Any UKF folks left here?

Any UKF folks left here?

Joined: September 19th, 2007, 11:04 am

September 20th, 2007, 7:32 pm #1

Have any of Mr. Pick's students survived?
I've a few questions, if you're up to it...
Take Care...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 8th, 2004, 6:36 pm

September 20th, 2007, 7:34 pm #2

I'm your huckleberry, one of 'em anyway. Feel free to post or email me, bujuts@cox.net.

Salute,

Steven Brown
UKF
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am

September 20th, 2007, 7:48 pm #3

Keep it on the board so we can all learn. Mr. Brown has one of those really excellent minds that's always putting out really good stuff. A true Thinker; not Tourist.

And Angela's right: Purple rocks.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 19th, 2007, 11:04 am

September 20th, 2007, 7:52 pm #4

I'm your huckleberry, one of 'em anyway. Feel free to post or email me, bujuts@cox.net.

Salute,

Steven Brown
UKF
Thanks for responding, Chief...
Tell me a little about the UKF's version of the system, as compared to the other versions...
And there off...
Take Care...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 8th, 2004, 6:36 pm

September 20th, 2007, 8:18 pm #5

Kind of a big question, lots to talk about, perhaps you can hone the topic? But, if I were to actually categorize my understanding of some major differences:

1) Set based, not technique based.

2) Some intentional departures from what EP did, namely: a) Rotation as the second most powerful of the three individual energy sources, not first, b) Some terminology, but for precise reasons, and c) Some refined measurements of the neutral bow and the stances stemming from it.

3) Final culmination of the system in the knife.

4) Use of a common platform for all things concerning the arms and torso. Kind of like a neutral bow for the upper body - something that all motions go to, through, and from just as all stances pass through the NB.

5) Rearrangement of the classical EPAK system to accomodate military operatives, women's self defense (i.e. awareness and sexual assault, etc.), and law enforcement.

6) Incorporation of the pistol.

7) An organization with checks and balances.

Of course, there are slews of details that I don't know if are similar to others, the same as, different from, etc. Its important to note that no class goes by that Mr. Pick does not edify his teacher Ed Parker, and glean from EP's teachings over the years for the benefit of all in the class. In his words, Ed Parker was a genius "the likes of whom I may never meet again."

Hope that helps,

Steven Brown
UKF
Last edited by StevenBrownUKF on September 20th, 2007, 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am

September 20th, 2007, 9:14 pm #6

What, then, would the first be, and why?

D.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 8th, 2004, 6:36 pm

September 20th, 2007, 9:55 pm #7

If you're referring to my statement in 2a, this is something I posted on the AK forum sometime back.

Short of it is, rotation can never fully hit with all of your mass (the whole truck), even if you have perfect alignment all the way to the floor. Alignment has to do with mounting the bumper on the frame, but in my mind it’s the full use of the flexors and extensors of the legs through the NB / Twist / NB transition that allows for full acceleration. The topic below addresses hitting with not only the body in motion (in fact, acceleration), but while maintaining the proper alignment.

****

We've all heard the analogy of the bumper and the truck when it comes to backup mass. The more structure that is in place to distribute the forces incurred by the body (via the application of a direct outside force), or by rebound of force we deliver (Newton's first law), the more we utilize this idea of backup mass. The forward bow with a punch form the rear hand is a textbook example. The body is rooted to the ground and gives no room for displacement due to its structural stability - all of the force goes towards the enemy. Something hitting the bumper then fails to move the truck. This is the notion of backup mass we're all familiar with.

While this does well to make use of the body to withstand forces and impart nearly 100% of the energy to the enemy (I say "nearly 100%" because nothing is a perfect transfer of energy, thermodynamically speaking), it still leaves open the idea of actually striking with the mass in motion. For mass engagement, we have the same rules of alignment, same concepts of distribution and bolidy power dissipation. Only now, we 1) mount the bumper to the frame, 2) floor the gas pedal, and 3) pop the clutch.

In order to move the mass, you must engage it. In order to engage it, you must distribute it according to its natural anatomical alignment. The neutral bow to the closed-kneel an excellent example. In its normal state, the neutral bow has little capacity to accelerate the body in any direction. Its not until the foot is turned in on the inside of the ball of the foot (cereating the closed kneel) do we line up the major extensor muscles (quadraceps) to thrust us forward. "Engagement" is just that. Its the popping of the clutch, first lift off.

Where a kenpoist can lose some of that power in the stance is in the transition to the next stance. If we dissect for example the transition from the neutral bow, to the twist stance, to the next neutral bow, we see that critical step is the twist stance. If the initial thrust off of the rear leg extensor groups do not propel the body sufficiently, then the twist stance will be lacking in its ability to continue that thrust. This is midpoint balance, and this creates a "neutral bow / twist stance / step through". It is not until the center of mass gets over, not behind, the front foot can the major muscle groups of the front leg (once again, the quadraceps) take over. In this case, now we no longer have midpoint balance but "midpoint engagement". No loss of power from one stance to the next. When one extensor action is expired, the other takes over. The power comes from having a smooth transition, activation of one leg to the next without interruption.

Its a small detail, small as all get out. But its an entire power source. Singularly more powerful than what rotation alone can offer, singularly more powerful than what gravity alone can offer. We call it "inertial engagement". Like backup mass, it operates in the depth zone (whereas rotation and gravity operate in width and heigth zones, respectively). But it differs from backup mass in in the sense that it is an dynamic phenomena, not a static phenomena just providing structure to dissipate incurred forces. Its a literal acceleration of the body's entire weight, and the critical part is to maintain that engagement in each stance transition. This idea applies to all stances, all directions, all the time.

Comments are welcome.

Thanks for reading.

****

Cheers,

Steven Brown

Universal Kenpo Federation

Last edited by StevenBrownUKF on September 20th, 2007, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am

September 20th, 2007, 10:32 pm #8

Thank you for the response; I do not recall the previous post you mentioned, but then I don't recall many good things. Thanks again,

D.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 19th, 2007, 11:04 am

September 20th, 2007, 11:27 pm #9

Kind of a big question, lots to talk about, perhaps you can hone the topic? But, if I were to actually categorize my understanding of some major differences:

1) Set based, not technique based.

2) Some intentional departures from what EP did, namely: a) Rotation as the second most powerful of the three individual energy sources, not first, b) Some terminology, but for precise reasons, and c) Some refined measurements of the neutral bow and the stances stemming from it.

3) Final culmination of the system in the knife.

4) Use of a common platform for all things concerning the arms and torso. Kind of like a neutral bow for the upper body - something that all motions go to, through, and from just as all stances pass through the NB.

5) Rearrangement of the classical EPAK system to accomodate military operatives, women's self defense (i.e. awareness and sexual assault, etc.), and law enforcement.

6) Incorporation of the pistol.

7) An organization with checks and balances.

Of course, there are slews of details that I don't know if are similar to others, the same as, different from, etc. Its important to note that no class goes by that Mr. Pick does not edify his teacher Ed Parker, and glean from EP's teachings over the years for the benefit of all in the class. In his words, Ed Parker was a genius "the likes of whom I may never meet again."

Hope that helps,

Steven Brown
UKF
Thanks, that was what I was looking for, for now...
Given these statements, would it be safe to say that your stuff is more....brutal?
I'll have more questions in a bit, let me work on this first...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 17th, 2006, 1:33 am

September 20th, 2007, 11:49 pm #10

Don't you know that Kenpo is the gentle art?

Wait....maybe that's just when I do it....

Sigh,
CT

but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Dennis Miller
Quote
Like
Share