Principle Based Martial Art

[Larry G. Bethers]

Principle Based Martial Art

Principles are constant, but techniques change and evolve continuously. The principles of physics, of math, movement, of flight never vary. The more we learn of these topics and the more we understand the principles and how to apply them the more we can develop the world around us.
It is no different in the martial arts. There are governing principles in the martial arts. Techniques can vary a thousand different ways but the principles never change. These underlying principles are based on several disciplines such as anatomy, physics, physiology, psychology, and kinesiology. They cannot be ignored or disregarded in the application of techniques. In fact if you understand the principles it makes the application of the techniques more viable. However you must train so you body understands. You must be able to do the technique with out thinking especially thinking about the underlying principles. The middle of a life-threatening attack is not the time to be thinking.
What are the principles underlying martial art techniques? Are some principles more applicable to some techniques than others? Are they specific to certain techniques? Are there principles that are applicable to all techniques? The answer to all of these questions is YES.
Let’s take a simple straight punch. It does not matter if it comes from a karateka or a boxer or a kick boxer or a Wing Chun stylist or a jujutsuka. It must adhere to these principles:

1. Create a base. Every technique available to a martial artist must have a base. Punches especially if they are to generate any power must have a base. The trajectory of the fist is less important than if the puncher has a stable base. Why is a base necessary? Well simply put Issac Newton is a friend of ours. His principle (or law) from physics that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction is very applicable to our straight punch or our hook or our uppercut punch. How is this principle applied? Use your feet. Use your rear foot to be exact. The foot is made up of 28 bones. That means there are at least 27 joints in the foot. Each joint is capable of acting like a shock absorber (that is what cartilage is for, right?) Now when the fist impacts the target there is a transfer of energy from the contact of the fist into the target. Ike says that the energy is returned to the fist in the exact amount that it generated: action/reaction. The energy going back into the fist travels along the bone structure of the arm into the spine then down the legs and into the foot. If the rear heel is up much of that energy is lost because energy likes to travel in straight lines more than it likes to take ninety-degree turns. Get a partner willing to put a pad in front of his tummy and let you strike it. First punch with the heel up like some boxers do. Then plant your heel and literally drive with it as you punch. Get feed back to see if the two punches were different. Which punch had the most penetrating power? Bet it was the one with the heel down.

2. Move the hips. Any and every technique must be delivered from your center. The best way to do this is to move the hips. Karate ka from the “hard” schools of thought vigorously twists their hips in time with the application of the punch. This has some merit but it is also inefficient. If the hips are moved as a unit in the direction of the technique more efficiency is achieved. If the base is correctly placed then the puncher’s entire body weight is behind the technique. Principles working in concert? Gee what a concept.
3. Breathing. Breathing is another principle which is pretty much universal. Aside from the fact that we need to breathe in order to live there is another reason to breathe. As you exhale it is easier to contract your muscles in the proper order or sequence to effectively execute the technique. Breathing also helps you to relax and under an adrenal dump chances are real good that you will end up holding your breath when you need to be breathing. It is faster to move while you are exhaling than when you are inhaling or holding your breath.
There are techniques that have principles that are unique to those techniques. These techniques must also have the above listed principles involved. Let’s examine joint locks. Even with a joint lock you must create a base to support the technique. You must move with your hips in employing the joint lock and you certainly need to breathe.
Pain in a joint lock comes from hyperextension of the ligaments and tendons beyond their capacity. Therefore the principle would be to elongate and tighten the ligaments and tendons. This is true for arm and wristlocks as well as leg, knee and foot locks. A second principle that is related is to put the joints into opposition i.e. the joints are locked. By adding a second or third axis to the lock then intensifies the principle of elongating and tightening. The results show the obvious: apply the principles consciously and consistently during training so it becomes automatic during actual application.
A related principle is fulcrum activation. The concept here is that you push with the closest part of your body to your opponent. The two-finger lock is an excellent example of fulcrum activation. As I take the hold I capture the fingers of my opponent and immediately begin pushing with my index finger knuckle prior to pulling with my fingers. On a larger scale you can say use “push/pull” though this principle is also relevant for other techniques such as throws and takedowns.
If you want to stay strong maintain your alignment. If you want to hurt your opponent break their alignment. Body alignment is very critical. Ever punch a heavy bag and have your wrist fold? Hurts like %$#(&&$@. If you have proper alignment of your wrist it will not fold and you can punch darn near anything without hurting your wrist. The way we were taught to punch in karate class was wrong. That method of punching is still being taught today as the correct way to punch. “That was the way our ‘masters’ taught us.” Therefore it cannot be wrong. But it is wrong and violates the basic principle of alignment. Alignment of the spine, feet, head are all critical in maintaining your balance and the ability to deliver power on target.
Are there other principles? You bet there are other principles. Simple things like create distractions do the unexpected and more. Basing our teaching and training on a set of principles is not a new thing. However I have not seen principle based martial arts in over forty years of training and teaching martial arts. Until now that is.

[Malleus]

Thanks for writing that article! Very interesting and informative.

I think I can agree with you alright. All martial arts are ultimately constrained by basic factors such as physics, biomechanics, and anatomy, amongst others. And while different styles take different approaches to something like punching, they all have to do so within the confines of these areas.

One question as regards your advice to keep the heel down in a punch so as to generate power. It goes against all advice given to me previously, so naturally I'm slightly curious. I find it necessary to come onto the ball of my rear foot when delivering something like a straight cross so as to permit adequate torque of my hips into the target. Given a western boxing stance, wouldn't keeping your heel on the ground necessitate

A) losing power from your torque (or risking damaging your knee from twisting) or

B) Adjusting your stance so that the back foot points directly at the target rather than off at 45degrees (which will compromise balance and possible lateral mobility, specifically to the nearside.)

As I understand it, the major reason for allowing the heel to rotate in a straight right is because you've just transferred a lot of weight off of the back leg and into the lead leg. Thus, even taking Newtons 3rd into account, this isn't a problem because the majority of the force will be transferred down into your lead leg, not your rear leg. And your lead leg will have its heel on the ground.

Thanks again!

[Chris Parker]

Hi Larry,

I'm afraid I don't quite share the enthusiasm our young friend here does for your article. It's very well written, but still rather incomplete and flawed to my mind. You have not taken into account what actually makes a martial art itself, so your underlying idea is, to my mind at least, fundamentally incorrect.

I shall attempt to explain with a degree of the skill you have shown in writing here.


Principle Based Martial Art

I'm going to begin by stating that I do not believe you can find, or even have, underlying "principles" to all martial arts, as you and another member here believe. I feel that if you think that there are, then you don't have enough experience or understanding in the wide variety of martial arts that exist.

Principles are constant, but techniques change and evolve continuously. The principles of physics, of math, movement, of flight never vary. The more we learn of these topics and the more we understand the principles and how to apply them the more we can develop the world around us.

On this we agree, however....

It is no different in the martial arts.

Here we don't.

When dealing with things like scientific principles, mathematic equations, and laws of physics, they all govern the reality that surrounds us (in a physical sense). Martial arts are not governed by these principles any more than language is, or design of clothing or furnishings. Cultural trappings are far more dominant than what you are describing here.

So while things like Newtons Laws will have an influence on what is possible for a human being to be able to do to another, how it is achieved, and the path taken can vary so wildly that governing principles to all martial arts can not exist.

There are governing principles in the martial arts. Techniques can vary a thousand different ways but the principles never change. These underlying principles are based on several disciplines such as anatomy, physics, physiology, psychology, and kinesiology. They cannot be ignored or disregarded in the application of techniques.

While these will have a great influence on the art in question, they will not be the only factors involved. And different systems will disagree on how those influences should be interpretted. The simple fact is that, although they are different, and in fact sometimes so contradictory as to be incompatible, they are all correct. It comes down to the cultural factors that go into making it a certain system. So while they shouldn't be ignored, you also cannot use them to find any "underlying principles" to martial arts, other than those for one art at a time.

In fact if you understand the principles it makes the application of the techniques more viable. However you must train so you body understands. You must be able to do the technique with out thinking especially thinking about the underlying principles. The middle of a life-threatening attack is not the time to be thinking.

These principles you are mentioning are in cases (kineisiology) quite recent. So does that mean that we should take the old systems (such as Japanese koryu) and discard them? After all, they cannot really be showing any understanding of these principles, as they weren't known as principles to the warriors in question.

In fact, if you talk to the holders of these older traditions, you will find that they do certainly have their own set of principles, but those are unique to that system, and do not necessarily cross to other traditions. We'll cover that when we get to your examples, though. But for here, it is sufficient to state that each system will have it's own interpretation of physical and anatomical realities, and that does not lead to only one single approach (as per your website... but we'll get to that in a bit, too).

But the principles they do have in common, and these really are the only truly universal principles in martial arts, are more centred around the idea that how you train is how you fight. And that means not only the techniques, but the actual way you train. That goes into your mention of a life threatening assault not being a time you want to stop and think, which I completely agree with, however it also has nothing to do with the principles you are discussing.

What are the principles underlying martial art techniques? Are some principles more applicable to some techniques than others? Are they specific to certain techniques? Are there principles that are applicable to all techniques? The answer to all of these questions is YES.

(Okay, I'm being a bit nitpicky here, but the answer to "What are these principles?" is "Yes"? Hmm, not sure I'd accept that answer....)

A little more seriously, "What are the principles underlying martial art techniques?", there are principles underlying the approach to a single art, not to all. "Are some more applicable to some techniques than others?" You answer yes, however that really denies your basic assertion that these principles are behind everything. If they really are, then they should also be equally applicable. If not, then they cannot be underlying principles to all martial arts. Your third is just a reiteration of your basic assertion, so to take what you are saying as true (for the moment) that would be the only one that gets an actual yes.

Let’s take a simple straight punch. It does not matter if it comes from a karateka or a boxer or a kick boxer or a Wing Chun stylist or a jujutsuka.

I'll deal with the biggest issue of your contention here at the end, but for now, you are missing a lot of the reasons they will actually be different. We'll continue.

It must adhere to these principles:

1. Create a base. Every technique available to a martial artist must have a base. Punches especially if they are to generate any power must have a base.

So basically you are saying that every technique must have some "posture", or footwork, for it to be successful. Then that punches especially need it. Out of interest, why, if all techniques need it (they are indespensible and necessary for success), do punches need it more? They need to be more successful? Surely if it is necessary, then it is necessary, and it doesn't get into gradiations of essential. But really, saying you need a base/posture/footwork is hardly finding an underlying principle to all martial arts, anymore than it is finding an underlying principle to standing and walking.

The trajectory of the fist is less important than if the puncher has a stable base.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of it, there are very effective systems out there that are based on striking when not on solid footwork, such as Drunken Kung Fu, Capoeira, and certain Jujutsu-related and weaponry systems. There are reasons and times to punch without what you would call a stable base, and that would throw your whole concept out here.

Essentially, a "stable base" can enhance the power delivery of a punch, but exactly how that is achieved is down to the art itself. A karate-ka will employ a "stable base" punch very differently to a boxer, or a Ninjutsu practitioner, or a Wing Chun practitioner, or someone from Hung Gar, and so on.

Why is a base necessary? Well simply put Issac Newton is a friend of ours. His principle (or law) from physics that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction is very applicable to our straight punch or our hook or our uppercut punch. How is this principle applied? Use your feet. Use your rear foot to be exact. The foot is made up of 28 bones. That means there are at least 27 joints in the foot. Each joint is capable of acting like a shock absorber (that is what cartilage is for, right?) Now when the fist impacts the target there is a transfer of energy from the contact of the fist into the target. Ike says that the energy is returned to the fist in the exact amount that it generated: action/reaction. The energy going back into the fist travels along the bone structure of the arm into the spine then down the legs and into the foot.

Okay, fun little physics and anatomy lesson, but it really didn't mean much. For one thing, 28 bones does not mean there must be at least 27 joints, as a joint is made up of far more than just two bones together. It also involves tendons, connective tissue, and movement abilities. Your inner ear has three bones, do you have two joints in there?

As far as Newtons Law is concerned, while it is a guiding principle or article of phsyics, often refered to quite rightly as Newtonian Physics, there are so many variables of interpretation and application within the field of martial arts that you really can't use it the way you did. You can use it to help describe the way a technique works, or to add to an explanation of why something is done a certain way in a certain system, but it is not an explanation in and of itself. So while it's fun and interesting, it can be used to support or discredit your claim, and I never take any evidence that can be used for both sides equally as conclusive.

If the rear heel is up much of that energy is lost because energy likes to travel in straight lines more than it likes to take ninety-degree turns. Get a partner willing to put a pad in front of his tummy and let you strike it. First punch with the heel up like some boxers do. Then plant your heel and literally drive with it as you punch. Get feed back to see if the two punches were different. Which punch had the most penetrating power? Bet it was the one with the heel down.

Okay, we're going to start getting into it here.

As I've said, the cultural aspects are far more important that what you think of as these "principles", especially if they are leading you in directions such as this. Whenever you look at something like this, try to understand why something is done the way it is. For example, within our traditions, there is a school called the Koto Ryu, and within this school there is a posture known as Hira Ichimonji no Kamae. Now, variations of this kamae (posture) turn up in a number of our schools, but the Koto version is a little different, and it makes almost no sense.... until I figured out why it was the way it was.

In essence, the usual form for Hira Ichimonji is to have your legs even, and your arms spread out to the sides, your hands level with your shoulders. But the Koto Ryu version has your left leg pulled up off the ground, and the knee pointing out to the left! So you are standing there, on one leg (not a "solid base", I would say...) and your arms out to the sides. On top of that, the leg you have raised is not even protecting you, it is pointed to the side away from your attacker! So why is it so?

Well, my study of Koto Ryu lead me to believe that the entire system is designed to be applied when running towards an enemy on a battlefield (again, not necessarily giving you your "solid base" when striking), and I took this idea from sections of the scroll where you and an opponent are walking/running towards each other, and you attack, as well as Koto Ryu's tendancy towards a sideways evasion rather than our more typical 45 degrees back (if you are running forward, sideways is an easier step than back again). I then noticed that every time this posture appeared in the scroll was against a sword attack, and it always had a backwards leap away from the attack. I then realised that if you are running towards someone, and when you are in mid-step they attack, you will need to "throw" yourself backwards to avoid it. And the first thing you will need to do is throw your body weight backwards, which is easiest to achieve if you throw your arms back, and throw your leg to the side and back. And that gives the posture perfectly.

But in your example, you are stating that the way a boxer throws a punch (with their rear heel off the ground) is less powerful, and having your heel planted is following your underlying principles, so all martial arts should punch with their heel down. And to do so you are ignoring why boxers punch that way. To begin with, so long as you are driving with the leg, you will be powerful. In fact, driving with the ball of the foot is more powerful than driving with the heel, so your mechanics are off. But that is only part of the reason boxers use that footwork. It also gives greater reach than having your foot flat on the ground. It allows the boxing stance, which is aggresive and forward moving. And it allows a great deal of speed. All of these things a boxer desires in their sport.

The downsides are that it is less stable if grappled, it is harder to move backwards, and it is harder to use evasive footwork. None of these things, though, are desired by a boxer, as they won't be grappled, and they will want to be aggressive (forward moving), and by and large non-evasive, as these things do not score points with the judges.

By ignoring these very reasons for why one art would do something and not another, you are missing the very point of training in that system. This is why there are so many different approaches, they are all geared up for different circumstances, times, places, expected attacks, rules, and more. And that, beyond everything else, is why there cannot be any underlying principles to all martial arts.

2. Move the hips. Any and every technique must be delivered from your center. The best way to do this is to move the hips. Karate ka from the “hard” schools of thought vigorously twists their hips in time with the application of the punch. This has some merit but it is also inefficient. If the hips are moved as a unit in the direction of the technique more efficiency is achieved. If the base is correctly placed then the puncher’s entire body weight is behind the technique. Principles working in concert? Gee what a concept.

Without getting into a highly repeititive mode here, I'll just highlight one thing, and that is the claim that the karate use of hips is inefficient. I would say from your description here that you simply didn't get very good education on the use of the hips in karate. And the hips may be the most noticed part of the movement, and easy to focus on, but they are really just a part of the whole action. That would be your last point there, about the entire body weight behind the technique. What did you think was happening, people are just swinging their hips by themselves? This honestly sounds to me like you just got what your karate instructors probably tried to explain to you.

3. Breathing. Breathing is another principle which is pretty much universal. Aside from the fact that we need to breathe in order to live there is another reason to breathe. As you exhale it is easier to contract your muscles in the proper order or sequence to effectively execute the technique. Breathing also helps you to relax and under an adrenal dump chances are real good that you will end up holding your breath when you need to be breathing. It is faster to move while you are exhaling than when you are inhaling or holding your breath.

People need to breathe..... okay...... but how is this an underlying principle to martial arts? After all, various martial arts will give different instruction in regard to breathing, with some Chinese and Okinawan Karate systems having a rather "forced" breathing method (Sanshin breathing exercises for example). Ninjutsu has a range of breathing methods that are taught for a variety of reasons. The Japanese concept of kiai is often related to breathing, and breathing in turn is often related to the Eastern concept of chi/ki/qi. And when such a principle is taught, it can vary quite a bit from system to system.

There are techniques that have principles that are unique to those techniques. These techniques must also have the above listed principles involved. Let’s examine joint locks. Even with a joint lock you must create a base to support the technique. You must move with your hips in employing the joint lock and you certainly need to breathe.

Hmm, not for quite a few finger locks that I know... they don't really get affected by my hips. Or if I'm standing or not. In fact, I know quite a few locks and holds that are more effective (and painful!) when applied without a solid base, when done when walking around.

Pain in a joint lock comes from hyperextension of the ligaments and tendons beyond their capacity. Therefore the principle would be to elongate and tighten the ligaments and tendons. This is true for arm and wristlocks as well as leg, knee and foot locks. A second principle that is related is to put the joints into opposition i.e. the joints are locked. By adding a second or third axis to the lock then intensifies the principle of elongating and tightening. The results show the obvious: apply the principles consciously and consistently during training so it becomes automatic during actual application.

To be honest, this just sounds like saying that to break a bone, it must be put under stress greater than it's breaking limit.... uh, yep. That, however, has nothing to do with the various principles you listed at the beginning. Oh, and there are many, various principles of how these effects are achieved, within my schools we break it down (for simplicity) into the principles of Twist, Lock, and Fold, and then apply them as appropriate. Those are the underlying principles to our approach to joint locks and so on, but they are by no means universal to all martial arts. Again, we'll get to that in a bit.

A related principle is fulcrum activation. The concept here is that you push with the closest part of your body to your opponent. The two-finger lock is an excellent example of fulcrum activation. As I take the hold I capture the fingers of my opponent and immediately begin pushing with my index finger knuckle prior to pulling with my fingers. On a larger scale you can say use “push/pull” though this principle is also relevant for other techniques such as throws and takedowns.
If you want to stay strong maintain your alignment. If you want to hurt your opponent break their alignment. Body alignment is very critical. Ever punch a heavy bag and have your wrist fold? Hurts like %$#(&&$@. If you have proper alignment of your wrist it will not fold and you can punch darn near anything without hurting your wrist. The way we were taught to punch in karate class was wrong. That method of punching is still being taught today as the correct way to punch. “That was the way our ‘masters’ taught us.” Therefore it cannot be wrong. But it is wrong and violates the basic principle of alignment. Alignment of the spine, feet, head are all critical in maintaining your balance and the ability to deliver power on target.
Are there other principles? You bet there are other principles. Simple things like create distractions do the unexpected and more. Basing our teaching and training on a set of principles is not a new thing. However I have not seen principle based martial arts in over forty years of training and teaching martial arts. Until now that is.

Okay, I'm leaving most of this end bit as it will just be repeating what is written in the rest, except for the last little bit here. Your claim that "you haven't seen a principle based martial art in over forty years of training and teaching. Until now". Frankly, if you haven't seen it, that is because you didn't (and I suspect still don't) know how to recognise it. Every single martial art I have ever seen is principle based, it's just that people get caught up on the techniques (whereas they are actually nothing more than the expression of those principles in action, or what I refer to as the guiding philosophy, as that is what these principles really are). It's good that you are now starting to notice them, but to be blunt, you are not reinventing the wheel here.

Going through your website, you state that "It has been in just the past few years that I have identified some core principles that apply to every technique of every martial art or fighting system". You then go on to state that "The techniques I teach are not suitable for contemporary sporting "martial arts". I am calling this One Art. All of the arts are related or similar regardless of country of origin. Essentially that means there is but One Art". As you may guess, I'm going to disagree with you here.

Frankly, what you have identified are the core principles for your personal martial arts journey, and on that I congratulate you and wish you the best. However, it is in no way the core principles of "every martial art or fighting system". For one thing, you are completely lacking in the weaponry arts. The principles of Kyudo, for instance, don't fit in your "One Art" at all. And to say that they are all similar regardless of country of origin is frankly showing nothing but a complete lack of understanding of what makes one system unique compared to another.

I did notice, though that this is less a post here and more a simple copy-and-paste of an article you wrote and put on ezine.com. As this is your one and only post, you are very much an unknown quantity here, so I find myself wondering why exactly you posted this. The cynical side of me says that it is not to establish debate or discussion, but rather to generate publicity for your name. I always get a little suspicious when someone turns up, and in their first post basically posts an article to educate the masses. For one thing, we don't know what credentials you have to educate us yet.... I might suggest a visit to the Meet and Greet section for that.... but for another, it always smacks to me of self-agrandising behaviour, rather than coming from a desire to help. If that is incorrect, I appologise, but I rather feel it isn't. I do hope you stick around to have actual discussions with us, though, rather than just sticking articles up. I always enjoy a good discussion.

[Malleus]

A very well reasoned and written reply above me.

I'll ultimately have to defer to your superior knowledge of martial arts: there's plenty of terms up there that I haven't even heard of. However, I will make 3 points:

1) I stand by my previous comment: "All martial arts are ultimately constrained by basic factors such as physics, biomechanics, and anatomy, amongst others. And while different styles take different approaches to something like punching, they all have to do so within the confines of these areas." It's hardly groundbreaking news, but it's true.

2) In response to your question "Your inner ear has three bones, do you have two joints in there?" : It's actually the middle ear that has the ossicular chain, comprised of malleus, stapes and incus. And in that chain there are 2 joints: the malleo-inco and the inco-stapes. Three joints if you count the stapes joining to the oval window. Don't confuse them with 'insertions': where ligaments and tendons are joined to the bones. A joint, by definition, is where 2 or more bones make contact.

The inner ear is composed of the bony labyrinth, and has no joints at all.

3) I ultimately agree with you Chris, as I was hinting at by questioning the punching example. There's often a sound reason why a technique is executed in a certain way, even if it may not be 100% biomechanically efficient in terms of power generation, for example.

Malleus

[Chris Parker]

Ah, damn, wrong part of the ear..... well, I was trying to fit a fair bit in. Thanks for the correction.

[Bill Mattocks]

I refer to the Hakko Kempo, which are the principles of Isshin-Ryu karate, and posted on the wall of our dojo. It is taken, I understand, from the Bubishi.



1. A Person’s Heart is the Same as Heaven and Earth.
2. The Blood Circulating is Similar to the Moon and Sun.
3. The Manner of Drinking and Spitting is Either Hard or Soft.
4. A Person’s Imbalance is the Same as a Weight.
5. The Body Must Be Able to Change Directions at Any Time.
6. The Time to Strike is When the Opportunity Presents Itself.
7. The Eye Must See All Sides.
8. The Ear Must Listen in All Directions.


From this, I take the principles outlined by Mr. Bethers. To wit:

"The Blood Circulating is Similar to the Moon and Sun:" For every action, reaction. We take the circular motion of strikes, punches, blocks and kicks, from the observation of the heavens and how they circulate. A fist goes out, a fist comes in. The body rotates on an axis and develops power in this manner.

"The Manner of Drinking and Spitting is Either Hard or Soft:" From this, we take the notion that one can react with a hard technique to a soft attack, or a soft technique to a hard attack; each has advantages and disadvantages. This is a basic detail of self-defense many western martial artists disregard at their own peril. A soft block to a hard punch may forestall the otherwise-automatic follow-up punch (the old one-two) and allow a defensive technique to be thrown that would otherwise be needed to block a second time.

"A Person’s Imbalance is the Same as a Weight:" One of the most important, and related to the discussion of stance. If one is not rooted, one's punches and kicks are weaker than they would be otherwise. Perhaps even more importantly, one's stance affects one's balance. Off-balance against a skilled fighter spells certain defeat, regardless of strength or speed or technique.

"The Body Must Be Able to Change Directions at Any Time:" Also related to stance. If one is not standing properly, one cannot react in all directions to incoming attacks. In a real-life self-defense situation, there may be multiple attackers, and they certainly will not stand in line and wait their turn, nor will they ensure you see them before they attack you. If your stance is weak, you cannot change direction quickly.

"The Eye Must See All Sides; The Ear Must Listen in All Directions:" This goes to developing the necessary focus to keep centered on the threat at hand while not losing connection with what is going on around you. It does you no good to be winning against an opponent in a self-defense situation if his brother sneaks up behind you and clobbers you with a brick.

I think that ancient martial artists thought a very long time about the science and philosophy of what they were developing. Martial arts may seem to some a study of how to kick, punch, block, grapple, lock and throw; but it is much more than that. It's like learning how to use a hammer and a screwdriver without learning how a house is built. Good basics, but not as useful at it might be.

It is good to be reminded of the core principles of the art, but it isn't anything new.

[mook jong man]

There is already a principle based martial art , it is called Wing Chun.
The basic principles of Wing Chun are -

SIMPLICITY
DIRECTNESS
ECONOMY OF MOVEMENT
MINIMUM USE OF BRUTE STRENGTH
PRACTICALITY

[Larry G. Bethers]

To all that have responded to my article. Thank you. Even though there are several principles that I probably overlooked, the responses to my article were articulate, well written and relatively sound in both theory and application. I have enjoyed the experience of sharing your knowledge and experience and look forward to engaging more. Was my article a cut and paste. Darn right. Why reinvent the wheel?

[Chris Parker]

Mook Jong Man, as I said all martial arts are based on principles, what I often refer to as a guiding philosophy. Not all spell it out as clearly and succinctly as Wing Chun does, but they all have it. It's really what defines the art itself, and gives the structure to the technical side of the teachings.

Larry, thank you for your responce. It's quite refreshing to see, honestly! In terms of your article being a cut-and-paste, as you are the original author on ezine, there's no problem at all. My comments about that stem more from people who come along, post once with something like this, written for an outside source with no or limited criticism, with an attempt at ego-inflation. They tend to not accept outside feedback so readily, as they are just looking for a way to feel important. I am very pleased to see that that appears not to be the case with yourself.

As I said in my earlier post, perhaps you could venture over to the Meet and Greet and let people know a bit about your background. I would hope you will be an asset for the site and the discussions here. All the best.

[Larry G. Bethers]

For Maleus:

I will try to answer your questions.

Think of punching as moving energy. Energy likes to travel in the shortest most suitable route. When you make contact with your fist on a target the energy you put into the punch is reversed as per Ike Newton and travels down your bone structure into the ground. If the rear heel is up much of that energy is dissipated. By planting your rear heel the energy can then follow a bone structure (the Calcaneus) with out the shock absorbing mechanisms of the bones of the foot. The effect is magnified by slightly lifting the front foot (Kenpo: marriage of gravity, or Shotokan gyakute zuki). The back foot should remain at the 45 degree angle as at that angle you have a more ideal grounding. I have used this technique from a boxer's stance as well as a zenkutsu dachi with great effect. Get a willing (and dupable) partner and a pad or focus mitt and try it out. In any case the hips are thrust forward as a unit instead of twisting.

One question as regards your advice to keep the heel down in a punch so as to generate power. It goes against all advice given to me previously, so naturally I'm slightly curious. I find it necessary to come onto the ball of my rear foot when delivering something like a straight cross so as to permit adequate torque of my hips into the target. Given a western boxing stance, wouldn't keeping your heel on the ground necessitate

A) losing power from your torque (or risking damaging your knee from twisting) or

B) Adjusting your stance so that the back foot points directly at the target rather than off at 45degrees (which will compromise balance and possible lateral mobility, specifically to the nearside.)

I wish I could spend some time one on one to show you exactly what I mean. Words are inadequate. To quote Professor Wally Jay: Pain makes believers. Thanks for the feed back. Gotta go, food awaits!



As I understand it, the major reason for allowing the heel to rotate in a straight right is because you've just transferred a lot of weight off of the back leg and into the lead leg. Thus, even taking Newtons 3rd into account, this isn't a problem because the majority of the force will be transferred down into your lead leg, not your rear leg. And your lead leg will have its heel on the ground.

[Larry G. Bethers]

For Chris Parker: Thanks again. As I learn to use the site more proficiently I will get into the meet and greet. Thanks also for visiting my website. This looks like it will be a good time and I am looking forward to absorbing as much information as possible.

Bethers

[Chris Parker]

Think of punching as moving energy. Energy likes to travel in the shortest most suitable route. When you make contact with your fist on a target the energy you put into the punch is reversed as per Ike Newton and travels down your bone structure into the ground. If the rear heel is up much of that energy is dissipated. By planting your rear heel the energy can then follow a bone structure (the Calcaneus) with out the shock absorbing mechanisms of the bones of the foot. The effect is magnified by slightly lifting the front foot (Kenpo: marriage of gravity, or Shotokan gyakute zuki). The back foot should remain at the 45 degree angle as at that angle you have a more ideal grounding. I have used this technique from a boxer's stance as well as a zenkutsu dachi with great effect. Get a willing (and dupable) partner and a pad or focus mitt and try it out. In any case the hips are thrust forward as a unit instead of twisting.

Hi Larry,

This is obviously a method that works well for yourself and your personal approach to power generation, however as I said it is not a universal principle for all martial arts, although it is a principle for your personal expression. What must be remembered is that all martial arts have their own philosophy, which are then expressed in the form of the techniques and power generation. This philosophy is brought about from a number of influences, body mechanics being only one, and that being interpretted a number of different ways.

For example, the classic formula for force is Force = Mass x Acceleration x Distance. Assuming that the different arts about to be brought into this are being performed by the same person, we can accept that both Mass and Acceleration are constant, giving rise to differences in Distance. Wing Chun deals with straight, direct lines, which theoretically leads to less power, whereas Hung Gar has wide swinging strikes, elongating the distance and therefore increasing the potential power. However, Wing Chun, by virtue of it's approach, is faster than Hung Gar. This is due to it's straight line approach, but also due to it's use of tension and relaxation taught through their speed drills.... So Wing Chun has more Acceleration, but less distance, and Hung Gar has longer distance, but less Acceleration... which has more Force?

When it comes to the rear foot having the heel on the ground (which is what we teach, by the way, so I'm not arguing that it doesn't work or have benefits), the first question is where is the force being driven from? Because if it is being driven from the heel, then some forward force (driving the strike) will be lost out towards the end of the foot. Pushing should come from the ball of the foot to prevent this, so a boxers punch will be very well powered. And as I stated earlier, there are some very definate reasons they do raise their heel.

I'm also not sure about the application of Newtons 2nd Law there, either. If the force was generated on impact of the strike, then sure, fine. However, the force for a strike begins with the legs (feet) pushing down into the ground against the ground, and that is where the Equal/Opposite Reaction actually comes into it, rather than at the other end. By the time you impact, power should have been transfered off the foot to a great degree, so it can be transfered into the striking target. That actually brings us to the next part, the striking target itself. The other part of the Equal/Opposite aspect is that the force gets absorbed by what you are striking. If you are having a lot of force coming backwards (needing to have your foot there for absorption), then there is a real issue with your striking in the first place. The rear foot would be flat for stability, not to absorb energy that should have been put into the target. How well it absorbs will be determined by a number of things, including exactly what you are striking. The jaw will move, the skull won't.

When you talk about having the foot at 45 degrees, are you meaning 45 degrees forward, or backward? Each have their benefits and limitations, and are taught in different systems. Heel up include systems such as boxing, and sometimes wrestling as a low launching posture to enter with. Heel down, foot pointing forward include most karate systems, and some sword arts such as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu (foot as far forward as possible, at least out to the side), and Katori Shinto Ryu (similar to Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, but varied depending on the posture itself. Some are forward, some out to the side, and others backwards). Foot to the side include many grappling systems, Aikido (also angled forward), and the Gyokko Ryu in my traditions. Foot angled back include most Ninjutsu-related arts, Togakure Ryu, Koto Ryu, Kukishinden Ryu etc, and systems such as fencing. Each has their own reasons for doing so, and they suit that particular system very well.

Hopefully you can begin to see why I was saying that there cannot be universal underlying physical principles to all martial arts, but you have found what works for yourself. But, as you said, words can be rather insufficient.

[Larry G. Bethers]

Hi Chris:

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I have not clearly stated my position. After having put some thought into the subject I think the concept of heel down or heel up may best be described as technique. It surely works cuz there are people out there getting knocked out with heel up punches and 14 ounce gloves. The underlying principle is to create a stable base to launch or support the technique, however that may be accomplished. In that consideration I think we are on the same page. It is perhaps difficult to identify the principle as it may be confused with the classification or application of technique. Bottom line is that I am looking for those concepts that do not vary from technique to technique and is thus an underlying principle. To paraphrase a great man "teach correct principles and everything else will fall into place."

I have enjoyed our discourse and look forward to more exchanges.

Larry

[seasoned]

Hi Chris:

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I have not clearly stated my position. After having put some thought into the subject I think the concept of heel down or heel up may best be described as technique. It surely works cuz there are people out there getting knocked out with heel up punches and 14 ounce gloves. The underlying principle is to create a stable base to launch or support the technique, however that may be accomplished. In that consideration I think we are on the same page. It is perhaps difficult to identify the principle as it may be confused with the classification or application of technique. Bottom line is that I am looking for those concepts that do not vary from technique to technique and is thus an underlying principle. To paraphrase a great man "teach correct principles and everything else will fall into place."

I have enjoyed our discourse and look forward to more exchanges.

Larry
Yes Larry, the above is very true. IMO, when we talk about heel up or heel down, no one is getting knocked out with both heels up. We may push from the heel up possion lets say from the right rear leg but as the right fist hits the target, the weight has transfered to the left heel down rooted foot. Just a thought. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Chris Parker]

Hi Chris:

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I have not clearly stated my position. After having put some thought into the subject I think the concept of heel down or heel up may best be described as technique. It surely works cuz there are people out there getting knocked out with heel up punches and 14 ounce gloves. The underlying principle is to create a stable base to launch or support the technique, however that may be accomplished. In that consideration I think we are on the same page. It is perhaps difficult to identify the principle as it may be confused with the classification or application of technique. Bottom line is that I am looking for those concepts that do not vary from technique to technique and is thus an underlying principle. To paraphrase a great man "teach correct principles and everything else will fall into place."

I have enjoyed our discourse and look forward to more exchanges.

Larry

Not a problem Larry, I enjoy these conversations as well. Intelligent debate is always fun.

While I agree that the idea here of having your (rear) heel up or down is technique, and will be determined by the art itself and it's personal preference, that does remove your idea that there is only "one art". Again, though, if the underlying principle here is that there is a solid base when strikes are landed, I would say that that principle itself is not universal. I have mentioned the "off-balance" systems such as Drunken Kung Fu and Capoeira, but other more typical arts deny this principle too, from time to time. Many arts such as Tae Kwon Do and Karate, even Ninjutsu (within the Koto Ryu, Togakure Ryu, and Shinden Fudo Ryu) have leaping kicks, where impact happens in mid-air. Kukishinden Ryu has some sword-drawing aspects that also have the cut occuring in mid-air, as does Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu.

With all that said, I am in total agreement with the quote you used there. I would simply say that the principles in mind are peculiar to the individual art, rather than necessarily being able to be transfered across. Some will be able to be, but not all, which means that they cannot be universal for all martial arts. Even in some cases if the arts are closely related (a number of Japanese sword systems disagree with each other in large and small ways on such fundamental things as how to grip a sword!).

[Bruno@MT]

Just a small question: why is the 'karate punch' so wrong?

[Chris Parker]

I don't want to put words in Larry's mouth, but the way I read it was that the issue was in weight transference. The way I have seen karate done badly is to over-emphasise the rotation of the hips, which means that your energy is started with your legs, pushing into the ground with your foot, and then when it gets to your hips, simply "spun" off as it is used just to turn your hips around, sending your energy back, and forward, and around all at the same time, making the actual power sent to your striking weapon very reduced.

I should reinterate that that is something I have seen in badly done karate. Well executed karate is more forward moving, with the foot again driving the energy up (the body) and forward, and the hip (on the side of the striking weapon) being pushed forward, with the opposite hip being pulled back slightly to prepare it for another movement, rather than spun. This gives the typical "snapping" motion of the hips, rather than the less-effective "washing machine" turning action, and allows the energy to travel, from the foot, through the leg, forward through the hip, and continue forward to the striking weapon.

So I would say that there is nothing inherently "wrong" with the karate punch, unless it is being done badly. That was what I was getting at in my answer to Larry earlier.

[Chris Parker]

Oh, one last thing that hit me as I was driving to class....

This is not to say that the "turning" hip action is not powerful, just that it is not the right power source for karate. The turning action is, however, ideal for arts such as Aikido, whereas the snapping action would not suit Aikido at all.

Within our systems, the "snapping" action is similar to Koto Ryu, however Gikan Ryu is said to be more of a "turning" action. Each are powerful, applied with the correct art, and neither is powerful with the "wrong" one. Again, neither is universal for all martial arts.