Discussion in 'Kenpo / Kempo - Technical Discussion' started by Kenpodoc, May 20, 2003.
I stand corrected sir :asian:
Forgive me, I should have said my definition of being bent over in the context of the discussion. But as the question was what happens when kicked in the groin I stand by you begin bending over to become bent over, as per my definition. So now Ive discussed the reaction and the final positioning.
And though you seem to think I am incorrectly educated, I think my definition is the same as yours for groin, just not in so much scientific detail.
Space between the legs, below the bladder, including the testicles, etc. if applicable. Same thing, Doc.
No, I get the point, these people only see the aftermath, not the act itself, like those who didnt see a bomb actually hit a building, but saw it fly apart as a result. My response was that the act and the result are for all intents and purposes instantaneous so why separate them. I used a quarter of a second to time frame it. Theres no significance other than a quarter second is a very short time.
No, the technique was to display a point, the buckle is just a force on the lower part of the person as is the force on the top. I said bend and not tilt so that I didnt have to define tilt. Ill know better next time.
Now, if it works on the whole body, it will/should work on the upper portion of the body, their top momentum meeting the kick in the groin. So really it didnt take us any farther from the topic at all.
Haha, again, see above. Im not any farther than when this started.
My information is suspect then? Interesting in that Ive done what I say and seen it done. You had said many times that there are no absolutes, never and always shouldnt be used because reactions differ. Yet you speak of anatomical facts and this is how a person moves, etc. when speaking of Sub-Level 4 stuff. You said a kick to the groin will not cause a person to bend forward, implying it never happens. Im just trying to see this from your angle and I just dont get it.
If their top comes forward or their hips move back while the top stays, they still end up bent over. The process to become bent over would be bending over.
Wow, I never said anything about a manual. You presume too much, Doc. My information comes from the techniques Ive learned. From watching my instructors do them. From doing them myself.
Of course kenpo is evolving, but those things you stated were about techniques that came after the system was in stride. Specifically two yellow belt techniques that were created after the fact (by Mr. Planas I believe) as a source for the children to learn, then added to the adult course later still. Since it wasnt created by him Im sure Mr. Parker went through it all thoroughly and examined it closely before allowing it into his system. I would especially hope so since it was first intended for children. Doesnt make sense to teach children a technique that, at least according to you, doesnt work that way.
And again, the art evolves, however, since many techniques show or imply that to strike the groin brings the head down in some fashion, (bending or flexing or whatever you chose to call it) disagreeing with my response does show problems with things Mr. Parker taught.
So am I. Things Ive seen and things Ive done, things my instructors have done. Things other people have done that Ive no personal connection to. You should know better, Doc. Absolutely and always are very similar, and youve said yourself, there are no always.
My anatomically incorrect information I think I have is called experience. Granted mines limited, but its enough to question.
Ive never said you didnt have information thats useful. I just dont take everything you speak as gold either. Part of the journey is questioning things or people that dont make sense. By all means return to your students, tell them I sad hi.
Good you're thinking, and questioning as you should. If I contribute to that process them I am doing my job. OK back to the ones that pay my bills, (work by the way) not students.
Thank you Mr. O'Briant for your enlightening contribution to what was a stimulating intellectual discussion and debate.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't a natural reaction to a hard kick to the groin be for someone to move their hands to the region? I've seen this happen in sports as well, when someone takes a ball to the, well, balls, in a soccer or football game. It seems like an almost instinctual reaction. When someone's hands go to cover the area (belatedly), the shoulders would most likely roll forward, which would result in a bending of the waist. I would think this would be most probable with a scenario like a front snap kick, which would have more upward momentum than it would "knock back power" - in the case of a hand strike, the same comparison could be used with an uppercut to the groin vs. a hook. In the case of a side kick, where the energy from the kick is more likely to propel someone backwards, the person would most likely fall to the ground, and in my experience, they tend to roll on their side - even if they fall flat on their back. The same scenario as the side kick also seems to happen for the roundhouse (again, I'm only speaking of my experience). In the case of a knee kick, where we often assist the victim by pulling down on their shoulders or neck, they always fall forward, and often roll on their side.
All very interesting observations sir. But to be sure, the discussion and its differences are essentially semantical. In my interpretation the distinction is important from an anatomical perpsective. Clearly for others it is much less so. For me your description would be considered a "stooping" movement.
When you are aware that one creates different structural integrity parameters, open and/or closed cavities, and energy flow, than the distinction becomes monumental in proper execution.
But the again I have always said I am anatomical not motion based. This might be considered a good example of a significant difference philosophically in execution of "effective" applications. Blunt force trauma versus specifically attacking the body architecture. One of the reasons why some of us old guys can still function in hostile environments for a living.
Excellent points sir, and you are thinking. For me that is what this forum is all about. We all educate each other in some manner. (well, almost all ). thanks for your participation.
I have been struck in the groin a few times. By punches, kicks , baseballs, soccer balls, and softballs, and others. My reaction in all of these instances was as follows.
2-hips go back
3-head and shoulders go forward, ending up over the knees and forward of the hips.
In all cases my body was bent at the waist, and my shoulders and head were forward of my hips. I think by my definition, I was definitely bent over.
Very enlightening, Doc (and encouraging as well, as I am not yet one of those "old guys", but plan to live to the age that I can be one )
When you say "anatomical", are you also referring to pressure points? I would think that a pressure point, while possibly hard to hit with precision and accuracy, would lend more to this "anatomical" approach, as a great deal of force is not needed for it to be effective. Therefore someone who is not able to generate a great deal of power could still use this as a defense.
My only concern there would be that as a practitioner gets older, in addition to power decresing, speed also declines as well. In my experience, in addition to precision, one has to have a decent amount of speed to hit a specific pressure point without the opponent being able to pull away before being struck. Obviously this is less of a concern with targets on the arms than it would be on say the neck or head, for example.
Other than that, could you explain what you feel the differeence is between an anatomical and blunt force approach?
Very interesting stuff. Excellent thread.
Thank you, what you said is the bottom line, and how MOST people percieve that action.
Have a great Kenpo day
Striking to the groin elicits different responses as elicited by:
Angle of Entry
Angle of Incidence
Taget actually struck
From the latest manuals from Mr. Parker that I have, a brief part of the NOTES section follows:
2. THEME: This technique was designed to teach you how to create distance while blocking your opponent's extended arm with your forward arm. You then can follow up with a longer-range weapon (in this case a kick using the forward or lead leg) to a target that is further removed from you. It also teaches you how to gauge long distance with your kicking leg, which enables you to properly gauge the distance of your extended hand weapon.
5. The transitory cat stance of your second move assures proper alignment, which in turn promotes accuracy. It also enhances the speed of your action in addition to allowing you to Formulate according to the prevailing circumstances.
6.Learn to fully take advantage of Marriage of Gravity when executing your last move (right outward handsword). (This implies the disturbance of the height whether through "buckling" or bending.)
Mr. Parker dealt with this as the ideal in the proposed new manuals, but he also noted 11 separate "What Ifs", and the ever-present "Other" as #12. This is not combining the separate "What-If's" into combinations of contingencies.
My point? Don't think that there is any one way to execute this technique, right or wrong. They have all probably been considered by lots of Kenpoist, in a myriad of situational What-If's. The discussion of being "Bent Over" is almost humerous in that I do not see anyone that is incorrect ... just some difficulty communicating with a "shared" language ... KENPOESE.
Doc Chapel's specificity leads to some people taking affront, or trying to call him to task. This is tough since his Ideal Phase is sufficiently "answered" on the mats and in his training ... as is Billy's & Clyde's. What If's are just that, and fun to play with.
The real issue is not the "reaction" itself, we know that from personal or observed experience, but rather the degree of specificity in the Ideal. It appears Doc Chapel's Ideal may be a little different from mine. But that does not mean mine works and his does not, nor vice-versa. Just differently with a little different context of terminology created to "explaining" SL-4.
So do we need to start an SL-4 Thread regarding the differences in language or how close we as EPAK Kenpoist can come in our frame of reference to Doc Chapel's additional concepts, theories, and principles for SL-4? That would be tough and we would have to agree to disagree. Doc may argue they cannot be translated, PAM, or Timing Signatures, etc. I think they can, but it would be a lot of work.
And all this generated from kicking someone in the STONES?
It has been my experience that when I strike a person in the groin, I get a reaction that affects my attackers heighth and depth. That is all that really needs to be known to continue my technique. I can not rely on there hands grabbing their groin or their chin being exposed or anything else. If these things happen then great but I don't rely on them happening, not that I am saying anyone else does. I have found that knees do seem to buckle, the hip does seem to thrust back and the head drops. I have worked with some poeple in Karate schools who, when kicked in the groin while wearing a cup simply bend forward at the waist there legs stay perfectly verticle the hip does nothing and the hands do nothing. I don't concider this to be a realistic reaction to a groin strike wether it be a verticle or horizontal in exacution. We called these people, JOKINGLY, stone warriors. I have also experienced that with a groin strike that is horizontal and thrusting, the hips will go back and I will affect depth initially more the heighth and with a verticle strike more hieghth will be affected initially than depth.
Mike Miller UKF
Thanks for stating what I was trying to say much more eloquently. The trajectory of the strike (whether horiz or vert) definitely seems to have at least some effect on the reaction of the person being struck.
Well seeing how I am not most people, which is a compliment I think, the distinctions can be, and are monumental in describing movement. One understanding of movement is simplistic. "A move this way and B hits him with X." Another level of knowledge suggests that "HOW A got to the position for B to hit him is important."
With this fact in mine from a higher knowledge perspective, "bending over" can be viewed as a particular self initiated posture created by bringing the head forward and down. The final posture is a result of "bending over" and might be termed "bent over."
However if I strike a portion of his body that drives his hips backwards, although he may arrive in the end at a similar looking posture appearing to have "bent over," actually he was moved rearward and the head essentially remained in place and did not come forward, but adjusted to the movement of the hips.
If you were standing in front of a wall with your forehead touching, you could not "bend over," but could achieve the "bent over" posture by backing away leaving your forehead against the wall.
Why the distinction? The body architecture changes significantly between the two even though the ultimate posture "appears" to be the same, they are not. On the latter certain nerve cavities will be wide open for assault, energy flow is negative, the diaphram will be muted causing a change in breathing patterns, the ribcage will stressed, and the sub skelatal alignment will be dysfunctionally a negative posture until corrected, making it difficult for him to move - which of course I will not give him time to do.
So taking the two similar postures, each has significally different effective options from a self defense perspective. If I used the same options simply because of the ending "posture" one of them would be extremely effective, the other MUCH less so in comparison. So from an anatomical perspective as opposed to a motion perspective, they are night & day with no real comparison. Anyone who has a teacher who has and understands "chi" would know that. My teacher had mucho "chi." But they both work, but one is more efficient and effective. And for the record, when you learn to move anatomically, speed doesn't diminish even in a guy almost sixty like Ed Parker, - and others.
Definitely something to look forward to! Would a good knowledge of biomechanics also help someone to move "anatomically?" I had been thinking throughout the thread that you were speaking of "attacking anatomically", for lack of a better phrase -- i.e. using your opponents natural movement reactions to pattern and select your targets, and/or aiming for specific vital points due to a specific body reaction you could anticipate due to a previous action you initiated . It seems like you are also speaking of you yourself moving in an anatomically efficient manner -- I would think this would also make it easier to illicit specific responses, right?
Makes you appreciate how much combat can become more and more a game of physical chess.
Exactly, but it does require a higher level of knowledge on the part of your teacher, study is very specific, and VERY effective. Students must have a level of patience. Not because it takes longer because it doesn't, but because the process requires learning how to move correctly, not just move. On the face, it may seem complicated, but it's not when the techniques are taught that way and your teacher knows how to convey the information. Lower students end up moving better and the foundations last a lifetime.
That depends on what you wanted as the end result. So one is not more effective than the other if they both result in the desired effect. Green compared to red apples Doc.
I apologize. Apparently I have not effectively explained what I mean. They DO NOT produce the same results and the effects are NOT the same. Apples to hand-grenades sir.
I'm keeping my apples outta this! :lol:
Orange you smart.
Well, the way I look at it this: If you got him in the "bent over" position and you don't give him time to react regardless of how he got there or what method you used to get him there, when all the fancy explanations are over he's still on the ground unconscious, and the job was done. How can anyone say, See my way was more effective cause his #456 cavity was pressed on his way to the floor right before I knocked him out? That's like comparing 2 moves that kill someone and saying that one of the moves are deadlier than the other. What is deadlier? Dead is dead. If what you used to bend him over with got him there without him retaliating and neutralized the threat without bodily harm to you, then it worked just as good as any other method produced to end in the same results.
Separate names with a comma.