SL-4 Seminar

Kenpojujitsu3

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
9
I don't know, I wasn't there. But based on my extremely limited exposure to SL-4 in similar looking seminars, here is what I believe was happening in the clips:

clip#1 - based on what I can hear Doc saying in the background, and based on my prior experience of SL-4 seminars, I would say the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how just a simple touch to a person's body at the appropriate place/time can misalign their stance (even if it looks the same afterwards), causing their body/structure to become weaker and therefore ultimately less effective. You can hear Doc basically saying "put yourself in your strongest stance. Get your training partner to test how strong you are. (you should be strong!) Then do the misaligning thing (note you cannot hear or see what this should be in the clip because there are bodies in the way). The stance should be noticable weaker.

HOWEVER Clyde and his training partner are not following the exercise as I understand it. You can see Clyde trying to unbalance his partner right from the start (he's a BIG guy, that should not be possible), whilst others in the background (smaller/lighter people) are having no problem. Clyde's partner appears to make no effort to obtain a strong stance. It seems as if Clyde has gone into the excercise with pre-conceived ideas as to what SL-4 is. It looks as if he is intending to unsettle the guy's stance from the outset. He tests his partner's stance (which is poor to begin with) and concludes that the excercise does not work. But the excercise should be a comparison - 'with', and 'without' the misaligning 'thing' (whatever it is).

But that's just the feeling I get from it, I can't even tell from the clip what Clyde+training partner are really doing, let alone what the excercise should be as you can only hear Doc talk. The clip has absolutely no merit for discussion only to say 'what is Clyde doing?'. You cannot tell from the clip what the exercise should be (I have no idea) or even what it looks like/how it should be performed. But I can say for sure, Clyde is not doing it right because he was not listening to Doc's instructions. Look at the others in the clip for comparison.

clip#2 - I recognise this from a previous seminar also. I think it's a test to demonstrate how the strength of the body can be dramatically improved just by a simple 'aligning mechanism' - in this case touching the hands together before assuming the posture that is to be tested for strength. I would *guess* that the purpose of the excercise was to test the strength of the body with the 'mechanism', and without (it should be stronger with). It looks as if Clyde is having success with this one. But the clip does not show/tell how the mechanism should be done, or in what context it should be used, let alone how the test should be performed. Again, the clip has little merit for discussion.

clip#3 - I can't tell for sure what is being tested here. Maybe an outward-elbow? The purpose of the excercise is to apply pressure against the extended elbow and feel the strength of the person's body. Strong body = support for the strike = more effective weapon. You can tell from the clip that Clyde is being rocked back and forth in his stance. I would say his body is not aligned as well as it could be. The clip is so short it shows nothing else. I would *guess* that there should be a rear-shoulder BAM somewhere in there, but Clyde's body is obscuring our view. The excercise is *probably* designed to show how much stronger the body becomes when the rear-shoulder BAM is inserted into the execution of an outward-elbow. You'd first test without the BAM (= quite a strong strike). Then you'd test with the BAM (= super strong strike because the body is unmanipulatable). *But* you can't tell from the clip, it has no merit because firstly you cannot see what is happening, secondly you have no idea what the exercise should be!

I'm only guessing here, I've attended a handful of SL-4 seminars and I still have no real idea what is going on from what I can see from the clips. A person to viewing them 'cold' has no insight into where to begin. So I agree with Bode. These are clips showing small fragments of selected seminar excercises, they are not an accurate picture of would have been going on because you don't know what 'correct' should be from the clips - even if Clyde was doing the exercises correctly (I believe he's not) they would have no merit because they are incomplete / do not provide context or complete information. But as they stand they are worthless, they convey no useful information.

Any potential topic of discussion from these clips have been gone over here many times before, with significant input from Doc and other SL-4 guys. Just do a search for 'BAM', you'll see Doc providing many experiments for you to test the material yourselves. Does anyone ever bother applying these lessons though? I've rarely seen anyone respond to one of Doc's online exercises so they can continue the discussion, but then those same people complain that the SL-4 guys are not sharing their information. They are - read the threads, *do the tests*, *provide your feedback* and keep the discussions going.

P.S. Clyde's awesome I always have fun in his seminars :)

Thanks JamesB. This gives an idea of what was really going on. I think I saw the instructor execute a BAM on the outward elbow but Clyde did not in Clip 3...makes sense to me. Thanks again for the explanations, it is appreciated and helpful.
 

DavidCC

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
35
Location
Nebraska
Just to be clear...you hit yourself twice before hitting your opponent?


No, you are kindof jumping to conclusions there... there is no hitting and there is no opponent. This is an exercise to demonstrate some things about how different parts of your body can work together... or not... it is not a self-defense technique. It's an experiment.

a more accurate statment might be : "you hit yourself twice (and do a few other things too) before your partner tests your stability by applying horizontal load against your extended elbow in the 3-9 line."
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
OK, got it. I thought it was something for fighting.

I'm reminded of aikidoists testing their unbendable arm, which I understand is also more a matter of a knowledge of statics than a demonstration of ki power.
 

jazkiljok

Brown Belt
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
450
Reaction score
5
I don't know, I wasn't there. But based on my extremely limited exposure to SL-4 in similar looking seminars, here is what I believe was happening in the clips:

clip#1 - based on what I can hear Doc saying in the background, and based on my prior experience of SL-4 seminars, I would say the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how just a simple touch to a person's body at the appropriate place/time can misalign their stance (even if it looks the same afterwards), causing their body/structure to become weaker and therefore ultimately less effective. You can hear Doc basically saying "put yourself in your strongest stance. Get your training partner to test how strong you are. (you should be strong!) Then do the misaligning thing (note you cannot hear or see what this should be in the clip because there are bodies in the way). The stance should be noticable weaker.

HOWEVER Clyde and his training partner are not following the exercise as I understand it. You can see Clyde trying to unbalance his partner right from the start (he's a BIG guy, that should not be possible), whilst others in the background (smaller/lighter people) are having no problem. Clyde's partner appears to make no effort to obtain a strong stance. It seems as if Clyde has gone into the excercise with pre-conceived ideas as to what SL-4 is. It looks as if he is intending to unsettle the guy's stance from the outset. He tests his partner's stance (which is poor to begin with) and concludes that the excercise does not work. But the excercise should be a comparison - 'with', and 'without' the misaligning 'thing' (whatever it is).

Good points all.

All in all, looks simply like a lesson on biomechanics as it applies to body posture and technique. Oddly the gentlemen in question seems to yield an opposite result in the first clip (i.e. easy to push the big guy the first time when the guy is in a "strong" stance, yet finds it more difficult the second time around after doing something that i gather is suppose to make it easier.)

It's worth noting that a lesson on biomechanics brings with it a lot of variables that make the judging of the lesson's benefits subject to the participants willingness to earnestly participate and follow clearly the instructions given.

Anyone who's had a batting, pitching or golfing lesson would know that.
 

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
Good points all.

All in all, looks simply like a lesson on biomechanics as it applies to body posture and technique. Oddly the gentlemen in question seems to yield an opposite result in the first clip (i.e. easy to push the big guy the first time when the guy is in a "strong" stance, yet finds it more difficult the second time around after doing something that i gather is suppose to make it easier.)

It's worth noting that a lesson on biomechanics brings with it a lot of variables that make the judging of the lesson's benefits subject to the participants willingness to earnestly participate and follow clearly the instructions given.

Anyone who's had a batting, pitching or golfing lesson would know that.
Exactly. That is why the videos themselves cannot be the topic of the discussion. They would yield misleading conclusions about something not even displayed. No one else picked up on the "opposite effect" you mentioned. More to suggest at least the one participant was attempting to not make things work, rather than follow the specific experiment. Very sharp observations.
 

jazkiljok

Brown Belt
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
450
Reaction score
5
Exactly. That is why the videos themselves cannot be the topic of the discussion. They would yield misleading conclusions about something not even displayed. No one else picked up on the "opposite effect" you mentioned. More to suggest at least the one participant was attempting to not make things work, rather than follow the specific experiment. Very sharp observations.

speaking of biomechanics-- i think you (and others) might find this sports related article interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2164894?nav=tap3

peace
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
Thanks to those who gave some detailed replies. :)

As for the clips...there seems to still be this misconception that I wanted to discuss the clips. If we look back to my OP, I was looking to discuss the focus of the seminar. I was not there, so I do not know Clydes intention. Now was he really trying to discredit someone or was he unfamiliar with the topic? Was he at any time corrected on anything he was doing wrong? Am I safe to assume that there is really no margin for error with any of these drills?
 

Bode

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
162
Reaction score
2
Thanks to those who gave some detailed replies. :)

As for the clips...there seems to still be this misconception that I wanted to discuss the clips. If we look back to my OP, I was looking to discuss the focus of the seminar. I was not there, so I do not know Clydes intention. Now was he really trying to discredit someone or was he unfamiliar with the topic? Was he at any time corrected on anything he was doing wrong? Am I safe to assume that there is really no margin for error with any of these drills?
I never took your questions as offensive or wrong in any way. I really didn't mind the question at all. I guess the problem was that I gave an answer that nobody wanted to hear. I know you wanted to discuss the seminar, but with the clips "looming" people were bound to look at them and want to discuss them. The thread would lose focus. I've seen it happen. Asking, in another thread, what some of the lessons are in a typical SL4 seminar would probably get a better response. (FYI... hindsight is 20/20... I probably wouldn't have reacted the same today as I did a week ago, but hey, it is what it is)

Clyde is Clyde. He made it clear he couldn't learn anything from Doc then came to the seminar. He started teaching his own things to the people he worked with, didn't pay attention, was clearly intent on not "emptying his cup", and didn't perform the exercises as specified. Yes, he was corrected. At some point I gave up. See, the drills are about being sensitive to the reactions in your body. We don't beat the crap out of each other to teach these small lessons. With Clyde I would have had to blast him and bruise him for any sort of reaction. We explicitly gave starting parameters for a drill, deviated from them, and asked the audience to say whether or not they fealt anything. It requires honesty and being in tune with your body. Was it possible that it didn't work for him? There are a few drills where some people don't experience the same feelings. Whether it be from an injury, deficiency in muscle tone in a certain area, or some medical problem. However, I have never seen anyone have none of the drills/exercises work. Clyde was the first to say they didn't... but that's what he said. What he fealt I can't speak for.

Margin for error... Yes, there is little margin for error within the physical movements that set the alignment. However, the movements were very basic. Anyone with an orange belt could perform them properly. Heck, Chiropractors use some of the same exercises to demonstrate how the body acts in unison.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
Well, I've always been a believer in the saying, "Seeing and feeling is believing" and I'm always saying to my wife that I want to take a trip to Ca., so when we do decide to make that trip, I'd like to take at least one night and see SL4 with my own eyes. Besides, I love Chinese, so Doc and I have at least that in common!:ultracool

Mike
 

Bode

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
162
Reaction score
2
Well, I've always been a believer in the saying, "Seeing and feeling is believing" and I'm always saying to my wife that I want to take a trip to Ca., so when we do decide to make that trip, I'd like to take at least one night and see SL4 with my own eyes. Besides, I love Chinese, so Doc and I have at least that in common!:ultracool

Mike
Looking forward to meeting you. We invite everyone who has an interest and open mind to step through our doors. We've had a few guys just looking to start fights, but that doesn't usually last long. ;)
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
What do you expect with most of the school being cops and feds?

:idunno: I thought it was because you guys could kick everyone's butt ;)
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
If/when I get my permit, remind me to ask you what kind of holster works well with a gi :D
 

Thesemindz

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
2,170
Reaction score
103
Location
Springfield, Missouri
Just as a brief note, I have tried some of the experiments described by Doc in the past, most notably the outward elbow position with and without a "bam," and found that they did seem to work. I've never been to an SL-4 seminar, and have only what I can find on the internet to judge it by, but there seems to at least be some validity to his position. Many of these same ideas and concepts were taught in the school I trained in, which was two steps removed from Mr. Parker's teachings, although admittedly to a much less specific degree. More of an idea of how structure can be improved upon, based on some limited understanding of biomechanics, rather than a complete curriculum on the subject.

I think there are several areas of common ground which we can all agree on. One being that, at least to some degree, we would all agree that weapon formulation and anatomical position has some bearing on combat effectiveness. Some of us might say more or less so, but I think we can all at least agree with Doc to that degree. Another would be that it does matter what your method of execution is, not just the final product of a strike. And again, I think we would all agree that changing something about your stance, even something small about your feet or your torso positioning, can have a huge effect on your ability to transfer power. Look at quarterbacks in pro football. How often do commentators point out that by raising their toes, not planting their heel, or cocking their elbow they've drastically reduced their effectiveness? Many intercepted passes can be blamed on poor body position at the point of the throw.

My point is only to say that what Doc teaches, while perhaps not exactly or even nearly what the rest of us may teach, may be closer at least philosophically to the positions we hold and the material we teach than many of us realize.


-Rob
 

Latest Discussions

Top