The Complexity of Basics

The Complexity of Basics

Joined: May 7th, 2009, 2:29 am

January 3rd, 2011, 5:11 am #1

Often I hear it said that having correct basics is the key to a thousand martial arts related buzzwords and I do agree that having the ability to execute basics correctly is very important. The stories passed down over the years about great martial artists training in the glorious past are filled with tales of students who had to endure the drilling of this or that basic stance, punch, kick or whatever for countless months until at last that single basic was polished to the instructors standard of perfection. With so many old masters shaking their heads in disgust at the half-baked applications of various martial arts I thought I would go ahead and start a thread about the various approaches to BASICS.


It seems to me that many martial arts that are famous for having students that have highly polished basics tend to emphasize the learning of only a handful of basics to begin with. For example western boxing teaches a handful of basics compared to some other arts; the result is that they can use those basics very well. In Wing Chun again we see the focus on only a handful of basics and many creative means to ingrain them. Those martial arts are very popular even though they are basics focused, proving that you dont necessarily lose students or popularity just because you drill basics as long as you have a variety of ways in which to train them, speed bag, heavy bag, shadow boxing, focus mitts, with resistance, without resistance, partner drills, light contact, full contact, blindfolded etc It only gets boring if you run the exact same move over and over without variation. It gets more than boring; it becomes a hindrance to adaptability.

One approach of an Instructor I visited somewhere in Western Asia was to have his students stand in the Horse Stance in front of the wooden post and execute alternating corkscrew punches for the entire length of his class, just shy of an hour and always to the same spot roughly equivalent to their solar plexus level. Each class he picked a different basic and they repeated the same process. Frankly, I was surprised he managed to keep any students at all but he was one of only 3 instructors in that area and his students felt that this type of training would be sufficient to protect them in an actual self-defense situation. Who was I to judge?


Another instructor I visited used to have his students train basics in a method similar to Yoga, where they placed pressure on a part of the basic and maintained it for as long as they could, he had many students and all of them seemed very strong even the little kids. His school was full of all kinds of contraptions that his students used to train the handful of basics he instructed them in.

Over the years I have witnessed some cool approaches to basics but so few approaches produced students that had both good basics and also a vast versatility. In other words I would spar with the practitioners and often felt like I was sparring with robots. They did not have much continuity between one basic and the next. It was like whoever programmed this robot only gave him a handful of functions and while those functions would have been devastating had they landed the robot could not improvise well.

The complexity of basics is a fascinating subject of study. I feel like a popular misconception exists with regards to what a good basic IS A good basic is not an IS but rather it DOES, by that I mean that it is not about looking good with a particular movement but in understanding all the ways that move can influence your target and yourself. The training of a single basic should not be about doing a side kick with perfect form over and over (while good form is a part of basic training) rather it should be about how many ways you can use it, how many ways you can set it up, how many ways you can counter it, what can follow it, what can follow if its countered, how it feels internally, what speeds and angles of travel, how many targets, how can it be faked, feinted and so on.

It is OK if you disagree with me. I could be wrong but in terms of practicality what good is the perfect answer if I have to wait for the perfect question?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 18th, 2009, 4:26 pm

January 3rd, 2011, 10:11 pm #2

the art I study teaches many basics or fundamentals, and we work to develop them over time. we are given a number of basics at each belt level to study, and expected to improve in skill with each basic (as well as forms, sets, and self defense techniques) as we progress. we also work on combining basics.

I have been to some schools that don't teach any basics! just "punch him here" without any attention to how the punch is performed, what striking surface is used, and whether the punch should be snapping or thrusting, all the details, etc. and in that school we were taught to link them together and work on flow, I got pretty good at the art and left when I realized something was missing in that school and in my own martial art, where was the effectiveness? I had heard the phrase "natural weapons" and never felt like my body was a weapon.

I have also trained some shotokan when I was younger, which was definitely the 'stand in a horse and repeat this basic' but we at least went over 3 or 4 basics for the whole class. I feel that is a bit of a waste of class time. we should practice these things on our own time, sure go over the basics in class, but continue to work on other things in class too. you have the instructor at your disposal, why utilize them for only a small bit?

I think it comes down to this, all learning begins in the embryonic stage. you have to learn by the numbers, you have to break it down. otherwise you get people firing back kicks that are really side kicks. you get people doing handsword strikes with their fingers.
you develop the basic to be accurate, and then you progress to the next level, getting the flow of the movement, and you continue on to the next levels where you explore and move spontaneously and fit the situation, whichever that may be, without hesitation and with correct fundamentals.

I wouldn't rest a student's sparring flaws and hesitition on basics. I would be more inclined to look at their repetition/practice, what is the student doing with their time? I would look at the curriculum as well, and look at WHAT they are practicing.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 7th, 2009, 2:29 am

January 4th, 2011, 12:16 am #3

I personally like a kenpo technique approach to learning basics. Basics are introduced in the same sequence as the technique to be learned, followed by putting them together in the technique which gives the basic moves definitions and a good frame of reference. After the moves have been defined I like to condition them in isolation on bags, pads or anything that will allow for full transfer of power. From that point I look to go back and mirror watch them in solo to see if I can catch any signs of poor posture or openings I may be leaving or other flaws. From that point I like to revisit the technique and start to apply the speed while keeping the accuracy. After that I like to spar with the basics and see how I can use them when the opponent is trying to get away or resist. Normally the process repeats its self with the same basics a few times until they feel natural and familiar with the principles involved in executing the basic effectively. From there I move on to the next technique of basics.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2005, 2:18 pm

January 4th, 2011, 12:57 am #4

Often I hear it said that having correct basics is the key to a thousand martial arts related buzzwords and I do agree that having the ability to execute basics correctly is very important. The stories passed down over the years about great martial artists training in the glorious past are filled with tales of students who had to endure the drilling of this or that basic stance, punch, kick or whatever for countless months until at last that single basic was polished to the instructors standard of perfection. With so many old masters shaking their heads in disgust at the half-baked applications of various martial arts I thought I would go ahead and start a thread about the various approaches to BASICS.


It seems to me that many martial arts that are famous for having students that have highly polished basics tend to emphasize the learning of only a handful of basics to begin with. For example western boxing teaches a handful of basics compared to some other arts; the result is that they can use those basics very well. In Wing Chun again we see the focus on only a handful of basics and many creative means to ingrain them. Those martial arts are very popular even though they are basics focused, proving that you dont necessarily lose students or popularity just because you drill basics as long as you have a variety of ways in which to train them, speed bag, heavy bag, shadow boxing, focus mitts, with resistance, without resistance, partner drills, light contact, full contact, blindfolded etc It only gets boring if you run the exact same move over and over without variation. It gets more than boring; it becomes a hindrance to adaptability.

One approach of an Instructor I visited somewhere in Western Asia was to have his students stand in the Horse Stance in front of the wooden post and execute alternating corkscrew punches for the entire length of his class, just shy of an hour and always to the same spot roughly equivalent to their solar plexus level. Each class he picked a different basic and they repeated the same process. Frankly, I was surprised he managed to keep any students at all but he was one of only 3 instructors in that area and his students felt that this type of training would be sufficient to protect them in an actual self-defense situation. Who was I to judge?


Another instructor I visited used to have his students train basics in a method similar to Yoga, where they placed pressure on a part of the basic and maintained it for as long as they could, he had many students and all of them seemed very strong even the little kids. His school was full of all kinds of contraptions that his students used to train the handful of basics he instructed them in.

Over the years I have witnessed some cool approaches to basics but so few approaches produced students that had both good basics and also a vast versatility. In other words I would spar with the practitioners and often felt like I was sparring with robots. They did not have much continuity between one basic and the next. It was like whoever programmed this robot only gave him a handful of functions and while those functions would have been devastating had they landed the robot could not improvise well.

The complexity of basics is a fascinating subject of study. I feel like a popular misconception exists with regards to what a good basic IS A good basic is not an IS but rather it DOES, by that I mean that it is not about looking good with a particular movement but in understanding all the ways that move can influence your target and yourself. The training of a single basic should not be about doing a side kick with perfect form over and over (while good form is a part of basic training) rather it should be about how many ways you can use it, how many ways you can set it up, how many ways you can counter it, what can follow it, what can follow if its countered, how it feels internally, what speeds and angles of travel, how many targets, how can it be faked, feinted and so on.

It is OK if you disagree with me. I could be wrong but in terms of practicality what good is the perfect answer if I have to wait for the perfect question?
I grew up in SoCal and the UCLA bruins and the Wizard of Westwood captivated us. Wooden always started camp with basics, basics, basics. No one who played for Coach Wooden escaped the drills. Some (probably most) complained but that was his method. The bruins won year after year for a lot of reasons (or maybe just one, Wooden) but they always beat you on execution. No other team executed the way the Bruins did and that was because his teams always had sound fundamentals.

I doubt if Coach Wooden would agree with having players stand in one place drilling the same thing over and over again. They moved on.....after they had the basics down.

Basketball, kenpo, billiards, bull riding - it's the same - you can't move on until you get the basics, the fundamentals down. But when you move on, you don't leave the fundamentals behind. Probably seems obvious but then so was Wooden's key to success - just not many others willing to go down that road.

Take it out on the heavy bag,

Chuck Peterson
peterson_charlie@hotmail.com

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 11:41 pm

January 4th, 2011, 4:32 am #5

Often I hear it said that having correct basics is the key to a thousand martial arts related buzzwords and I do agree that having the ability to execute basics correctly is very important. The stories passed down over the years about great martial artists training in the glorious past are filled with tales of students who had to endure the drilling of this or that basic stance, punch, kick or whatever for countless months until at last that single basic was polished to the instructors standard of perfection. With so many old masters shaking their heads in disgust at the half-baked applications of various martial arts I thought I would go ahead and start a thread about the various approaches to BASICS.


It seems to me that many martial arts that are famous for having students that have highly polished basics tend to emphasize the learning of only a handful of basics to begin with. For example western boxing teaches a handful of basics compared to some other arts; the result is that they can use those basics very well. In Wing Chun again we see the focus on only a handful of basics and many creative means to ingrain them. Those martial arts are very popular even though they are basics focused, proving that you dont necessarily lose students or popularity just because you drill basics as long as you have a variety of ways in which to train them, speed bag, heavy bag, shadow boxing, focus mitts, with resistance, without resistance, partner drills, light contact, full contact, blindfolded etc It only gets boring if you run the exact same move over and over without variation. It gets more than boring; it becomes a hindrance to adaptability.

One approach of an Instructor I visited somewhere in Western Asia was to have his students stand in the Horse Stance in front of the wooden post and execute alternating corkscrew punches for the entire length of his class, just shy of an hour and always to the same spot roughly equivalent to their solar plexus level. Each class he picked a different basic and they repeated the same process. Frankly, I was surprised he managed to keep any students at all but he was one of only 3 instructors in that area and his students felt that this type of training would be sufficient to protect them in an actual self-defense situation. Who was I to judge?


Another instructor I visited used to have his students train basics in a method similar to Yoga, where they placed pressure on a part of the basic and maintained it for as long as they could, he had many students and all of them seemed very strong even the little kids. His school was full of all kinds of contraptions that his students used to train the handful of basics he instructed them in.

Over the years I have witnessed some cool approaches to basics but so few approaches produced students that had both good basics and also a vast versatility. In other words I would spar with the practitioners and often felt like I was sparring with robots. They did not have much continuity between one basic and the next. It was like whoever programmed this robot only gave him a handful of functions and while those functions would have been devastating had they landed the robot could not improvise well.

The complexity of basics is a fascinating subject of study. I feel like a popular misconception exists with regards to what a good basic IS A good basic is not an IS but rather it DOES, by that I mean that it is not about looking good with a particular movement but in understanding all the ways that move can influence your target and yourself. The training of a single basic should not be about doing a side kick with perfect form over and over (while good form is a part of basic training) rather it should be about how many ways you can use it, how many ways you can set it up, how many ways you can counter it, what can follow it, what can follow if its countered, how it feels internally, what speeds and angles of travel, how many targets, how can it be faked, feinted and so on.

It is OK if you disagree with me. I could be wrong but in terms of practicality what good is the perfect answer if I have to wait for the perfect question?
Basics should be wired into the curriculum from the very beginning and, like a foundation, build upon one another. To that point I think that the structure of the curriculum has to take into consideration a few things.
1) Attention Spans - yes, people will get bored.

2) What have they learned previously? This lends itself to solving #1. If the material builds, slowly, at each belt level, the complexity of the set, form, or technique, then you are not only reenforcing previous basics, but layering in new movement. Einstein said, "We learn on the edge of what we know." This is very true both physically and mentally.

3) Separation of platforms. Learn the hands and feet separately then tie them together later. Allow the student the time to focus on each platform (upper and lower) until the movements become fluid, then start coordinating the movements together.

4) How does the curriculum put the body in contact with itself? The simplest way to learn a physical movement is to find ways to give the body as much sensory input as possible. We call it BAMing, PAMing, etc... When something is done wrong, stop. Don't continue. Start over. Especially if it's a fundamental. Every time you perform a bad basic, you reenforce it.



I believe that the structure of the Motion Kenpo curriculum is not ideal given what we know about science today. That may be a controversial statement, but simply put, the techniques are too complex at the early stages. They don't allow for repetition of the simplistic basics and students tend to get lost in this see of motion. Too many options. Too much to know. And if you don't start teaching the "fun stuff" quickly, then you lose the students. It's a double edged sword.

Teaching basics requires the basics to be hardwired at the early stages through repetitive movements that are encountered in varying drills, sets, and techniques. I don't see this much in the Martial Arts world, but maybe I don't get out enough.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 25th, 2009, 8:54 am

January 4th, 2011, 11:47 am #6

Often I hear it said that having correct basics is the key to a thousand martial arts related buzzwords and I do agree that having the ability to execute basics correctly is very important. The stories passed down over the years about great martial artists training in the glorious past are filled with tales of students who had to endure the drilling of this or that basic stance, punch, kick or whatever for countless months until at last that single basic was polished to the instructors standard of perfection. With so many old masters shaking their heads in disgust at the half-baked applications of various martial arts I thought I would go ahead and start a thread about the various approaches to BASICS.


It seems to me that many martial arts that are famous for having students that have highly polished basics tend to emphasize the learning of only a handful of basics to begin with. For example western boxing teaches a handful of basics compared to some other arts; the result is that they can use those basics very well. In Wing Chun again we see the focus on only a handful of basics and many creative means to ingrain them. Those martial arts are very popular even though they are basics focused, proving that you dont necessarily lose students or popularity just because you drill basics as long as you have a variety of ways in which to train them, speed bag, heavy bag, shadow boxing, focus mitts, with resistance, without resistance, partner drills, light contact, full contact, blindfolded etc It only gets boring if you run the exact same move over and over without variation. It gets more than boring; it becomes a hindrance to adaptability.

One approach of an Instructor I visited somewhere in Western Asia was to have his students stand in the Horse Stance in front of the wooden post and execute alternating corkscrew punches for the entire length of his class, just shy of an hour and always to the same spot roughly equivalent to their solar plexus level. Each class he picked a different basic and they repeated the same process. Frankly, I was surprised he managed to keep any students at all but he was one of only 3 instructors in that area and his students felt that this type of training would be sufficient to protect them in an actual self-defense situation. Who was I to judge?


Another instructor I visited used to have his students train basics in a method similar to Yoga, where they placed pressure on a part of the basic and maintained it for as long as they could, he had many students and all of them seemed very strong even the little kids. His school was full of all kinds of contraptions that his students used to train the handful of basics he instructed them in.

Over the years I have witnessed some cool approaches to basics but so few approaches produced students that had both good basics and also a vast versatility. In other words I would spar with the practitioners and often felt like I was sparring with robots. They did not have much continuity between one basic and the next. It was like whoever programmed this robot only gave him a handful of functions and while those functions would have been devastating had they landed the robot could not improvise well.

The complexity of basics is a fascinating subject of study. I feel like a popular misconception exists with regards to what a good basic IS A good basic is not an IS but rather it DOES, by that I mean that it is not about looking good with a particular movement but in understanding all the ways that move can influence your target and yourself. The training of a single basic should not be about doing a side kick with perfect form over and over (while good form is a part of basic training) rather it should be about how many ways you can use it, how many ways you can set it up, how many ways you can counter it, what can follow it, what can follow if its countered, how it feels internally, what speeds and angles of travel, how many targets, how can it be faked, feinted and so on.

It is OK if you disagree with me. I could be wrong but in terms of practicality what good is the perfect answer if I have to wait for the perfect question?
Just look at a black belt trained in a Tracy School or an American Karate School in the 70's or by Parker in the early days and look at what you have today and that is where your answer lies....

And obviously my analysis should be prefaced by "For the most part"
Last edited by kenpo58 on January 4th, 2011, 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 23rd, 2010, 6:36 pm

January 4th, 2011, 5:16 pm #7

Often I hear it said that having correct basics is the key to a thousand martial arts related buzzwords and I do agree that having the ability to execute basics correctly is very important. The stories passed down over the years about great martial artists training in the glorious past are filled with tales of students who had to endure the drilling of this or that basic stance, punch, kick or whatever for countless months until at last that single basic was polished to the instructors standard of perfection. With so many old masters shaking their heads in disgust at the half-baked applications of various martial arts I thought I would go ahead and start a thread about the various approaches to BASICS.


It seems to me that many martial arts that are famous for having students that have highly polished basics tend to emphasize the learning of only a handful of basics to begin with. For example western boxing teaches a handful of basics compared to some other arts; the result is that they can use those basics very well. In Wing Chun again we see the focus on only a handful of basics and many creative means to ingrain them. Those martial arts are very popular even though they are basics focused, proving that you dont necessarily lose students or popularity just because you drill basics as long as you have a variety of ways in which to train them, speed bag, heavy bag, shadow boxing, focus mitts, with resistance, without resistance, partner drills, light contact, full contact, blindfolded etc It only gets boring if you run the exact same move over and over without variation. It gets more than boring; it becomes a hindrance to adaptability.

One approach of an Instructor I visited somewhere in Western Asia was to have his students stand in the Horse Stance in front of the wooden post and execute alternating corkscrew punches for the entire length of his class, just shy of an hour and always to the same spot roughly equivalent to their solar plexus level. Each class he picked a different basic and they repeated the same process. Frankly, I was surprised he managed to keep any students at all but he was one of only 3 instructors in that area and his students felt that this type of training would be sufficient to protect them in an actual self-defense situation. Who was I to judge?


Another instructor I visited used to have his students train basics in a method similar to Yoga, where they placed pressure on a part of the basic and maintained it for as long as they could, he had many students and all of them seemed very strong even the little kids. His school was full of all kinds of contraptions that his students used to train the handful of basics he instructed them in.

Over the years I have witnessed some cool approaches to basics but so few approaches produced students that had both good basics and also a vast versatility. In other words I would spar with the practitioners and often felt like I was sparring with robots. They did not have much continuity between one basic and the next. It was like whoever programmed this robot only gave him a handful of functions and while those functions would have been devastating had they landed the robot could not improvise well.

The complexity of basics is a fascinating subject of study. I feel like a popular misconception exists with regards to what a good basic IS A good basic is not an IS but rather it DOES, by that I mean that it is not about looking good with a particular movement but in understanding all the ways that move can influence your target and yourself. The training of a single basic should not be about doing a side kick with perfect form over and over (while good form is a part of basic training) rather it should be about how many ways you can use it, how many ways you can set it up, how many ways you can counter it, what can follow it, what can follow if its countered, how it feels internally, what speeds and angles of travel, how many targets, how can it be faked, feinted and so on.

It is OK if you disagree with me. I could be wrong but in terms of practicality what good is the perfect answer if I have to wait for the perfect question?
dictionary.com says this,
basic
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or forming a base; fundamental: a basic principle; the basic ingredient.

BASIC
noun Computers .
a widely adopted programming language that uses English words, punctuation marks, and algebraic notation to facilitate communication between the operator or lay user and the computer.
Word Origin & History - BASIC
computer language, 1964, acronym for Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code; invented by J.G. Kemeny and T.E.Kurtz.

I see this,

Sets that move through time and space

Stance Set 1, weight transfer, weight distribution, posture, pivoting, establishing balance, mobility, distancing..

Kicking Set 1, weight transfer, achieving balance through stance changes, pivoting, balancing on one foot, chambering the knee (like the elbow in static sets).

Coordination Set 1, weight transfer, synchronizing the upper and lower, balance acquisition through stance changes, natural motions in recognizable patterns, striking and kicking to different heights and depths.

Most common traits, weight transfer and balance issues

Sets that move through time and rely on a stable base

Block Set 1, weight distribution, tension in the legs, relaxed breathing, paths and lines of attack, posture, the elbow as dominant factor of execution.

Strike Set 1, weight distribution, punches and strikes that are done; middle/high, middle/low, linear/circular, through/over, through/under, the elbow as dominant factor of execution.

Finger Set 1, weight distribution, three dimensional striking pattern, tension in the legs, relaxed breathing, focusing on centerline targets, shoulder dominant striking

Most common traits, weight distribution, tension in the legs and relaxed breathing

So a basic language is one that everyone can understand.
A basic motion within a specific sequence of motions can be trained to the point of being a spontaneous reaction. Read Infinite Insights #4, pages 106 to 112 to see what I saw. (we stand on the shoulders of giants)


Training Horse/Fighting Horse/Side Horse/Neutral Bow - Posture and Perspective

Forward Bow/Reverse Bow Posture and Perspective

Wide Kneel/High Wide Kneel Close Kneel/High Close kneel Interpretation and mobility

45 Cat/90 Cat - weight distribution fractions 10/90 30/70

Concave/Diamond sophistication and position Recognition

One Leg tadah!

If were a new born prey animal then I want to get on my feet RIGHT NOW and start to run ASAP.
I might have shaky legs for a while, but I blend in better once I am on my feet.
If I am a white belt student I want to stand behind the Black Belts.
When I am a blue belt student I want to be in the front line.
When I am a brown belt I want to learn by teaching.
Basics are learned best by teaching them.

Sets are the building blocks of what we do.

Clark
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 23rd, 2010, 6:36 pm

January 4th, 2011, 7:14 pm #8

Watch and listen to Victor Borge's punctuation marks skit (n/t)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 7th, 2009, 2:29 am

January 5th, 2011, 2:58 am #9

Basics should be wired into the curriculum from the very beginning and, like a foundation, build upon one another. To that point I think that the structure of the curriculum has to take into consideration a few things.
1) Attention Spans - yes, people will get bored.

2) What have they learned previously? This lends itself to solving #1. If the material builds, slowly, at each belt level, the complexity of the set, form, or technique, then you are not only reenforcing previous basics, but layering in new movement. Einstein said, "We learn on the edge of what we know." This is very true both physically and mentally.

3) Separation of platforms. Learn the hands and feet separately then tie them together later. Allow the student the time to focus on each platform (upper and lower) until the movements become fluid, then start coordinating the movements together.

4) How does the curriculum put the body in contact with itself? The simplest way to learn a physical movement is to find ways to give the body as much sensory input as possible. We call it BAMing, PAMing, etc... When something is done wrong, stop. Don't continue. Start over. Especially if it's a fundamental. Every time you perform a bad basic, you reenforce it.



I believe that the structure of the Motion Kenpo curriculum is not ideal given what we know about science today. That may be a controversial statement, but simply put, the techniques are too complex at the early stages. They don't allow for repetition of the simplistic basics and students tend to get lost in this see of motion. Too many options. Too much to know. And if you don't start teaching the "fun stuff" quickly, then you lose the students. It's a double edged sword.

Teaching basics requires the basics to be hardwired at the early stages through repetitive movements that are encountered in varying drills, sets, and techniques. I don't see this much in the Martial Arts world, but maybe I don't get out enough.
BODE: >>I believe that the structure of the Motion Kenpo curriculum is not ideal given what we know about science today. That may be a controversial statement, but simply put, the techniques are too complex at the early stages. They don't allow for repetition of the simplistic basics and students tend to get lost in this see of motion. Too many options. Too much to know. And if you don't start teaching the "fun stuff" quickly, then you lose the students. It's a double edged sword.

Can you please elaborate further on what you mean by the above statement? In particular I would like to know more about the too many options part





I do feel like taking a small movement in isolation from a technique and developing it further can lead to some interesting advancements but I have always found it so difficult to explain both the process and the results without direct transmission.


Take for example the strike to the neck in the technique Delayed Sword. From POO to POC I feel like the body can learn to transfer more energy into the target if the body is moved in a particular sequence, it gets to the point that the strike is very powerful but also effortlessly so

It gets to the point that you can tap the target and due to the preceding sequential set-up combined with your hyper-efficient body mechanics your generating enough energy to do the job because your energy is more focused and thus able to penetrate deeper into the target.

This is versus a person who has not isolated the movement and refined it, who ends up expending tremendous energy to CHOP the target but ends up absorbing or in other ways preventing a full depth penetration of the force through the target. The unrefined movement often has the muscles of the upper body (in the case of this strike) working while the center and lower parts of the body play catch up.

The pressure of contact is often maintained to long on the target which has the effect of turning a strike into more of a push and really dulling the amount of internal damage. However, it does have the effect of moving the opponent and so may appear to have a greater effect. Effect yes but damage not so much.

Anyway I bet this will be another failed attempt at explaining this process and the results that can come from it.

It is so much easier to say OK how does this feel? OK now how does this feel? Big difference right?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 18th, 2009, 4:26 pm

January 5th, 2011, 3:43 am #10

dictionary.com says this,
basic
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or forming a base; fundamental: a basic principle; the basic ingredient.

BASIC
noun Computers .
a widely adopted programming language that uses English words, punctuation marks, and algebraic notation to facilitate communication between the operator or lay user and the computer.
Word Origin & History - BASIC
computer language, 1964, acronym for Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code; invented by J.G. Kemeny and T.E.Kurtz.

I see this,

Sets that move through time and space

Stance Set 1, weight transfer, weight distribution, posture, pivoting, establishing balance, mobility, distancing..

Kicking Set 1, weight transfer, achieving balance through stance changes, pivoting, balancing on one foot, chambering the knee (like the elbow in static sets).

Coordination Set 1, weight transfer, synchronizing the upper and lower, balance acquisition through stance changes, natural motions in recognizable patterns, striking and kicking to different heights and depths.

Most common traits, weight transfer and balance issues

Sets that move through time and rely on a stable base

Block Set 1, weight distribution, tension in the legs, relaxed breathing, paths and lines of attack, posture, the elbow as dominant factor of execution.

Strike Set 1, weight distribution, punches and strikes that are done; middle/high, middle/low, linear/circular, through/over, through/under, the elbow as dominant factor of execution.

Finger Set 1, weight distribution, three dimensional striking pattern, tension in the legs, relaxed breathing, focusing on centerline targets, shoulder dominant striking

Most common traits, weight distribution, tension in the legs and relaxed breathing

So a basic language is one that everyone can understand.
A basic motion within a specific sequence of motions can be trained to the point of being a spontaneous reaction. Read Infinite Insights #4, pages 106 to 112 to see what I saw. (we stand on the shoulders of giants)


Training Horse/Fighting Horse/Side Horse/Neutral Bow - Posture and Perspective

Forward Bow/Reverse Bow Posture and Perspective

Wide Kneel/High Wide Kneel Close Kneel/High Close kneel Interpretation and mobility

45 Cat/90 Cat - weight distribution fractions 10/90 30/70

Concave/Diamond sophistication and position Recognition

One Leg tadah!

If were a new born prey animal then I want to get on my feet RIGHT NOW and start to run ASAP.
I might have shaky legs for a while, but I blend in better once I am on my feet.
If I am a white belt student I want to stand behind the Black Belts.
When I am a blue belt student I want to be in the front line.
When I am a brown belt I want to learn by teaching.
Basics are learned best by teaching them.

Sets are the building blocks of what we do.

Clark
Don't forget rhythm!
Quote
Like
Share