stance and a neutral bow are fundamentally different in alignment...

As for the bit about teaching grammar...well, what we actually do in English classes is to try to teach correct grammar, before moving on to all the modifications and violaations of grammatical rules. And we try to teach students to distinguish between what, say, James Joyce is doing when he titles a book, "Pomes Pennyeach," and what they are doing when they don't bother to spell correctly.

Incidentally, I am told that the meditating horse in which forms begin is there in part because older forms of kenpo actually used a meditating horse as a fighting stance. They were giants in those days...me, I'm steppin' back. But there are techniques which make active use of a meditating horse, including Twisted Rod...

If students can learn without learning a horse stance and basics out of one, well and good, I suppose. Me, I'm a doofus. I needed that reference point, and still do--which is why, I think, it's built so strongly into such things as Long Forms 1 & 5...

 

[Fastmover]

The pictures in "Inf Ins" do not tell all. However, they do appear to me to show a different block structure in relation to the body moving from a horse to a neutral bow stance. The inward block in the horse stance appears to be approx 45 degrees in relation to the body, in a neutal bow it appears to be 90 degrees from the body. That is not the same anatomical position!

As for the outer rim , the dimensional zone theory may clear up what Im saying. As we step back into a neutral bow stance our width zones narrow. Obviously the advantage is our targets are not as expossed and therefore easier to defend. At the same time in many techniques; such as delayed sword, we open our opponents line of entry expossing his width zones to our attack. In a neutral bow since our width zones are much more compact it only stands to reason to compact the width of our blocks within these zones. The outer rim does change and become smaller as our width zones change and narrow. "This concept teaches you to confine defensive and offensive movements of your arms and hands to those areas witin the imaginary circle." To expand beyond these zones would be a waste of motion. Further We only need to sweep the block far enough to defend the zone being attacked, so if my opponent were punching at my head, why would I need to extend to the shoulder and run the risk of over expossing myself?

Also it would be ideal for me to defend an attack from a neutral bow, if I knew the attack was coming. Every technique teaches us pretty much to stabalize our base a limit our zones. Since defending from a neutral is ideal, why not start out teaching this in the beginning stages?

 

[Doc]

Having skimmed through this string, I can only offer that if you cannot execute blocks from a horse with integrity than your lessons and or knowledge is incomplete for a variety of reasons already posted. Further, our students must be able to do so before they transition to any other stances. Lastly the block when locked out, and is executed correctly, should be so structurally sound, manipulation is not an issue regardless of stance. (And we test them against that standard) To determine whether or not a block will be used from any stance is an individual decision, however circumstances may play a larger role in that decision making process than one would like and may in fact dictate which options are available, and which are not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Taking, "Fastmover's," points in more-or-less reverse order--first, we don't teach it that way because most students don't learn well that way. We "isolate," them in a horse stance because it cuts down on the number of things they have to worry about.

Second, all the talk of "anatomically correct," etc., overlooks what I already wrote...if you step back into a neutral bow and do an inward block, the elbow still goes to center, the first to opposite shoulder, etc. etc....sure, it looks different. But all the worry about the "box," or whatever, is taken care of by teaching novices to position the block correctly.

I might add that one of the things sweeping or squeegeing out whole zones does--and again, it's in "Infinite Insights"--is remove the necessity of being a mind-reader. If you just sweep the area with, say, a right inward block headed for that "unnecessary," far shoulder, you'll pick up whatever comes along the way. Otherwise, you have to know FOR SURE exactly where the strike's headed...

And a last time: the angles change, the appearances change, the shape of the zones from a given point, change as one steps. The basics shouldn't. Sure, the block gets, "compressed." But this is in fact a bit of an illusion...

Anybody changing the forms, like short 1, to eliminate those "unnecessary," arcs? because the logic of the positions I'm reading is to do just that...which raises, at least for me, some questions about the purposes of learning to do the forms precisely...

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I am certainly not suggesting that Instructors forego the teaching of basics to their students. As I stated earlier, I believe the student should be taught, in the beginning, to isolate the hand movements in relation to the rest of their body. If you choose to do this from a horse stance, then fine. However, I do have a problem with intermediate and advanced students performing these same blocks from a horse stance. The alignment is off and the muscle memory developed from this repetitive action is 99% useless. Beyond the beginning state of training (white, yellow, orange) such isolations can be done from a fighting stance with a far greater benefit to the student.

I do not advocate the removal of basics as some have suggested, rather I am against having advanced students perform things, at their advanced rank, in the same manner as they did when they were white and yellow belts. Also as you progress your proficiency, power, speed, should also progress. How can this be achieved if you never change the way you do anything. If your only reason for doing something is because it is on page yadda yadda of some book or because that is the way it has always been done, then your methods are not justified.

The Infinite Insights, from what I have seen, serve as a primer to the idealogy and concepts of kenpo and are by no means exhaustive. They weren't in my opinion supposed to be a template for the advanced student.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Taking, "Fastmover's," points in more-or-less reverse order--first, we don't teach it that way because most students don't learn well that way. We "isolate," them in a horse stance because it cuts down on the number of things they have to worry about.

YEP

Second, all the talk of "anatomically correct," etc., overlooks what I already wrote...if you step back into a neutral bow and do an inward block, the elbow still goes to center, the first to opposite shoulder, etc. etc....sure, it looks different. But all the worry about the "box," or whatever, is taken care of by teaching novices to position the block correctly.

YEP

I might add that one of the things sweeping or squeegeing out whole zones does--and again, it's in "Infinite Insights"--is remove the necessity of being a mind-reader. If you just sweep the area with, say, a right inward block headed for that "unnecessary," far shoulder, you'll pick up whatever comes along the way. Otherwise, you have to know FOR SURE exactly where the strike's headed...

ZONE DEFENSE versus man-to-man. More efficient.

And a last time: the angles change, the appearances change, the shape of the zones from a given point, change as one steps. The basics shouldn't. Sure, the block gets, "compressed." But this is in fact a bit of an illusion...

Yep

Anybody changing the forms, like short 1, to eliminate those "unnecessary," arcs? because the logic of the positions I'm reading is to do just that...which raises, at least for me, some questions about the purposes of learning to do the forms precisely...

Those "arcs" are everything.

"Shortcuts can cut you short." Parker

 

[dcence]

Doc, I agree that blocks can be executed from a horse stance so they are structurally sound, but they are not as pictured in Inf. Insights. Doc, is it your position that the blocks as pictured in infinite insights are structurally sound? You know the pictures with the imaginary box emanating from the shoulders. I agree that blocks can be structured to withstand manipulation generally, even in a horse stance, but they are not those pictured in the book.


Robert, my issue is not with the horse stance at all, it is simply the execution of basics from a horse stance at an angle that teaches a less structurally sound position. I have no problem practicing basics from a horse as long as they are executed with a "whole body alignment" that is the same as you are going to use in a real confrontation. Strikes are good from a horse because most of those can come from the rear hand as easily as the lead hand. I am not advocating dismissal of the horse stance; never have. It has its place. Basics in a horse has a place as long as they are done with proper alignment. Don't expand my proposition and then shoot holes in your expansion.

The unnecessary detours are not in Short 1, nor the forms; I never said that. They are in the countless repition of blocks out of a horse stance in an alignment that is not the same alignment out of a neutral bow. Short 1 and all the forms are useful. But if they are executed in a vacuum without thought to a real confrontation, they are called dance.

Robert, just do a simple experiment. Stand in a horse stance and do a right inward block so your elbow is at midline and your fist is across from the opposite shoulder. Lock it there, shoulder, everything. Swing your right leg back into a right neutral bow. Now please don't tell me that is the alignment of your block in a neutral bow. If this is your inward block we really don't have anything more to discuss 'cause we are on different planets. I don't think it is. If it isn't then why practice it that way at all?

Now do the reverse, stand in a right neutral bow, do a right inward block and lock your shoulder. Now step forward into a horse stance. Is that how you execute your blocks while in a horse. If it is then we have nothing to discuss 'cause we agree. But I don't think we do. If it isn't then I pose the question again, why practice the alignment one way from a horse but another way from a neutral?

Rank has nothing to do with it. Heck, I am just a white belt on this board. I have no idea what rank you are and to me it is irrelevant. So too is who your instructor is -- the argument that "my instructor is so-and-so and he taught me thus" is the one pulled out when other argument is lacking.

The purposes of repititive basics is to indelibly engrave and engrain in the student the correct way to do simple isolated movements. Isn't it best to have that repitition more simulate what you actually do out of a neutral bow?

With that said, I am sure there are a bunch of great fighters who practiced many hours with poorly aligned blocks in a horse stance. But does that mean we should keep doing it that way?

Again, this is my own personal position, not that of my instructor, fellow practitioners or association. Just my own thought, and I claim no monopoly on being right.

Again, thanks for your input.

Derek

 

[dcence]

I am certainly not suggesting that Instructors forego the teaching of basics to their students. As I stated earlier, I believe the student should be taught, in the beginning, to isolate the hand movements in relation to the rest of their body. If you choose to do this from a horse stance, then fine. However, I do have a problem with intermediate and advanced students performing these same blocks from a horse stance.

I will disagree to the extent an instructor teaches a beginning student to do basics at first one way only to change it on them later on. I think it is better to teach it with 'whole body structural alignment' the first time. This can be done from horse or neutral bow. A horse stance is really a neutral bow viewed from a different angle.

I just think it makes more sense to do so starting from a neutral as soon as possible because that is what a student will "ideally" do in a real situation.

Derek

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by dcence
Doc, I agree that blocks can be executed from a horse stance so they are structurally sound, but they are not as pictured in Inf. Insights.

Correct

Doc, is it your position that the blocks as pictured in infinite insights are structurally sound? You know the pictures with the imaginary box emanating from the shoulders. I agree that blocks can be structured to withstand manipulation generally, even in a horse stance, but they are not those pictured in the book.

Correct. I was there when those pictures were taken and in some of the shoots. Mr. Parker had a problem with it himself, but let it go with the intent to re-shoot the volume again at a later date because he had a pressing deadline. In fact he did the same with Volume 2 and Jim Michell's stances, etc.

The methodology I was taught by Parker is completely different from what is in Infinite Insights, and appears to be different from most I have seen.

Blocking philosophically varies from teacher to teacher in AK and always has. I suppose as long as it is functional for the individual, it really doesn't matter. I subscribe to the Zone Blocking Theory (with a twist)

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Mr Ence,

I agree that basics should be taught from day one how they are going to be performed, as it is hard to break bad form and mechanics once they are ingrained. My statement to Mr. Robertson was made as a simple I'll meet you half way, to see what happens type deal. Thanks for the insight.

 

[dcence]

Hi Doc,

I really begin to worry when you and I actually agree. LOL

I suppose as long as it is functional for the individual, it really doesn't matter. I subscribe to the Zone Blocking Theory (with a twist)

Functionality is the key. I also agree in Zone Blocking. However, I believe this is best accomplished by using a consistent angle of delivery and using the path created by your block, rather than using various angles of delivery (some of which have a less than structurally sound alignment). For example a proper inward block protects entire zones by using the path ("squeegee") of the entire length of your forearm.

Derek

 

[dcence]

Hi Kenpoyahoo,

Just call me Derek.

I agree that basics should be taught from day one how they are going to be performed, as it is hard to break bad form and mechanics once they are ingrained. My statement to Mr. Robertson was made as a simple I'll meet you half way, to see what happens type deal. Thanks for the insight.

I understand. It is a process to change how you teach something as fundamental as the basics. It doesn't happen all at once.

I find the half way point between Robert and me somewhere else. It really is in the fact that when you start executing a block say in Attacking Mace, you are in a wide width stance -- not necessarily a horse stance, but shoulders are square. So at first, the block is as you would do out of a horse. But half way is not far enough for me. As you step back into a neutral the width narrows and the shoulder has to make the adjustment to actually get the block to go where it will actually protect you. Doing blocks within the box in a horse doesn't get you there with the alignment shown in Inf. Ins. 3.

With that said, I still contend repititive blocks in a horse within the box, do more harm than good because the block never ends up with the right structural alignment, particulary in the shoulder joint. We have mostly been talking about inward blocks, but let's take an outward extended block from a horse. Do it so your hand is straight across from your shoulder as shown in Inf. Ins. 3, lock the shoulder, and then step back into a neutral bow. That isn't the position of the block in Sword of Destruction. To get it to go where it actually blocks the punch, you have to move the shoulder more.

With an inward block, practicing this move in a horse within the box has your shoulder flex inward too much, cramps the pectoral and overstretches the trapezius in the back. This causes internal friction and restriction of movement. Speed and power are sacrificed. Also, the ideal point of impact is not in line with the rest of your back up mass. Not something we want to teach students who are relying on us to teach them how to move efficiently and correctly.

Practicing blocks within the box in a horse stance teaches you to either go to far as in an inward block, or not far enough as in an outward block. Because of this, I try to spend a good deal of time with students doing blocks from a neutral bow, as well as stepping into one.

Derek