delta1

Yes, it is normal for the belt to cross in the back. But there is a way to tie it so it doesn't cross. I don't normally do it this way, but I'll try to explain it any how. Start with one end of the belt in the center of your back and wrap the belt two and a half times around your body, around the left side first, across the front and then right side to the back (clockwise). You'll have to hold the end in place behind your back with your left hand, and as the belt makes the first wrap you hold the end and the belt together behind the back, switching the pinning hand as the belt overlaps in the back and continuing the wrap with the left hand, until there is sufficient wrap that it holds itself (you should be able to let go of the pin in back by the time your left gets to fron center, so you can again change hands and continue the wrap with your right, then with hte left again as you reach center back). After the second wrap, with your left hand pinch all three layers (the two wraps and the loose end) together in the front/middle of your body. Pull out to make a slight gap between the belt and your body. With your right then tuck the loose end under neath and through the gap, then let it fold over the top and hang down in front. Change the pinning hand in front so you pin with your right. Reach to the back with your left and fish out the end you originally pinned there. Pull it down and out and around to the front. You now have two ends in front and in position to finish your tie as normal. You may have to pull on the ends a little to snug the belt, then finish your tie according to your schools protocols. Simplified version: start with one end in the back of your body and wrap the belt two and one half time around your body. Tuck the lose end under, behind, then over the front. Pull the first end out from the back and around to the front. Then make your tie.

On most punches, elbow anchored (kept in and down) and torque the punch at the end. Amount of torque, or rollover of the fist, depends. I like to keep a vertical fist when striking to the head. Striking to the lower abdomen I usually use a reverse, or horizontal fist. But distance also has an effect- the farther out he goes, the more the fist will rotate. There is a strike, very seldom used because it overextends you severely, where the fist rotates past horizontal and ends up vertical again, but palm out. Another variation on fist rotation that I prefer, especially for body shots, is called the 'Diamond Fist'. Your fist is at about 45' when the strike lands. Try holding your arm out, like a punch, and turn your fist back and forth from vertical to 45' to horizontal. Note the difference in tension as you pass through the 45', and also as you stop in the 45'. Uppercuts still have the elbow anchored, but are delivered palm up. As they go higher, I get more body turn and shoulder into the strike. I really prefer to keep my uppercuts low, the elbow not going past my side and my body erect. Roundhouses, the elbow goes up and out, but not too much. Hooks, the elbow snaps out and the fist inverts. All punches are accompanied by a stance change or foot maneuver for power, position and allignment- very few exceptions. A punch should also be a block or a check if possible so that you limmit your exposure/vulnaribility.

All three basic front kicks (straight, side and roundhouse) are extremely useful. Generaly, keep them low- in a fight the abdomen is about as high as I'll go. If you want to kick his head, take out the knees then take the head when it comes down. Snaps are best when exchanging strikes as they are quicker and leave you less exposed to counter tactics. Thrusts work good to finish or incapacitate him after you've set him up. And if you consider knee strikes to be kicks (as I do), they are included here. Powerful, quick, devastating, and as they are thrown in close they are hard to see comeing. Back kicks, hooks, crescents, stomps, scrapes, shovels, scoops, axe kicks..., all are important and useful. But you asked about the most effective, so I went with the big three.

My intro to the martial arts was 'Bruce Tegners' Complete Guide to Self Defense'. How many of you are willing to date yourselves by saying you remember him? Bruce Tegners' books actually weren't too bad, considering that at the time martial arts in the US were still in their infancy. I have to smile when I look back at practicing on my own from a book, but for the era and the limmitations of self study, Mr T did a credable job. I still don't recomend learning from only books and/or videos. But don't completely discount them, either- they can be a great reference, a source of new ideas or different perspectives, and can keep you going if you find yourself temporarily without a school. They are also a great intro for some dumb kid that wants to whup up on the local bully; though the kid will soon figure out he'd best take a board to the bully and enroll in a class.

I'm guessing your problem is more positional- you are facing your opponent more squarely, whereas most martial arts face him at more of an angle, typically about 45'. With the more square on stance, your cross might tend to travel more across your body, which would upset your structural allignment and your ballance. It would also cross your arms and severely overextend past your centerline. Try steping in and turning your body more as you deliver the cross. This will better align you for the strike, and you won't be throwing your arm so much across your own body. The step in will also add power to the strike, and the position change may disorient /disrupt him momentarily, especially if the cross is a followup to anothe strike. You might also get the desired angle with a stance change. Hard to say from just a post, but I hope that helps some.

I'd say striking. But you won't learn either well. Grappling, whether you mean locks or rolling in the dirt, has too many little positional details to really get the hang of it from a book. On the other hand, any one can understand "Make a fist, punch his nose." Actually doing it might be another matter, but you can easily understand the gross concept.

There is a sweet two finger takedown technique using this triangulation point. Start facing your opponent, place the index and middle fingers of your left hand on his forehead as you walk past on his left, then extend your arm as you continue walking and point to his triangulation point as you described it. He'll go over backwards. But you have to walk past at an angle of somewhere around 10'. However, if you are standing at 45' there is another, more effective triangulation point you should use. Similar to the one you described, it is located two equal segments running from his heels to a point of intersection the length of his shinbone behind him. A strike or push aimed through him at this point should unballance him, possibly even put him down. It is harder for him to recover from a strike takeing advantage ofthis point as opposed to the longer point. There are also internal principles that use this point in conjunction with his center of gravity that can unballance an opponent without even touching him. (No, nothing to do with 'chi balls', just the way his central nervouse system works.)

I said very good. Since we are "on the street", let's take a not uncommon on the street scenario. You are in close when the (poo) starts. You know the (butt) is carryig a knife on his right hip. Your priority is that knife- you want it before he gets it. Since I don't do WC, I'll leave out the stance changes and foot work I'd do with this and concentrate on the arm actions. His first strike is a left to your face, his right is droping. Check his right elbow with your left hand as you simultaneously throw a clearing horizontal inward elbow strike at his jaw (clearing because the path of the strike also blocks/checks his left). As the strike travels through, crane his right upper arm with your right upper hand, the left is already low and outside so it is in position to grab the knife. As you reach to grab, your body rotation and the crane on his right arm will turn him slightly to his left, disturbing his ballance and momentarily checking his base. The cross body crane is a check on his arms. This same base move can be modified to work off an upward elbow strike, used to keep him checked as you reach for the knife you are carrying, ... your imagination is the limmit. Not real technical or very pretty, but it works. And it sounds a lot like what the WC guys practice all the time. I'll leave it to one of them to clean up the technique, add their terms and footwork. (They can even delete my parenthesis and insert the proper explatives if they want ) Edit: Just thought I'd add, that's not something I came up with- it's a method taught to some law enforcement agencies. Just FYI.

Go back, tear your forms down and look for the hidden applications. Same with your one steps and self defenses. Look at different ways to apply your basics. Taking another art is fine too, but to make it work you'll have to bring it to your base anyhow, and you will be doing something similar to what I just said. I'd go for a Chinese art with TKD. It will give you a whole different aproach to your base. Grappling arts are a good compliment to any striking art. Or pick one just because you think it would be fun.

Your qi, develope your qi, grasshopper!

Smart ( ! ) answer: I fight in balance, I run in blind panic! I see what you mean (I think). In many movements, there is a point of no return, or a plane that, when crossed, you cannot effectively go back. Your inertia and changing position of your center of mass commit you to that general direction. That is especially true with foot maneuvers that step through and combine with a strike. But still, if you move in ballance, you can alter the maneuver even after that plane is crossed. A hard run is a continued act of overcommitment. It takes more time to stop from a sprint than a walk, and corners round off more with direction changes as speed increases. Also, in a run, you pick up your feet more. In the martial arts, we usually don't pick up our feet unless to do something dasterdly, like kick him. And my body stays erect, not leaning forward, even when I move forward. Your example of a run is a good extreme example to make a point, but thinking about that kind of overcommitment in a fight makes me cringe.

Oh boy! Here we go with terminology/semantics again! OK, when you talk about intent, it can have many meanings and applications. My intent may be to beat you to a pulp. But I can accomplish that by regulating speed, motion, maneuvers, any of the concepts inherent in application of techniques. I would (hopefully) not use the kind of commitment you are talking about unles I've set you up for the shot to where it is highly unlikely you could take my ballance. In fact, I don't like those overcommited type strikes regardless of the situation. Overcommitment robs ballance and so robs power, effectively nullifying your intent any how. And stretching, commited strikes are dangerouse for the reasons you point out. Do a foot maneuver, get in close, strike with as much or more power, and smell the fear as you work out your intent! But whatever you do, allways keep you balance and the option to quickly reestablish your base! By the way, I'm speaking East Texas Drawl English, modified by Pacific Northwest Bland English. Your California Colofrful English is just a little foreign, though I did three tours of duty there in the service.

OK, I think we are arguing semantics a little here. If I get you right, say you move through a cat in your transition. It is a weaker stance because of its narrower base. Therefore you are not in as stable a position at that moment. Right? My point is that you are still in ballance, though not as stable in the stance. You also must consider the effects of motion when talking about stability, so it's not as bad as you think. By the way, the top was intended as an example of inertia and the gyroscopic effect, not an analogy. These physical forces are at work as you move also, but admittedly not quite the same (unless you are a Whirling Dirvish ). Any way, we apparently aren't too far off on anything but our terminology. Moving through a narrow stance, like a twist or cat, is momentarily less stable but still in ballance.

Not really. Sorry. Every stance has a weak direction where you can be pushed off ballance. You are actually more stable moving in ballance because, if pushed, you can change direction. Also, movement has inertia, which must be overcome. Look at the twist stance, which is very narrow based and unstable if you get stuck there. But as you rotate and settle in or move out you are somewhat more stable. Think of a top- ever try to ballance one on its tip? But give it a spin,and the gyroscopic effect goes to work, and the thing will stand itself up. In rotational motion you momentarily make use of this effect to add stability. You can only take advantage of his unballancing if he unballances, or moves out of ballance. I think what you are getting at here is more taking advantage of his momentum and leverage against an extended limb. You can redirect, deflect, strike, push, pull, or any number of things to unballance him. And the more he commits or extends, the easier it will be for you to take his ballance. But the better he moves in ballance, the harder it will be, and the quicker he will regain ballance and neutralize your positional advantage. You are right that timeing is extremely important, but don't confuse the physical forces you take advantage of with a lack of ballance. Of course, if he does move out of ballance, take maximum advantage. Yes, transition implies movement, and movement is necessary to apply force in generating power. But it only works if you pay attention to your basics. One of the most important of those basics is maintaining ballance.

Treebranch, it sounds like you are saying that you move out of ballance, and are only in ballance before and after you move. What style teaches that? That would make your stances more like a stationary platform from which you move only your arms and legs until it is safe to reposition. Otherwise, if you are moving out of ballance, you end up lunging ineffectively from one position to the next, with no structural integrety or coordination and little power. Just lunging forward doesn't give power to a strike. Body allignment, structural integrety, nailing the stance at the same time the strike lands- all the basics work with the principles to maximise power, and ballance is a major key in applying the basics and transmitting power. It's difficult to coordinate anything if you are lunging or plunging, and flailing to regain ballance destroys allignment and integrety. If you move in ballance, you should be able to change direction in mid step, change targets in mid strike, change stances at will, and all with speed and power.

I'm too sober to even give that much thought! I shudder to think...!!! Is taking up bowling an option?

Ballance is a key to not only generating power, but to movement in general, and an upright posture is key to ballance in most styles. Go back to the three main power principles: torque, backup mass, and marriage of gravity. These relate to the three dimensions of a physical object, like you. Your body has width, depth, and height. You can also move in those three dimensions; ie sideways, forward and back, up and down. The three main power principles are simply used by moving properly in those dimensions. Torque changes your width in relation to his center line, it alters your side to side profile from his perspective. From some grabs, if you can step sideways as you turn into your opponent, you can upset his balance and give yourself room to work. Rotating your body with a punch, also with a fist rotation at the end of the punch, gets torque into play in multiple planes. Backup Mass works in depth as you move toward or away from your opponent. Steping in as you hit adds momentum to your strike, while steping out can increase the effects of a pull. Marriage of Gravity works in height. Even just the settling into a stance as the strike lands adds power by allowing you to hit with the whole body. More obviously, settling your weight into a downward elbow strike gives a lot more power than just 'winging' the strike. Upward motion also can use this principle, as you effect his base. What goes up, must come down. Unweight him, and he must reestablish his base before he can effectively move in ballance. These examples are way oversimplified, but the point is that you have to move to generate power. And to move effectively, you have to keep your ballance. No ballance, no real power.

Some real butts, obviously!

Can't add much to what Shorinryu Sensei said, it is good advice. Look at this as a training opportunity, not as a competition. You're going to loose, but you are also going to learn. And try to act without conscious thought. That will be a little difficult for you at only a year, but the goal is to not have to plan your moves. As you've seen, by the time you think about what you are going to do, it is too late. The moves just have to come. It will be difficult to commit at first, but you'll get the hang of it.

Hard contact with the radial side of the arm can expose the radial nerve to dammage. You can deaden the nerve, but you can't condition it. I'm not sure I want to deaden nerves. Hard blocks with the arm twisted out so the radius is to the outside can also put a lot of strain on the elbow. At 50 you tend to notice things like that a lot quicker. He's got about a thousand applications for everything! But he likes for us to work things out also, instead of just feeding us all the time. But you are right, I will run this all by him as soon as I'm ready. Any way, thanks for the info.

Actually, I find it easier to initiate movement from the waist. But that is the great thing about Kenpo/Kempo, most of it is extremely adaptable to the individual.

BtL, I can think of a couple of women I've worked with that I'd be tempted to let the jerk take 'em away. Problem is, every time a BG successfully pulls something like this off, he gets a little more sure of himself, a little less nervouse, and a lot more dangerouse. Just one more thing to consider, though in that moment I doubt I'd be thinking about it in those terms.

Well, yes, that was part of Mr Parkers genious, cataloguing principles and concepts, defining motion, and putting it all in terms westerners could easily understand. Mr Parker very effectively married the concepts of several different systems. He authored the techniques that are the vehicle for teaching those concepts and principles. But I don't think anyone, least of all Ed Parker, claimed to have invented the moves. Not too surprising that AK bears some similarity to Chinese and Okinawan arts, since Mr Parker assimilated some of the Okinawan systems, as well as some Japanese, into AK. His base was Chuan Fa, and he also studied Taiji, so thre is a lot of CMA influence in AK. Movement should start at the waist, right behind the tan tien. Power could arguably be said to come from the ground up (and now I've said it, I'm sure someone will want to argue about it ). Is that what you were thinking of? I'm pretty sure Bruce Lee's one inch punch used movement originating from the waist.

John G, thanks. That was a very interesting article, and a lot of good info. I always blamed hours of practicing blocks in a horse stance for those anoying bad habits I had (and still have to) overcome. Practicing from a horse, everything tends to go across your body on a 9:00/3:00 axis. Then there is a tendency to continue that from a fighting stance, since that is how you've drilled it. But, as the article pointed out, those 90' blocks can be dangerouse to the blocker. There are other advantages to blocking with the 'double bone method' (that's a good term for it)- the article pointed out safety and anatomical strength, but also it provides more of an angle of disturbance and an another angle of deflection, and more torque at the end of the block. Thanks for the reply.

Agreed, and I'd add to Jerry's comments that you need a full arsenal of natural weapons and a solid grounding in self defense techniques. Also, the art you need should have a realistic potential for quickly destroying an opponent. I'm talking about killing, maiming, destroying joints, and every 'dirty' trick in the book. With all that in mind, I'd recomend American Kenpo.It's a reality based art, excellent for the 'street'. Extremely mobile, emphasizes relative positioning, a lot of stand up grappling, trains all natural weapons and all ranges, and is known for both its effective self defense techniques and its potential brutality and devastation.