Notation: Targeting I

In which I lay out some preliminary ideas regarding the specification of targets.

I've reached the point where I need to transcribe some things which don't make sense without a way to denote a target, which means that it's probably time for us to tackle targeting notation. Rather than being a discussion of what bits of the human body make an effective target, which I've done a little bit of work on in the past (1, 2, 3, 4), this is going to focus on how to describe where on the body a blow should be aimed. Additionally, I'm going to set aside considerations of concrete notation for the moment and consider how we might specify a target from a more theoretical standpoint.

The other day, when I was asking an instructor "Where is this directed?", he answered "Oh, probably 23 and 24", referring to Ren Meridian points 23 and 24¹. Which got me thinking about using acupuncture points as the basis for a general targeting system.

Acupuncture points have some properties which would make them useful for the purposes of targeting: they're standardized (more or less), widely known, and each ones specifies a very specific bit of the human anatomy. Counter to this, however, are the following drawbacks:

1. Acupuncture points are too specific. The Ren Meridian, for example, has twenty-some points often spaced out no more than a few inches from each other. That's more resolution than is necessary or useful.
2. The meridian system as a whole is very complex, in part because there are just so many individual points. This would make the system difficult to memorize, which runs counter to our overall goal of creating an accessible notation system which can be used by students of all levels.
3. They provide incomplete coverage. While there are lots of points which correspond to typical targets there are also some obvious targets (like the inside/outside of the knee) which have no corresponding acupuncture point.

With regards to item 1, we want whatever targeting system we adopt to be lower resolution than the meridian system. It seems to me that a natural way to accomplish this would be to move away from conceptualizing targets as specific points and towards imagining them as two-dimensional areas. Adopting such an approach would also reduce (considerably vs. the meridian system) the number of items which have to be memorized, thus promoting general ease-of-use.

Building a system from the ground up, however, should be avoided if possible. Not only are we reinventing the wheel but it prevents us from partaking of any of the benefits of the meridian system such as standardization and distribution. So, I then asks myself, are there any pre-existing systems which have the properties we're looking for?

NASA to the rescue!

NASA didn't invent the terminology, but they're real good at making it accessible to non-medical types (like us dumb engineers). I like "Figure 3.1.2-5 Illustrative view of Body Segments and Planes of Segmentation in particular because it approximates (mostly) how I mentally divide the body into regions for the purposes of targeting.

Now, some questions for discussion:

• Is it helpful to adopt the Latinate medical terminology? I'm going to say "no" here. I don't think its particularly burdensome to expect people to learn a few unfamiliar words; "ventral" isn't any more unusual than "dan tien". However, every MA system I've ever encountered already uses "front", "back"/"rear", "inner", and "outer" for the same purpose. Introducing another set of terms without any incremental benefit makes no sense.
• Is the existing system suitable for MA applications? Almost; I think we'll need to subdivide the abdominal, thorax, and head segments a bit, but apart from that we're good.

So here's what I propose:

• "Front", "back", "inner", and "outer" have their customary meanings.
• In the case of the arms/hands, where orientation can be a little ambiguous, I suggest that we standardize on the relaxed/natural position i.e. finger-tips down, thumbs forward.
• "Left" and "right" are interpreted from the performer's perspective.
• We'll refer to "joints" rather than "planes".
• Unless otherwise noted every segment and joint has inner, outer, front, and back regions.
• Segments with special subdivisions:
• The head has the following subdivisions: front, back, top, bottom (i.e. underside of the jaw), left, and right.
• The thorax is divided vertically into thirds: Left, right, and midline. Each of these are divided horizontally into an "upper" and "lower" division. The usual modifiers (front, back, etc.) apply where meaningful.
• The abdomen is divided vertically into thirds like the thorax. The usual modifiers apply where meaningful.

How does that sound?

---

1 Incidentally, this is really the only complaint that I have with my new studio. A lot of the upper ranks seem to be very much into Chinese Traditional Medicine, to which my only rejoinder is "Ummm... no". If I were a better person I'd call them out on it, but I suspect I should hold off on that until I've at least been there for a couple of months...