Has anyone studied the ASOM?

I have read several books on Kineisology, and I am finally starting to get a grasp of much of that material. Is this close to what you are referring to.
I have spent some time there and angles of travel (in degrees)have given me some headaches. Any expansion would be well recieved at this end.
Well, much of that is for reference and study of optimum research as to graphing out motion and response. It serves a partial point in training in identifing proper angles to defend or attack on. It is not something to get lost in otherwise you will. LOL

What is the difference between the compass principle and using planes? Or even quadrant zone theory and outer rim? They all use area and angles for defence and offensive movements.
Originally posted by Rainman
What is the difference between the compass principle and using planes? Or even quadrant zone theory and outer rim? They all use area and angles for defence and offensive movements.

The Compass is a directional reference.

Using Planes has to do with the study of path or travel of an attack or defense.

The Quadrant zone theory has to do with Zones of Protection (height width, depth and obscure zones)

The Outer Rim has to do with a zone or area of action that you want to stay within and not overreach out of which will lead to useless movement and opening of your central zone.

Each one has a specialized use and understanding in Kenpo.

These are Kenpo tools..... like a mechanic has many tools that look similar and are often times used in combination with each other..... none the less each has a specific use to accomplish the end result.

The compass theory gives precise angles in degrees. The planes can be used for direction, angle and path. I believe path to be a very basic element of the planes and not something I use the planes for. The reason is their cylindrical shape.

They all include HWD because I believe they work simlutaneously... Except that friggen CT! I don't think that works for me at all except for the fact of pre-existence.

Where did you get the compass theory from and what exactly is the definition?

Explain to me what YOU think planes ARE used for and why you believe they are only cylindrical?

When you refer to CT what are you talking about?

CT is compass theory because I have not proved it to be a law. It may be a pre-existing concept but personally I do not use it. The Compass Principle is shown in book five to work like a typical mechanical drawing compass. Then I started looking at my protractor... I don't see it showing directions completely how does it show 3 and 9:00 or flanking? I suppose line of sight could be used as a reference point.

I think planes are used for direction, method, path, economy of motion, etc. I think the quadrant zone theory and the outer rim are superimposed over the planes. I actually think planes look like slinkies in all their dircections and each line may represent a movement on that plane.
I still do not see where you find anything on the "compass Theory" what page of book 5

Are you sure you are not confusing it with the clock principle?

help me out.:confused: :idunno:

What he is referring to hear is the exact angle or degree that a path of action does take if one wants to actually measure it out for training reference so as to study efficiency of attack and defense. To help illustrate to the student (diagrammatically) the exact angle that would result in the greatest use of force and cause the ultimate results.

If you go to book 2 page 34 & 35 you will see the clock principle is used as directional reference as well but can be divided up to form geometric symbols that can be visualized for training.

The compass varies in that it measures accurately the precise degrees that say a kick may travel from its point of origin to its target.

This is one of those areas that some get toooooooo involved in and are accused of analysis paralysis.

I suppose "analysis paralysis" exists but I believe it to be somewhat of a stepping stone. Every group has different ideas on what Kenpo is and personally I like the analytical process. I really enjoy pushing the my own bounderies and then trying to apply them physically. The more I know about a particular concept such as CT the more I am able to apply it in conjuction with others to my round kick.

I may spend 2 hours loading a basic to see if I can make it better or what happens when adding, deleting, rearanging, etc. various concepts and principles.

Currently the thing that bothers me most about CT is while it may show and exact degree for angle of incidence I am not sure how it may show an exact angle for deflection or redirection.


Well not exactly. I think there needs to be an x and y type of coordinate to help pinpoint the target. That is if one would be using horizontal and vertical CT's simultaneously. I guess the same could be said while striking thus eliminating or reducing the possibility of being countered.

How would you use a square and an oval in the clock principle?

It seems you have somewhat limited understanding of the clock principle and compass idea. this is easier done on the phone with a lilttle background explination. Hard to do point to point on a forum like this.


That would be fairly true. I only used the clock principle for directions of attack, and reference points for stepping, real basic stuff. The compass principle combined with the clock principle would serve a very basic function giving direction and angle... Hmm I think I will call you and annoy you!