What does your Neutral Bow look like?

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Yep. I was taught the fighting horse as my 3rd kenpo stance as a white belt in 1971. Horse; Neutral Bow, ForwardStance (bow( and Reverse Bow. Still have a hard time hitting a neutral bow without deviating to a fighting horse.

Regards,

D.

 

[eyebeams]

Tipping the chin down into partially flexed position creates subtle transient pressure on the nerve roots by closing down the neural foramen (particularly in flexion with rotation...which we happen to be in when we are turned sideways at the body but looking at an opponent, as in a neutral bow or sideways horse).

Tucking your chin in this method is indeed incorrect. That's why it ain't what CMA teaches. The chin should hang lower from correcting the position of the cervical vertebrae and raising the spot where the frontal and parietal bones of the skull meet. It should not be a "flexed position." Your chin should naturally drop. I cannot really speak to the experiences of people who are tucking their chins improperly, really.

To be fair...if you're going to demand citations for unsubstantiated, esoteric or theoretic constructs offered by others on this forum, you should restrict yourself from making counter-claims that are just as unsubstantiated, without supporting research evidence. Did you require citations on the biomechanics of gait before learning to walk? Without them, surely your feet will not work. Just don't tell that to the infants curently busy working out how to put one foot in front of the other...might mess up their whole life.

That rather shows my point about the thousands of combat sport athletes who have confirmed that tucking works, doesn't it? It's already been taken to the best "lab" that could be found, over and over again.

 

[Andrew Green]

You're correct James, and sporting contests do present a different perspective. Interestibly enough, when the 'gloveless' Marcus of Queensbury Rules were the norm in boxing,

The what now?

The Marquis of Queensbury rules had gloves involved right from the beginning.

Perhaps you are thinking of the London Prize Rules? or Broughtons rules?

But the chin was always down, advising anyone to keep it up is putting them in danger.

the "chin up" position was standard posture for boxers.

Not really, most of the stylized pictures of the time don't really reflect it, but the chin has always been tucked in a bit.

Chin up is more annotomically strong for certain things, I'll give you that. Anyone that wants to test this need only attempt a squat or deadlift with their chin down. But once people start trying to punch you in the chin things change.

 

[MJS]

Ok, maybe I'm just not reading things right, but this is the impression I'm getting. We're talking about the position of the chin while in the NB. Reading the posts, talking about stability, I'm guessing we're talking stability from a static position? So, when happens to the chin position when movement starts to happen? What happens when someone is trying to grab us, take us down, etc.? I'd think we're not going to be keeping our chin in the same position. So, isn't that going to effect the stability of the stance?

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok, maybe I'm just not reading things right, but this is the impression I'm getting. We're talking about the position of the chin while in the NB. Reading the posts, talking about stability, I'm guessing we're talking stability from a static position? So, when happens to the chin position when movement starts to happen? What happens when someone is trying to grab us, take us down, etc.? I'd think we're not going to be keeping our chin in the same position. So, isn't that going to effect the stability of the stance?

Mike

This is what I am also thinking. It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances. When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie. Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter. As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter. I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect. Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".

 

[kenpo_cory]

Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".

I like that. I found that when i ask my instructor a question on something, most of the time his answer is "it depends"

 

[Doc]

The what now?

The Marquis of Queensbury rules had gloves involved right from the beginning.

Perhaps you are thinking of the London Prize Rules? or Broughtons rules?

Actually, the ‘London’ rules were ‘revised’ and allowed for gloves but they were never mandatory under the ‘Revised London Rules.’ When the Marquis, (multiple spellings) rules were first instituted they were the same. The initial feeling was “real men don’t use gloves.” Gloves ultimately became mandatory under the rules to protect the hands of “gentlemen.”

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

This is what I am also thinking. It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances. When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie. Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter. As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter. I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect. Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".

Structural integrity -- of which indexing is only part -- will allow you the ability to respond with greater speed, flexibility, and strength. Anatomical alignment can be maintained through and during motion. AS you move fom an NB to other positions in the rapid decay of personal defense, that can be done in such a way as to honor your bodies natural alignment, or diminish it.

Dialogue about the NB in the static position is one topic. Maintaining anatomical integrity while moving offensively or defensively from it is another story; once again, there are ways to do it so you stay strong and agile at the same time, and ways to do it that defeat that purpose. Not being cryptic here, FYI: lotsa ways to step forward or lunge forward to attack an attack; only a few of which maintain structural integrity, each of which is perfectly doable in the heat of conflict.

One Doc has written about in other threads is the C-step version of a step-through forward or reverse, opposed to sliding the feet in straight paths forward or reverse. One compromises how you actually stay on your feet if and or as the guy crashes into you or you to him, while the other helps you maintain a stable foundation from which to react, even while you are in motion. Both also effect the stability (or lack thereof) when you come to rest in your next stance.

It's not just about the anal retentiveness of static stability; it's about setting your body up for maximum performance once you have to abandon that stance to respond to your opponent.

But it's a good observation. Media of communication again...so much more could be made so clear with just an hour in person to go over some of these details. Then light bulbs go on, and the questions stop being ideas in the mist, and start being specific things you implement into your training that change your basics from the ground, up (literally).

Best Regards,

Dave

 

[Doc]

This is what I am also thinking. It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances. When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie. Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter. As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter. I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect. Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".

Of course, you are correct, but the human body is a special type of living machine with special capabilities. The discussion centered around the unloaded static neutral bow, and the properly “Indexed” posture for a positive execution of the stance.

In reality, the human body has the ability to move fluidly between structurally ‘solid’ and a loose connectivity or a ‘disassociated’ structure mode. This ability is what gives the human machine its fluidity.

The idea is to understand the underlying mechanisms that allow you to call upon either as needed for dynamic human interaction.

In Martial Science, much like other sciences, there is a direct cause and effect to all activity. Martial Science draws on many different scientific disciplines, but all are in some way related to one another through the conduit of human anatomy. There exists a significant cause and effect interaction between all the many parts of human anatomy whether static or in motion. In any examination of the many martial postures and their transitions, the efficacy of its many positions are predicated upon, among many factors, weight distribution and an exacting posture relative to the physical activity at hand, and load.

The relative position of the feet to each other, and their movement, also significantly determines whether structural integrity is created or maintained. Let’s discuss for a moment structural integrity in posture, movement, and weight distribution. Any variations in these categories beyond proper anatomical posture can diminish or enhance effectiveness on multiple levels offensively or defensively.

How you move your body in its entirety, the arms, feet, and even the head in particular, in martial science affects the stability of the complete body for a variety of reasons. For most, this probably is not news. However, what is probably “new” information to most is that some of the basic things taught in most “martial arts” fall quite comfortably into the negative and inefficient category. Surprisingly their effectiveness can be demonstrated to be much less than perceived. That is, when these things are tested in the light of reality, they fall well short of their well-intended goals. Lets us define efficiency relative to human physical activity in general, and martial science in particular.

Essentially, the “human” machine is a large gelatinous bag punctuated by multiple directionally dedicated and articulated appendages, connected by loose and flexible tissue. This semi solid shape is supported by an articulated and rigid substructure we call a “skeleton.” This necessary substructure skeleton, supports the human body as the primary load bearing entity, but also simultaneously provides it with mobility and sustains its general shape. It also supplies the major structural frame for anatomical rigidity or solid structure on demand.

This relationship between the sub-structure frame, (skeleton) the connecting tissues, (ligaments, muscle, tendons), and the containment vessel epidermis (gelatinous bag) have a constant and perpetually active interaction relationship from one jiffy-second moment to the next. The “system software” or brain, constantly monitors all external stimuli from thousands of body sensors in general, and certain ones in particular through the autonomic nervous system. This utilizes a mechanism called Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation, (which functionally includes the Golgi Organ) and subsequently makes thousands of minute adjustments every millisecond to allow the machine on one level to function intuitively, and on another, to take directed commands from the central processing unit simultaneously.

By its very evolutionary design the human body unit operates in one of two non-destructive modes, operating either efficiently, or inefficiently. The inefficient mode I have termed “Disassociated Anatomical Movement.” In order to accomplish this, this extremely complex machine has an inherent ability to “disconnect” or create a more loose and flexible relationship between its many articulated parts, expressly for the purpose of performing movements and/or postures not necessarily anatomically structurally sound, but necessary for fluid human movement. Therefore, by the very nature of the body, not all movement is necessarily effective, efficient, or even structurally sound, even though it may be performed quite easily. This is the reason humans do not move like “rigid” robots or automatons.

Most modern martial arts place a heavy emphasis on immediate satisfactory results, and therefore usually are conceptually driven, allowing practitioners flexibility to achieve immediate short-term goals of questionable or elementary effectiveness. Unfortunately, these arts usually have levels of efficiency defined by some ranking process, and they include belts despite the lack of knowledge and quantifiable basic skills. Martial Arts clearly have taken on a business life of their own. A look in any martial arts magazine will yield pages of books and videos for those who believe they can actually learn this way and virtually teach themselves to mastery.

When any physical activity is taught with only an emphasis on conceptual movement or motion with no regard for anatomical structural requirements and physical mandates, than inefficient movement is the most likely results. The reason this can be confusing is that most martial “arts” instructors teach from this aesthetic perspective emphasizing the “look, or even "sound" of a movement over the proper anatomical “execution” to obtain the desired results.

A lack of knowledge has created a plethora of interpretations as numerous as there are “instructors.” Thus, the western term “martial art” is indeed accurate because of this interpretive aesthetic perspective. Art, (in this instance artistic movement and postures) is clearly subjective, whereas martial science and its proper anatomical movement and postures are not. This explains why one “martial art” can have so many different interpretations from instructor to instructor, school to school, and even student to student.

This methodology is also inherent in cultural based martial discipline “do” (way) type “arts” that choose to emphasize a cultural and artistic methodology over an efficient anatomical results driven perspective. It is also, an unintentional byproduct of modern, eclectic, commercial, self-defense arts that lack sufficient foundation material beyond their conceptual design, as well. At least the traditional “way” arts emphasize consistency of movement and execution from student to student.

Oddly enough some of the most effective of these modern types “arts” are “stripped down” bare bones courses that at least allow participants to be “attacked” and retaliate against a person dressed in protective armor for a more realistic assessment of perceived skill development. This methodology also has the effect of introducing a level of “Adrenal Stress” to training that is also missing from most martial arts self-defense instruction.

Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an “inefficient” methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose “disassociated“ mode to achieve the objective. The architectural human frame is designed to locomote forward partly deriving its balance from the swinging of the arm opposite the forward moving leg. Although the body can walk and move rearward, it does so inefficiently and in a definite disassociated mode.

As an example, when you walk backwards your arms do not swing naturally and balance is more difficult as a result. Additionally, moving forward aggressively without the ability to move your arms creates the same “disassociated” condition. The principle area affected in all of these situations begins with the “Primary Disconnect Mechanism,” the pelvic bone. The same holds true in any lateral movement as well.

However the converse of stepping backwards to meet resistance moving in the same direction as you’re stepping, is stepping forward when you are being pulled forward. Both of these movements are inefficient and must have correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity.

Stepping rearward without the mechanism makes alignment impossible. Stepping forward however because the body functions to locomote forward naturally may create alignment, but only predicated on either how far or how many times you step, or if an additional correcting mechanism is involved.

Therefore to teach any execution that by necessity requires inefficient movement forward backward or laterally, first there must be recognition of these absolute anatomical facts, and second a mechanism must be designed to compensate, re-connect, or re-associate the body unit into singular structural integrity for efficient transference of power, or to resist body mass driven assaults. Additionally as previously stated, proper weight, distribution and postures are also mandated based on anatomical parameters, not aesthetics.

Other good examples can be found in various forms of footwork taught in most traditional and non-traditional arts alike. Lateral and forward movements where feet move toward one another create similar results of instability and structural disassociation as “stepping back.” Although all of these activities are a staple of most arts, anatomically speaking, such maneuvers lack structural stability, absent a necessary compensating mechanism.

 

[Hand Sword]

Actually, the ‘London’ rules were ‘revised’ and allowed for gloves but they were never mandatory under the ‘Revised London Rules.’ When the Marquis, (multiple spellings) rules were first instituted they were the same. The initial feeling was “real men don’t use gloves.” Gloves ultimately became mandatory under the rules to protect the hands of “gentlemen.”

Not accurate. If you know boxing history, the gloves were not made to protect the hands of the gentlemen. In the pre rules version, there was a lot of grabbing and throwing down going on. The bigger guy would just over power the other, and throw him down. It was considered barbaric. The gloves were used to clean up the fighting, making it more gentlemen like, preventing the grabbing. Nothing more than that.

 

[Hand Sword]

I've noticed that this thread is going down 2 different roads at the same time. 1 being the correct posture of a NB, which is what was the original topic. The other, being the practicality of the mechanics the body is take, and how they apply for real.

I will say this. The posture of the feet, body, and head/chin as discussed are correct. the technicalities are what they are. That being said, I would recommend, for those seeking the correct basics, to take the advice of those teachers here that have taken the time to give instructions.

As to reality and the self defense situations connected with it. I would say taking a flat footed, rooted stance, with chin up, would be GREATLY DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR PHYSICAL WELL BEING. Most street fights are either planned attacks catching you off guard, thus, nullifying any chance of dropping into a NB, or are being squared up with a fast moving advisary, changing directions, again nullifying any taking of a set stance. It was designed for that big, one punch coming from a drunk, where you have time to take a stance.

As for grabs and chin placement, let's be real! If you're grabbed, they are bigger and stronger. You will be moved no matter how you put your chin. If you were grabbed hold of, you were caught unaware, and you will be tossed. No one is just going to hold you.

 

[MJS]

Of course, you are correct, but the human body is a special type of living machine with special capabilities. The discussion centered around the unloaded static neutral bow, and the properly “Indexed” posture for a positive execution of the stance.

Yes, thats correct. However, a few things come to mind here. 1) How long can we discuss the stationary position before things become redundant? 2) Considering that no fight is going to be stationary, I'd say that it is relevant to the discussion to talk about movement.

Mike

 

[jazkiljok]

Not accurate. If you know boxing history, the gloves were not made to protect the hands of the gentlemen. In the pre rules version, there was a lot of grabbing and throwing down going on. The bigger guy would just over power the other, and throw him down. It was considered barbaric. The gloves were used to clean up the fighting, making it more gentlemen like, preventing the grabbing. Nothing more than that.

i recall reading that John Broughton invented the first boxing gloves. they were called "mufflers," and designed to protect not only the hands but also the face from blows. Back in his day though, they were used only in practice, not in actual fights. below the waist was declared off limits by Broughton but wrestler holds were still allowed during this time.

 

[Andrew Green]

Not accurate. If you know boxing history, the gloves were not made to protect the hands of the gentlemen. In the pre rules version, there was a lot of grabbing and throwing down going on. The bigger guy would just over power the other, and throw him down. It was considered barbaric. The gloves were used to clean up the fighting, making it more gentlemen like, preventing the grabbing. Nothing more than that.

Yup, and the Queensbury rules required gloves for similar reasons. Boxing had been banned just about everywhere. When the Marquis came out and backed these new rules, with gloves and all the other stuff it became legal again.

In Martial Science, much like other sciences, there is a direct cause and effect to all activity.

What exactly is the origins of this, sounds like a marketing buzzword to be honest.

 

[Hand Sword]

i recall reading that John Broughton invented the first boxing gloves. they were called "mufflers," and designed to protect not only the hands but also the face from blows. Back in his day though, they were used only in practice, not in actual fights. below the waist was declared off limits by Broughton but wrestler holds were still allowed during this time.

Old fashioned focus mits. The gloves referred to were the ones for fighting. They just covered the hands, no wrapping, very thin. They were just for stopping the grabbing that was going on.

 

[Andrew Green]

Mufflers where first for training only, an attempt at getting more "dignified" people involved that couldn't go around all banged up. Matches where still barefist until the Queensbury rules took effect.

Upper body wrestling was allowed under Broughton and LPR, with fighters often seeking out wrestlers to help them out. A round ended when a person hit the ground, and a throw or a sweep was a valid way to achieve that.

There is a fair bit of documentation on clinch fighting, specific techniques illustrating throws, headlocks, reversals, etc. I don't have any links on hand right now, it's been a while since I really searched all this stuff out.

 

[Hand Sword]

Thank you Andrew! Mine was a poor attempt at some tongue in cheek sarcasm. Your explanation is much better.

 

[Doc]

What exactly is the origins of this, sounds like a marketing buzzword to be honest.

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a fairly well written and time consuming post.

 

[MJS]

This is what I am also thinking. It seems that a position can be properly "indexed" (I hope I'm using this term properly) only under very strict and specific circumstances. When the parameters of the situation change, which they will certainly do very quickly and repeatedly, then the position is no longer properly "indexed", whether we are talking specifically about the chin placement, or any other piece of the pie. Given this dynamic nature of combat, I am thinking that it is impossible to maintain "proper indexing" during the encounter. As I stated earlier, while this study of the minutia may reveal certain truths, I often wonder at how much of it can really be applied in an actual encounter. I think we can only do our best and trust our skills, but understand that nothing about it will be perfect. Surviving the encounter while taking as little damage as possible is the real goal and that is the only true measure of whether or not we did it "correctly".

Good post! This is why I wanted to start steering the discussion towards some actual movement.

 

[Doc]

Good post! This is why I wanted to start steering the discussion towards some actual movement.

Perhaps a new thread would have been better.