What does your Neutral Bow look like?

[Doc]

C is the definition in Infinite insights. Doc, I take it that your neutral bow is a slightly off angled horse stance. Are the insides of your feet parallel to each other or the outsides parallel (slightly toed in)?

You know Doc, it figures you would ask the right questions. It seems to be a habit of yours. The confusion comes from discrepencies between the photo, the drawings, and most importantly, their interpretations.

Mr. Parker was attempting to find the best way to express what was clear in his mind. That is, "ALL stances are anatomical and perspective derivations of the horse stance." Everyone out of Ark Wongs' had that pounded into them. And as the real Doctor asked, "Are the insides of your feet parallel to each other or the outsides parallel (slightly toed in)?" is the answer to the confusion.

Anatomically speaking feet are defined as being parallel by the outsde portion of the foot creating what appears to be a slight pigeon-toed effect. This is an 'anatomical optical' (actually PNF) illusion that causes people to view and assess correctness based on their own subjective perspective of the alignment of their own feet, compounded and juxtapositioned against their own, (once again subjective) understandings of the specs of the stance.

The feet ARE at a 45-degrees when placed in the proper horse position, and everything else is a misinterpretation compounded by;

A lack of understanding of human anatomy obviously inherently NOT included in motion based Kenpo.

The very poor stances of the model used in the book.

An incorrecr diagram illustrating the neutral bow.
(in defense of Edmund who did all of the ilustrations as a teenager, he iullustrated what his father said)

All of which was expressed to me and others by Ed Parker Sr., and partially why in his planned proposed republishing, volume 2 was first on his re-do list to correct and clarify this information.

If you look at the diagram of the foot positions of the neutral bow, the forward foot IS at a 45-degree angle utilizing the outside portion of the foot as a guage. The rear foot is utilizing the inside portion of the foot as its guage and is angled incorrectly. The cross member helps create the illusion, and the rear foot in the diagram should be turned more outward to actually parallel the outside of the forward foot.

Ed Parker in his Kenpo never intentionally did, wrote, or expressed anything incorrectly intentionally. He did in fact express the fact the information as expressed in these books was from the early seventies of the commercial system, and that it took him 10 years to codify the material. Volume 2 is over a quater of a century old as published and the material is 12 years older than that.

Thank you sir for asking the 'right' question. That is something that I have wanted to say for over 25 years, and thanks to James for getting the discussion going in the right direction.

 

[Carol]

What is it about having one's feet at 45 that is not anatomically correct?

 

[Doc]

What is it about having one's feet at 45 that is not anatomically correct?

Relative to what?

 

[HKphooey]

No that would be incorrect. You must be taught proper mechanics and posture which can conflict with personal preferences. Additionally sir, the base phyical specifications of a neutral bow have nothing to do with the size of your body. Only 'depth' may be 'adjusted' without affecting these base specs, and this is true of all stances in bi-pedal anatomical postures.

Thanks for the feedback. I would have to disagree about the body size/type. I have heard many instructors (kenpo and other styles) use the phrase "shoulder width" for a stance width. That is not a universal statement for all (could be true for some). One of my past training partners was a weightlifter and his upper thighs were enormous. He had to adjust his stance to properly execute kicks from a neutral bow. I agree proper mechanics must be in place to have a solid root. When I use the phrase "personal preference", it is based on what works for me.

I believe in the phrase "Kenpo in my own art".


As for the books, yes they were written years ago. Many techniques and topics where against shirt grabs and other outdated attacks. Who the heck grabs someone by the shirt anymore? These books are like the Bible - people will read what they believe to be truth and not challenge it. I believe kenpo is about challenge and change.

 

[Doc]

Thanks for the feedback. I would have to disagree about the body size/type. I have heard many instructors (kenpo and other styles) use the phrase "shoulder width" for a stance width. That is not a universal statement for all (could be true for some). One of my past training partners was a weightlifter and his upper thighs were enormous. He had to adjust his stance to properly execute kicks from a neutral bow. I agree proper mechanics must be in place to have a solid root. When I use the phrase "personal preference", it is based on what works for me.

I believe in the phrase "Kenpo in my own art".


As for the books, yes they were written years ago. Many techniques and topics where against shirt grabs and other outdated attacks. Who the heck grabs someone by the shirt anymore? These books are like the Bible - people will read what they believe to be truth and not challenge it. I believe kenpo is about challenge and change.

Any instructor that suggests the stance correllates to shoulder width is working from a deficit of knowledge. The human body is not always proportional, and is not even perfect semetrically, therefore that can only conform to anatomical mandates by pure chance, if at all.

Believe it or not, people are still grabbed by their clothing. As for you personalizing 'your' kenpo, unfortunately that makes for some serious limitations and a functional ceiling limited by the knowledeg and skill of its creator.

 

[MJS]

Not sure if this is saying the same thing...
Personal preference, in most case, is antacomically correct (hence the word personal). I base my stance on the size of my body. That in itself is personal preference. I was always taught the proper foot placement, was established by rear heel sliding up to front toes (small gap) and Droping my right knee to the ground just behind my front heel for proper spacing. When all is said and done, I should be able to execute front and rear twists, rear leg front kicks, cat stances etc. without my own legs getting int the way. So "A" looks the closest.

Oddly enough, looking at Book 2, that is the exact same description as what you've given above. While it does not mean that the book is the final word, I also believe that the art was intended to fit the person, not the person to fit the art. Considering that there is a large height difference between you and I, I'd have to say that yes, there would be a difference in the way we execute moves.

Thanks for the feedback. I would have to disagree about the body size/type. I have heard many instructors (kenpo and other styles) use the phrase "shoulder width" for a stance width. That is not a universal statement for all (could be true for some). One of my past training partners was a weightlifter and his upper thighs were enormous. He had to adjust his stance to properly execute kicks from a neutral bow. I agree proper mechanics must be in place to have a solid root. When I use the phrase "personal preference", it is based on what works for me.

I believe in the phrase "Kenpo in my own art".

Yes, I too have heard the same phrase. Like I've pointed out many times, we could have 5 people all attempting the same thing, and I'm sure that we'd see 5 variations. Hence, the 'personal preference'

Mike

 

[Doc]

Oddly enough, looking at Book 2, that is the exact same description as what you've given above. While it does not mean that the book is the final word, I also believe that the art was intended to fit the person, not the person to fit the art. Considering that there is a large height difference between you and I, I'd have to say that yes, there would be a difference in the way we execute moves.

[/COLOR]

Yes, I too have heard the same phrase. Like I've pointed out many times, we could have 5 people all attempting the same thing, and I'm sure that we'd see 5 variations. Hence, the 'personal preference'

Mike

And the art suffers because of all the misinterpretations, and self created masters of material they don't understand. The idea of making an art your own is not new, but only in Kenpo is this concept taken to an extreme and allows a student who hasn't got his uniform dirty yet, to decide 'what works for him.' It is the reason it is so monetarily succesful, and why in general it is so universally bad.

 

[Carol]

Relative to what?

Never mind sir I was posting my question as you were posting the answer to it.

Doc sir, even on the internet, you are faster than I am. :rofl:

 

[MJS]

And the art suffers because of all the misinterpretations, and self created masters of material they don't understand. The idea of making an art your own is not new, but only in Kenpo is this concept taken to an extreme and allows a student who hasn't got his uniform dirty yet, to decide 'what works for him.' It is the reason it is so monetarily succesful, and why in general it is so universally bad.

1) HKP is certainly not a self created master. I've known him for quite a while. He has some very good knowledge of the art.

2) He's far from a new student, so I'd say his uniform isn't as 'clean' as you may think it is.

3) Are you saying that everyone should be a robot, all pre-programmed to move and perform in the same way? Considering we're all built differently, I'd say that some may need to make adjustments to how they apply certain things. I'm not talking about going out and creating something new, I'm talking about making an adjustment to allow the person to apply a move so it suits their body style. You can't possibly think that someone who is 5'3 is going to be able to make something work the way a 6'7 person would.

 

[Doc]

1) HKP is certainly not a self created master. I've known him for quite a while. He has some very good knowledge of the art.

2) He's far from a new student, so I'd say his uniform isn't as 'clean' as you may think it is.

My response wasn't personal. I don't know the gentleman so I wouldn't assume anything about his skill or knowledge. It is the modern 'idea' of how martial arts should be taught and learned I have a general problem with.

3) Are you saying that everyone should be a robot, all pre-programmed to move and perform in the same way? Considering we're all built differently, I'd say that some may need to make adjustments to how they apply certain things. I'm not talking about going out and creating something new, I'm talking about making an adjustment to allow the person to apply a move so it suits their body style. You can't possibly think that someone who is 5'3 is going to be able to make something work the way a 6'7 person would.

This idea of everybody adjusting the art is a new one created by Ed Parker specifically to proliferate an art he couldn't oversee personally for every student and teacher. So he took the idea of 'tailoring' and shifted it to where it wasn't supposed to be. Mr. Parker made the students and teachers conceptually responsible for their own interpretations of what they were taught/teach. This was the only way the art could spread, and the only way the business model could work. It had to leave room for personal interpretation without being considered wrong, according to the 'dance studio business plan' it was based upon. It also meant he wasn't responsible for how good or bad you were. You and your teacher had to be responsible for that.

The nucleus of everything you do however should be based on sound 'basics.' These basics are built on proper body mechanics, so unless you're an alien with three arms, everyone should learn these basics the same. Mechanically they have to be the same because the basics of human anatomy are the same for everyone. Some people are taller, or wider, or their body proportions are different, but the underlying body is the same for everyone. Any medical doctor will tell you that. That's why books like 'Grey's Anatomy' apply to everyone, whether it 'works for you' or not.

It is the expression of these properly taught 'basics' that allow individual interpetation, but even these personal preferences must be based on sound mechanics. But to ultimately achieve the desire level to allow free expression comes at a price. And the cost is time.

Ed Parker encouraged 'tailoring' knowing that ultimately, 'kenpo-karate' was an entity feeding upon itself. All this free expression has diluted a good concept down to the lowest common denominator, and the bottom of grade on the curve.

"Free expression" of your skills comes after years of perfecting basics, not while you learning the art. And even then its only because you've learned to understand the perameters you must work within for maximum efficiency, (whether you like them or not).

He kept telling students but they wouldn't listen. Everyone decided that they knew so much, while he reminded them;

"One does not become great until they realize what they know is very little."

"Let time be your measurement to skill and knowledge."

"Just because the red show don't mean that you know."

"The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open."

Funny, how everyone always seem to think Ed Parker was talking about another group or someone else and not them. They were wrong. He was speaking to all of us, but most never listened. They fell in love with the belts and pretty red stripes, and forgot they were supposed to actually mean something.

 

[HKphooey]

Doc, I completely understand your opinion. My goal in the martial arts has been to defend myself with practical aplications and to teach others to do so, also. If if works, I use it! I never claim that my kenpo is EPAK. I have trained in EPAK, TracyKenpo, Chinese Kempo and other various arts for over 18 years. My kenpo as the phrase states, "Is my own".

And on many occasions I will test some of the posted theories, some seem to work great and I add them to my training. Others... let's just say, they do not work for me (and I can only speak for me).

Now back to the Neutral Bow discussion.

MJS, thanks for the feedabck.

PS - anatomic, anatomical (adj.) - of or relating to the structure of the body; "anatomical features" . AKA - body size, mass, type - so yes, those all do play a key role in establishing one's posture and base.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Why would Mr. Parker use a visual reference and put it in his book that would describe his system if he didn't like it?


Or was this one of those "intentional mistakes" I've heard rumor about to see who learned from a book and who learned from an instructor?

Each thing must be introduced at a rudimentory level and then refined as you go up in level.
Sean

 

[Doc]

Doc, I completely understand your opinion. My goal in the martial arts has been to defend myself with practical aplications and to teach others to do so, also. If if works, I use it! I never claim that my kenpo is EPAK. I have trained in EPAK, TracyKenpo, Chinese Kempo and other various arts for over 18 years. My kenpo as the phrase states, "Is my own".

And on many occasions I will test some of the posted theories, some seem to work great and I add them to my training. Others... let's just say, they do not work for me (and I can only speak for me).

I understand and respect your perspective. For you it is a personal issue, and there is nothing wrong with that. You are exactly what and why Ed Parker created motion kenpo. It allows the individual to learn at a personal pace and take resposibility for their own well-being, developing self confidence and skills, as they explore and test material available to them from various sources and shape their own personal style. This is the genius of that methodology.

 

[masherdong]

I choose C.

 

[eyebeams]

The goal should really be to learn postures as part of the path to issuing power from natural positions, without particular concern for handfuls of degrees and inches in your own posture. This is especially misguided when you think of the numerous structural differences found within human beings, from minor defects to differences created by gender and heredity.

If moving a single finger or moving your foot an inch can make your stance far less efficient, then the problem is not with the finger or the inch. The problem is a lack of relaxed activity within your root and in particular, a lack of dynamic practice in maintaining your root.

That said, the idea of a "neutral bow" is alien to my own approach in CMA completely, since it's rooted in internal arts. Truly neutral postures are usually discouraged because they're double-weighted. Different arts have their own perferences as to whether the bow should be open or closed. In some very hardcore hung gar the stance is trained as an inverted, but in application the turn in is much more subtle.

I personally prefer an open, square, back-weighted posture as a default position, but these days I'll just walk and stand normally, too.

 

[Bode]

If moving a single finger or moving your foot an inch can make your stance far less efficient, then the problem is not with the finger or the inch. The problem is a lack of relaxed activity within your root and in particular, a lack of dynamic practice in maintaining your root.

[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]

But you do believe that there is an optimal posture to maintain a solid base? You are too smart to believe that any posture will do as long as you have an dynamic root. An extreme example (used only to illustrate a point) is a person with one leg. Physics simply precludes them from have a strong base.
[/FONT]

 

[eyebeams]

[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]

But you do believe that there is an optimal posture to maintain a solid base? You are too smart to believe that any posture will do as long as you have an dynamic root. An extreme example (used only to illustrate a point) is a person with one leg. Physics simply precludes them from have a strong base.
[/FONT]

The right posture depends on a number of things, but the important ones for this discussion are:

1) Anatomical alignment, where load is distributed on the joints properly. Example: The leag leg of the taijiquan bow stance doesn't go past the toe and the hips move from an angled position to a square position.

2) Proper position in relation to other objects or bodies. Example: When receiving a head-on takedown, respond with bow or sprawl.

3) Movement to maintain #1 and #2. Example: You a-frame into a clinch. Your opponent moves to sweep, and you circle around into the gap, drop into horse on a T-angle and knock him down.

Striking arts tend to emphasize #1. Grappling arts tend to emphasize #2. Both arts need both. But I believe that the test of effectiveness lies in proper understanding of #3, and realy, one ought to work with *both* #1 and #2.

A one-legged guy is not inherently less stable. He has far fewer options for acquiring stable positions. That's a subtle but important difference.

Proper movement has two components worth talking about here:

A: It is sensitive to the situation. If you don't spar in situations where gaining and losing your balance means something, then you aren't really stable. This not only includes yeilding, but it also includes aggresively siezing stability at the expense of the opponent whenever an unimpeded opportunity presents itself.

B: It is acting efficiently through the entire musculoskeletal system. "Acting" means that muscular activity is coordinated properly and constantly. For example, it meas that I always know where my left hand is when my right hand acts, and it is always where I *want* it to be, not just where it arbitrarily ends up. "Efficiently" means that there is minimal antagonistic tension -- just stability. When this is done properly

Stances are really moments in time that teach you how to move and position yourself in common situations, and how to overload difficulty in those situations in order to learn broad reflexive movement. Naturally, you want to hedge your bets with stable, basic postures, but you don't want to be stuck with them. Even in the context of #1, there are lots of individual anatomical differences. For example, I have flat feet, so I prefer a bit of a turnout. Despite various claims of orthodoxy, this is not only not "inferior" to a idealized method, various CMA sources suppirt various differences that are both personal and stylistic. But the relationships and active movements involved are far more important.

 

[Bode]

The right posture depends on a number of things, but the important ones for this discussion are:

1) Anatomical alignment, where load is distributed on the joints properly. Example: The leag leg of the taijiquan bow stance doesn't go past the toe and the hips move from an angled position to a square position.

2) Proper position in relation to other objects or bodies. Example: When receiving a head-on takedown, respond with bow or sprawl.

3) Movement to maintain #1 and #2. Example: You a-frame into a clinch. Your opponent moves to sweep, and you circle around into the gap, drop into horse on a T-angle and knock him down.

Striking arts tend to emphasize #1. Grappling arts tend to emphasize #2. Both arts need both. But I believe that the test of effectiveness lies in proper understanding of #3, and realy, one ought to work with *both* #1 and #2.

Agreed 100%.

A one-legged guy is not inherently less stable. He has far fewer options for acquiring stable positions. That's a subtle but important difference.

I agree he has far fewer options, but short of placing his hands on the ground the guy is, without a doubt, inherently less stable. Saying otherwise is like saying a bipod is as strong as a tripod. Inherently, by it's very physical construct it is less strong.

Proper movement has two components worth talking about here:

A: It is sensitive to the situation. If you don't spar in situations where gaining and losing your balance means something, then you aren't really stable. This not only includes yeilding, but it also includes aggresively siezing stability at the expense of the opponent whenever an unimpeded opportunity presents itself.

B: It is acting efficiently through the entire musculoskeletal system. "Acting" means that muscular activity is coordinated properly and constantly. For example, it meas that I always know where my left hand is when my right hand acts, and it is always where I *want* it to be, not just where it arbitrarily ends up. "Efficiently" means that there is minimal antagonistic tension -- just stability. When this is done properly

Well said.

Stances are really moments in time that teach you how to move and position yourself in common situations, and how to overload difficulty in those situations in order to learn broad reflexive movement. Naturally, you want to hedge your bets with stable, basic postures, but you don't want to be stuck with them.

Yes, hedge your bets and choose the most anatomically superior stance for the purpose. This is why there are various stances. One for each purpose and need. Mobility vs stability... However, in the end the stances that create the correct posture are limited and finite, with minor, very minor variances to account for....

Even in the context of #1, there are lots of individual anatomical differences. For example, I have flat feet, so I prefer a bit of a turnout. Despite various claims of orthodoxy, this is not only not "inferior" to a idealized method, various CMA sources suppirt various differences that are both personal and stylistic. But the relationships and active movements involved are far more important.

You have flat feet, which does require a slight adjustment in the stance, but nothing major. We agree more than it seems on the surface. Active movement is very, very important, but I also believe that the posture, even down to the placement of a single finger can be, and should be, taken into account. That being said, the practice of actively adjusting your base and core must be practiced, but not until the student has decent grasp of the physical/external elements. What's the sense in moving if you can't even maintain a static, solid stance.

What should never happen is allowing the uneducated student who is only a green belt to "do what feels right." Often, especially when first starting, what feels wrong is actually right. Muscles that aren't often engaged are firing and the student feels fatigued or out of aligment. That's the core of this discussion. There is an "optimal" stance, but there is no "I prefer to do if this way" simply for the sake of comfort. If you do change your stance from the optimal stance, you better have a good reason founded on logic and physics.

 

[MJS]

What should never happen is allowing the uneducated student who is only a green belt to "do what feels right." Often, especially when first starting, what feels wrong is actually right. Muscles that aren't often engaged are firing and the student feels fatigued or out of aligment. That's the core of this discussion. There is an "optimal" stance, but there is no "I prefer to do if this way" simply for the sake of comfort. If you do change your stance from the optimal stance, you better have a good reason founded on logic and physics.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but reading this, I get the impression that a size difference is not going to matter? If someone is 5'3 and the person teaching the stance is 6'8, I'd imagine there'd be some difference in the way both people stand. Using the shoulder width theory or the heel/toe theory would IMO, provide each person with the stance best suited for their body size.

Mike

 

[Doc]

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but reading this, I get the impression that a size difference is not going to matter? If someone is 5'3 and the person teaching the stance is 6'8, I'd imagine there'd be some difference in the way both people stand. Using the shoulder width theory or the heel/toe theory would IMO, provide each person with the stance best suited for their body size.

Mike

Anatomically speaking, I believe I addressed that perspective. Every body has a geometrical proportion that is unique. Persons of disparate height could conceivably have the same shoulder width, therefore using that as a gude would be ludicrous. I also allowed that depth is the least significate and does not affect anatomical proportions relative to stances, as long as you avoid extremes of archatectural support.