# Checking the Storm...



## kenpo3631

In the mid eighties I learned Checking the Storm with a front chicken kick. 

Why was it changed from the original way it was taught (besides creativity from an EP Student...heard that one already:shrug: )?

In the current version, how many people deliver the side kick to the opponent's left leg and why? :asian:


----------



## Kirk

I  learned it as a left kick to the groin followed by a right knife 
edge kick to the inside of the attacker's right knee.


----------



## Rob_Broad

By kicking their the attackers leg knee you are cancelling their height and lower their hed for the ensuing backfist.  The backfist will be stronger if it strikes parallel to the ground and even stronger if travelling diagoanlly downward than it would if it had to strike up to the attackers head.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *I  learned it as a left kick to the groin followed by a right knife
> edge kick to the inside of the attacker's right knee. *


Is there anyone out there that does *not* and why?


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rob_Broad _
> 
> *By kicking their the attackers leg knee you are cancelling their height and lower their hed for the ensuing backfist.  The backfist will be stronger if it strikes parallel to the ground and even stronger if travelling diagoanlly downward than it would if it had to strike up to the attackers head. *





> By kicking their the attackers leg knee you are cancelling their height and lower their hed for the ensuing backfist.


  Okay....WHICH leg do you mean?:asian:


----------



## Rob_Broad

I should have stated kicking their left leg with your right side kick.  If you were to kick somehow kick the right knee with your right side kick you could accidentally cause their head to snap into you on the way down.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rob_Broad _
> 
> *By kicking their the attackers leg knee you are cancelling their height and lower their hed for the ensuing backfist.  The backfist will be stronger if it strikes parallel to the ground and even stronger if travelling diagoanlly downward than it would if it had to strike up to the attackers head. *





> By kicking their the attackers leg knee you are cancelling their height and lower their hed for the ensuing backfist.



Depending on which leg you are talking about...:rofl:  You would also cancel out the opponent's width by cross checking him.



> The backfist will be stronger if it strikes parallel to the ground and even stronger if travelling diagoanlly downward than it would if it had to strike up to the attackers head. [/B]



Yes, the backnuckle would be stronger but you forgot a key ingredient if you use it that way...Marriage with Gravity. The opponent's head should "ideally" be right in line for the backnuckle anyway. It is set up with the first kick. Hee hee, that is if he is still standing after the groin shot..... :rofl:


----------



## Mace

Quick question for everyone,
 How many people actually swing a club the way the attack is written? I know my shoulder can't take it personally.
Respectfully,
Mace


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *Quick question for everyone,
> How many people actually swing a club the way the attack is written? I know my shoulder can't take it personally.
> Respectfully,
> Mace *





> How many people actually swing a club the way the attack is written?



I know it is not polite to answer a question with a question, but how many people actually think the attacker will stop after the over head club????


----------



## jfarnsworth

The way we practice it in our class is after the overhead club the arm bounces back when the stick hits the ground then travels horizontally. Basically overhead club to inward horizontal club attack. Just a thought for everyone.
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rob_Broad _
> 
> *I should have stated kicking their left leg with your right side kick.  If you were to kick somehow kick the right knee with your right side kick you could accidentally cause their head to snap into you on the way down. *



Sorry about that Rob. I replied a little faster to the previous post than you did.

I have to disagree with you on that point though. By kicking the left leg you can send your opponent into a negative orbit causing possible unintentional harm to yourself. If he falls the line to your groin is wide open...:erg: 

Just food for thought...:asian:


----------



## Rob_Broad

He can fall to your groin, but not if you close your line by extending the leg  and rolling your hip inward.  This is going to come down to the semantics fo how big the attacker and the defender are.  I am not a tal person so it is easier for me to close my line than it is for a taller person.


----------



## kenpo3631

But if you cross check him your body is already in position to check off the unintentional attack. No need to roll anything.


How do you roll the hip by the way? Just turn the foot inboard?


----------



## Rob_Broad

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *But if you cross check him your body is already in position to check off the unintentional attack. No need to roll anything.
> 
> 
> How do you roll the hip by the way? Just turn the foot inboard? *



And if you retain the attacking arm at the hand as it is still holding the club you can control the attacker as he drops, again it comes down to your personal kenpo, the techniques must be tailored to fit the individual.  Since I am a smaller guy Iwould rather keep a little distance between the attacker and me until the final strike.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rob_Broad _
> 
> *
> 
> And if you retain the attacking arm at the hand as it is still holding the club you can control the attacker as he drops, again it comes down to your personal kenpo, the techniques must be tailored to fit the individual.  Since I am a smaller guy Iwould rather keep a little distance between the attacker and me until the final strike. *






> And if you retain the attacking arm at the hand as it is still holding the club you can control the attacker as he drops



I  was hoping that both of his hands would grab for his groin after the first kick. Besides won't he be bent over in the first place if you kick him in the groin. If so you won't have a hand to hold on to and the club _should_ be out the picture....."ideally"


----------



## Mace

Hey Lance,
 When I originally learned the tech, it was an overhead attack that continued into an inward attack. So to answer your question, I don't think that the attacker would stop after the first swing. To answer my question, I also don't think any attacker would come straight overhead with the first strike. Put a stick (foam hopefully  ) into a white belts hand and ask them to take a shot at your head. I'm willing to bet it'll be on a 45. 
Respectfully,
Mace (who's gonna jam em and not wait for the big piece of wood to find me stepping away)


----------



## Seig

Kenpo 3631 brought up a good point when he said *ideally*.  Remember that when we are teaching a new student Checking the Storm, we are teaching in the ideal phase.  The more advanced student would start kicking around the what if stage as we are predominantly doing here.  Then as they progress, the move onto the formulation phase, which is a lot of what we seem to be doing here.
   Just to use an example of how I teach the technique:
  Step out to 1:30 with the right foot while parrying with the right hand.  Slide into a 45 Degree Cat as you execute a left EOB.  Execute a left fron kick to the groin and follow with a right knife edge kick to the groin.
  Now depending on the distance and the elvel of the practioner involved after the left front kick is delivered, i may have them change the weapon to a right twist kick.  In both instances,if they are close enough to the attacker, I have them follow up with a downward/diagonal back fist to the temple/or mastoid.


----------



## Mace

Hi Seig,
 That's about how I have the tech for the ideal phase, too. But I've found pretty much anything after the ideal, and you are getting whacked with a stick, whether to the left shin/thigh, left OEB, or right side of the head. Just what I've found when picking up the pace of the club for realism. 
Respectfully,
Mace


----------



## Klondike93

Checking the Storm

1.  Step with your right foot to 3 o'clock into a left cat stance. Your left hand is covering high and your right hand is covering your solar plexus.

2.  Execute a left front snap kick to your attacker's groin.

3.  Plant your left foot into a left front twist stance with a right side snap kick to attacker's right knee.

4.  Land forward into a right neutral bow with a right outward back-knuckle to attacker's temple.

This is the Ideal phase.  I was also taught one time to do it with a chicken kick, one to the left knee cap and the other to the groin.

So my question now would be, what would you do with it coming in at a 45, or horizontally? Evading the Storm or Calming the Storm? 


:asian:


----------



## Mace

Hey Klondike,
 I'd probably go with calming the storm to get to the inside of the attack and just guard and tuck the head more. I wouldn't recommend evading if you were taught to step up to 10:30, you'll be stepping right into the orbit of most people's swing. If you were taught to go back on a 45, its slightly better but should be executed quickly.  That's my thought, anyway.
Respectfully,
Mace


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> 
> *Kenpo 3631 brought up a good point when he said ideally.  Remember that when we are teaching a new student Checking the Storm, we are teaching in the ideal phase.  The more advanced student would start kicking around the what if stage as we are predominantly doing here.  Then as they progress, the move onto the formulation phase, which is a lot of what we seem to be doing here.
> Just to use an example of how I teach the technique:
> Step out to 1:30 with the right foot while parrying with the right hand.  Slide into a 45 Degree Cat as you execute a left EOB.  Execute a left fron kick to the groin and follow with a right knife edge kick to the groin.
> Now depending on the distance and the elvel of the practioner involved after the left front kick is delivered, i may have them change the weapon to a right twist kick.  In both instances,if they are close enough to the attacker, I have them follow up with a downward/diagonal back fist to the temple/or mastoid. *





> Kenpo 3631 brought up a good point when he said *ideally*.  Remember that when we are teaching a new student Checking the Storm, we are teaching in the ideal phase.



Exactly Seig. What I wanted to see in this thread was the cummulative  understanding of the body position of the opponent in relationship to the delivery of the kicks and strikes.



> The more advanced student would start kicking around the what if stage as we are predominantly doing here.



This is also true. However the "ideal" phase must be taught correctly and understood to properly go about seeking solutions to the "what if's".  I by NO means have all the answers, heck I only have a few. But again it has been stressed to me that the "ideal" must be thorough.



> Just to use an example of how I teach the technique: Step out to 1:30 with the right foot while parrying with the right hand.  Slide into a 45 Degree Cat as you execute a left EOB.  Execute a left fron kick to the groin and follow with a right knife edge kick to the groin.



Can I point out one thing with this Seig? In this version you are walking into your opponent's back up weapon. that is why it is taught with a step out to 3 o'clock. Granted it is still not the safest place for the defender, but it gives some distance from the back up weapon. 
Someone had mentioned before holding on to the opponent's wrist as you deliver the kick to the knee. Again ideally, if you plant that first kick you should be successful in getting the opponent to drop the club.

Anyway there are many variable...this is just food for thought...:asian:


----------



## Scott Bonner

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> Again ideally, if you plant that first kick you should be successful in getting the opponent to drop the club. [/B]



Would that really be true?  I don't associate getting struck in the groin with opening my hand.  If anything, my childhood memories involve rolling around with hands tightly clenched across my tummy.    

I don't remember now what Sensei taught me that first time, but when I do the tech now I do the outward block turning into a wrist grab, keep their right hand dead while doing the other stuff, then disarm as I cross out (shift grip to club, strike up on bad guy's wrist to open grip), just in case they still have the club in hand.

As to whether it is realistic to have someone strike directly from above, I have no problem doing the strike and can see how one could put MoG into it, and there are different techniques for different striking angles.  And, I've seen Sensei do the thing with giving a beginner a stick and seeing how they attack; they attacked with an overhand club.  So, it seems like a good idea to keep to the book when first learning the tech.

Personally, I'd have done a baseball swing to the knees, but he didn't ask me.  

Besides that, techs disappear in application eventually, right?  It all becomes formulation once we've learned the how and why.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Scott Bonner _
> 
> *
> 
> Would that really be true?  I don't associate getting struck in the groin with opening my hand.  If anything, my childhood memories involve rolling around with hands tightly clenched across my tummy.
> 
> I don't remember now what Sensei taught me that first time, but when I do the tech now I do the outward block turning into a wrist grab, keep their right hand dead while doing the other stuff, then disarm as I cross out (shift grip to club, strike up on bad guy's wrist to open grip), just in case they still have the club in hand.
> 
> As to whether it is realistic to have someone strike directly from above, I have no problem doing the strike and can see how one could put MoG into it, and there are different techniques for different striking angles.  And, I've seen Sensei do the thing with giving a beginner a stick and seeing how they attack; they attacked with an overhand club.  So, it seems like a good idea to keep to the book when first learning the tech.
> 
> Personally, I'd have done a baseball swing to the knees, but he didn't ask me.
> 
> Besides that, techs disappear in application eventually, right?  It all becomes formulation once we've learned the how and why. *





> I do the outward block turning into a wrist grab, keep their right hand dead while doing the other stuff, then disarm as I cross out (shift grip to club, strike up on bad guy's wrist to open grip), just in case they still have the club in hand.



I originally learned it that way too... 



> And, I've seen Sensei do the thing with giving a beginner a stick and seeing how they attack; they attacked with an overhand club.  So, it seems like a good idea to keep to the book when first learning the tech.





That's just it. Many martial artists get taught this idea that they are the "karate guy" and that their opponent knows nothing. Did the beginner stop after he was finished with the overhead attack? If he did, it was probably because he didn't know what else to do after that.  Will the experience fighter in the street do the same thing? probably not as you expressed later in your post:





> Personally, I'd have done a baseball swing to the knees, but he didn't ask me.



My personal feeling is, if you are going to teach students, then teach them realistically. Explain to them that the overhead attack ain't all that's coming. Know what I mean...


----------



## donald

I've been taught this technique with the front snap, and right knife edge, but we end it a little differently. Ideally, as we land into the r.neutral we execute the r.back knuckle while we've maintained our hold on the attackers wrist, as the back knuckle lands we're sliding down the wrist, and snapping the club out of their hand, double cross out, and fini ... Sound familar to anyone?

Salute:asian:


----------



## Blindside

Last winter I was working out with an AK instructor who also teaches Doce Pares escrima.  He told us the tech was originally designed for a club attack, and said that he teaches for a right hook.  (Implication is that he doesn't like this tech for a club.)

He taught it with the front kick to the groin, knife edge to the left knee, while holding onto the opp wrist to push/pull them into the backfist.

Donald,

how are you snapping the club out of their hand?  Is your left hand on the club itself?  If so why not torque the club to the outside of the opp body, and as you are stepping out, slam your right forearm onto the back of the opp hand/wrist to pop open the hand.  I dunno, just an idea.  (And hey, I just repeated what Scott said...., great minds think alike :shrug

Lamont


----------



## Klondike93

> _Originally posted by donald _
> 
> *I've been taught this technique with the front snap, and right knife edge, but we end it a little differently. Ideally, as we land into the r.neutral we execute the r.back knuckle while we've maintained our hold on the attackers wrist, as the back knuckle lands we're sliding down the wrist, and snapping the club out of their hand, double cross out, and fini ... Sound familar to anyone?
> 
> Salute:asian: *



As I practice it I tend to keep my left hand on the attacking arm checking it. I don't like to have an attackers weapon waving around at me.

:asian:


----------



## Scott Bonner

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> My personal feeling is, if you are going to teach students, then teach them realistically. Explain to them that the overhead attack ain't all that's coming. Know what I mean... [/B]



Sure.  That would come in the "what if" stage, I think.  First, we learn in the ideal stage, to set the motion.  Then, we deal with the "what if" possibilities, including following through with more attacks.  Finally, we move beyond into formulation, which is still vague to me.

Seems to me that if all you do is techniques as written in the book, you are only learning one small piece of the system.  The techniques as written are just a teaching tool, a means to an end, and only the first step in learning self defense.  That's why one doesn't want to learn from tapes alone.

You are asking for the next step.  Of course that teaching will happen.  It may happen immediately, starting the "what if" process when the tech is first taught, or it may come later, depending on what the student is ready for.

So, let's try the what-if part and see how crazy this gets over the internet.

Which follow-through are you thinking needs to be analyzed?  Assuming they started with the overhead club, then in the first move of the tech the club is neutralized, more or less, as that arm is blocked and held.  What is the follow through (presumably already on the way as the club is being blocked), so we can come up with ways to deal with it?

Or, do you want to assume the first move of the tech was a botch and the club is still live?  If so, how did we keep it from hitting us?  Or are we now too busy crying and bleeding to handle the follow-through anyway?   

As another side note, which means of stopping an overhead club is better suited to dealing with follow-through?
1)  the parry then block and grab of Checking the Storm, leaving one of your hands dead (with the opponent's) and another hand live for defense or 
2) the x-block and evasion of obstructing the storm, leaving one hand dead but both of your hands busy with the next move but also putting your opponents body between you and most of his/her weapons.

Understand, I don't know if I can help all that much in answering these questions.  I'm just a purple belt, ya know?


----------



## Scott Bonner

Kenpo3631,

I just looked at your profile and found out that you are way ahead of me on training.  I suspect I didn't understand your questions, 'cause I'm sure you already know everything I said.  I'm posting this note so you don't take my longer note above as being disrespectful in some way.


----------



## Rob_Broad

Mr. Bonner

I just read your last 2 posts.  The first was was very well put together and very insightful.  May I suggest you not deferr to people just because they are a higher rank.  We all are just students regardless of what color we wear around our waist.  You may have a different way of looking at the same thing and that might just be the little bit we all missed, overlooked, or forgot about.

Most instructors learn as much from their students as the students learn from them.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Scott Bonner _
> 
> *Kenpo3631,
> 
> I just looked at your profile and found out that you are way ahead of me on training.  I suspect I didn't understand your questions, 'cause I'm sure you already know everything I said.  I'm posting this note so you don't take my longer note above as being disrespectful in some way. *



Scott, 
I am far from knowing everything that is for sure...

When I teach my students I teach they attack as an overhead club w/ a roundhouse change up. I feel that chances are that the guy picked up a club because he has some knowledge on how to use it. I then proceed to show them the technique. I have never had a confused student yet 

They do have an appreciation for the attacker and what he might be able to do and don't get into the "I know karate so I am invincible " mentality.

I think that giving students that "what if" gives them a sense of reality when training. Because you know as well as I do the club won't stop after the first swing if given a chance.

As for holding the opponent's arm after the front kick...I did the first move of this technique on someone in an actual confrontation recently and when the kick landed....he dropped the club and fell to the ground in pain.... I've been told Mr. Parker used to say (not verbatim by the way)..."If you gotta hit a man more than three times in a fight you are doing something wrong."

I suggest you do the technique as taught in the studio you study in. There is nothing wrong in the way anyone interperets the techniques as long as you follow the rules of Kenpo.

:asian:


----------



## Mace

SB,
 I have to agree with Mr Broad here, you asked some very good questions that everyone could benifit from. We are all here to learn.
 The what if's for techs are virtually endless, but here is where I've gone with checking the storm. What if the attacker has a clue about using the club or puts some speed and authority behind his strikes. I've found with a foam club ( much to my dismay) that almost all the time if your attacker is running even mildly realistic with the overhead and then inward strike you are going to get hit. Hard. And it stings with the foam club, forget it being a real stick or bottle. Now some may argue that stepping off to 3 and firing out the kick will negate the club, but I haven't seen it done at good speeds without the defender getting whacked with the stick. Just my findings, take em for what they are worth.
 As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.
Respectfully,
Mace


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Rob_Broad _
> 
> *Mr. Bonner
> 
> I just read your last 2 posts.  The first was was very well put together and very insightful.  May I suggest you not deferr to people just because they are a higher rank.  We all are just students regardless of what color we wear around our waist.  You may have a different way of looking at the same thing and that might just be the little bit we all missed, overlooked, or forgot about.
> 
> Most instructors learn as much from their students as the students learn from them. *



Well put Rob...


----------



## Rob_Broad

As I like to put it, "we are all just glorified white belts"


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *SB,
> I have to agree with Mr Broad here, you asked some very good questions that everyone could benifit from. We are all here to learn.
> The what if's for techs are virtually endless, but here is where I've gone with checking the storm. What if the attacker has a clue about using the club or puts some speed and authority behind his strikes. I've found with a foam club ( much to my dismay) that almost all the time if your attacker is running even mildly realistic with the overhead and then inward strike you are going to get hit. Hard. And it stings with the foam club, forget it being a real stick or bottle. Now some may argue that stepping off to 3 and firing out the kick will negate the club, but I haven't seen it done at good speeds without the defender getting whacked with the stick. Just my findings, take em for what they are worth.
> As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.
> Respectfully,
> Mace *





> As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.



The "X" block is a thread all in its own... 

However, if used it is a great transitional way of rerouting the overhead club. 

I don't really care for the Technique just b/c both my hands are up in the air (violates the high/low theory) and leaves my body wide open for a possible strike with one of my opponents back up weapons.:asian:


----------



## Scott Bonner

Bringing in the overhead and switching to a round at the last second wouldn't require much modification at all, I would think.  If you can think fast enough, then move on to something like the beginning of Calming the Storm.  It's good to whack the bad guy a half beat sooner.  In any case, staying with Cheking the Storm should still be possible, but I'd think you would have to move to 1:30 instead of 3 (as debated earlier), because if you move too far away from a roundhouse it will be hard to control the hand.  (With the deflect and block against the overhead strike, you are controlling the path of the club more and can then grab the wrist more easily.)  Grabbing the wrist may have to be skipped if you move to 3.  No big loss, if the kicks work.  The biggest question is can you stop the force of the club with that left hand block without being knocked off the relatively weak base as you are trying to move to a cat stance.  Good timing would solve that, I'd think.

Now, if they do the switchup from overhead to a strike from the side, roundhouse style but lower on the body like to the ribs or lower body, then being faked into putting your hands high will be very bad for you -- good luck getting those hands down to the lower body again.  The only thing that comes to mind then is to either keep stepping out of range (instead of the cat) which puts you more on the defensive and doesn't help at all, or shooting yourself forward inside the arc of the club with an attack, say a vert fist to face or, if you are quick enough, a strike to the throat (don't go for eyes -- the hand that flies up to the face will have a stick in it!).  Neither option directly negates the club.  Neither seems satisfactory to me.

Any other options for if you are faked, hands high and moving back into a cat to either 1:30 or 3, and the course of the club detours to the lower body, maybe moving ahead of the hands?

If there is a tech that covers this later in the system, just tell me the name and I'll watch for it when I get up that far.

As to stopping a club fast enough, I think it would all depend on reaction time.  Compare the time it takes to do a powerful overhead club, from start (as soon as it can be "read") until actual contact to the time it takes to do the parry before the block in Checking the Storm.  Obviously, the parry will be faster.  The question is, will training make my reaction time faster than the difference?  Not yet.  But, there are lots of things that I don't move fast enough to stop yet.  In all of them, I am hoping to become fast enough to eventually deal with them.

As for power of the strike, Checking the Storm seems to be more about re-directing the course of the club than stopping it.  One doesn't have to use that much force to parry.  The strength of the club strike is less important than trajectory and how much read time you get.  Compare, if you will, a flying side kick.  It's gonna smack the crap out of you if it hits straight on.  So, take the extra read time to get out of the way, redirect, etc, and all that power is spent on air.  Same idea, I think, just redirecting circular motion (in this case easily re-directable circular motion, as opposed to the circular motion in a roundhouse kick) instead of linear motion.

As to the x-block, whether you get whacked in the head depends on where on their wrist/hand you block, but, yes, there is that uncomfortable open feeling with both hands in the air.  More importantly, Obstructing the storm includes moving off-center while you do the x-block, so that by the time you make contact, your head is already out of the line of travel for the club.  That's one thing I like about the technique: it teaches me to evade when doing an x-block instead of trying to go straight in like when practicing from a horse stance.


----------



## kenpo3631

> In any case, staying with Cheking the Storm should still be possible, but I'd think you would have to move to 1:30 instead of 3 (as debated earlier), because if you move too far away from a roundhouse it will be hard to control the hand.



Your opponent has many weapons to include two arms and two legs. If you step to 1:30 you are walking into the opponents back up weapon. 



> (With the deflect and block against the overhead strike, you are controlling the path of the club more and can then grab the wrist more easily.)



Imagine the club was a machette. Would you want to *try* to grab your opponents wrist if he was using a machette? I use this analogy with my students to make them move out of the line of attack of the club. 



> Grabbing the wrist may have to be skipped if you move to 3. No big loss, if the kicks work.



There is no need to grab the wrist. Sure if it is there then fine, grab it  I guess. The kick is in the technique to act as a buffer to slow your attacker down. Of course you would leave the left hand up as a position check.




> The biggest question is can you stop the force of the club with that left hand block without being knocked off the relatively weak base as you are trying to move to a cat stance.



Why would you want to stop the force of the club directly by blocking it? Have you ever been hit with a billy club or escrima stick? Just a light rap usually does it for most. The key is to "move the target" (move the weapon, move the target, move both). Get out of the way and kick him in the yah yah's. Remember this is a beginners technique.



> Now, if they do the switchup from overhead to a strike from the side, roundhouse style but lower on the body like to the ribs or lower body, then being faked into putting your hands high will be very bad for you -- good luck getting those hands down to the lower body again.



If the overhead club attack is delivered by a "commited person" (comitted to the attack), then he should have to re-cock his weapon to hit you with roundhouse change up, giving you some read time. The whole key is for the opponent to commit to the attack.

A crucial key to making kenpo work is to have a good training partner. If they commit to the attack many of the what if's are eliminated because the technique actually works!  On the other hand if they over commit then you open up a whole new can of worms as far as what if's go.:asian:


----------



## Scott Bonner

How do you get this website to post in pieces like that?  I'll put Kenpo3631's comments in quotes and then reply.

"Your opponent has many weapons to include two arms and two legs. If you step to 1:30 you are walking into the opponents back up weapon."

I haven't tried it on a body, so maybe 3 would work as well.

"Imagine the club was a machette. Would you want to try to grab your opponents wrist if he was using a machette? I use this analogy with my students to make them move out of the line of attack of the club. "

With the parry and block, you do move out of the way, as well, since you are shooting over to that cat stance.  And, yes, I see the wrist grab as a nice bonus, not a requirement.

"Why would you want to stop the force of the club directly by blocking it? Have you ever been hit with a billy club or escrima stick? Just a light rap usually does it for most. The key is to "move the target" (move the weapon, move the target, move both). Get out of the way and kick him in the yah yah's. Remember this is a beginners technique."

I was just thinking about the problems with continuing to do the tech as written, except against a roundhouse.  The tech calls for a left hand block, so I assumed a left hand block.  The changed orbit of the strike makes the block less of a deflection and more force-on-force -- which may argue for not using a block against a roundhouse club unless you are also moving forward, as in Calming the Storm.  The block would not be to the stick itself, of course, but to the forearm.  I was also thinking that the instability of the cat stance would be greater with force coming from the side (as opposed to coming from above in the written technique).

No, I haven't been hit by an escrima stick, but I don't have to get hit with the stick.  If the stick hits, I failed.

That it is a beginners tech may be why it is written for overhead club instead of roundhouse club -- it's easier to deal with overhead than round.

Didn't you say you teach your students that the attack is a roundhouse club?  How do you teach them to deal with it?  Or was that someone else?

"If the overhead club attack is delivered by a "commited person" (comitted to the attack), then he should have to re-cock his weapon to hit you with roundhouse change up, giving you some read time. The whole key is for the opponent to commit to the attack."

He wouldn't have to re-cock much.  We learn to make strikes from point of origin with minimal cocking action necessary for power.  Why wouldn't they?  I can see in my head (for what that's worth) how to do it with very little read time, certainly enough to fake me out at my current abilities.

So, I don't think the "what-if" of feignting an overhead and then delivering a roundhouse to the body is so far-fetched.

BTW, I think we have a slightly different idea of what "what if" means.  I think you are seeing it as "what if the first step didn't work".  I, possibly because of my limited experience dealing with "what if's", see it as dealing with a lot of things, including "what if the guy is feingting, what if the first move doesn't work, what if the guy is throwing a combo, what if..." and a dozen other things.  Basically, taking the movement already learned and finding other situations where it will work, situations where it won't, ways to counter it, and what to do if it is countered.  My understanding may be too vague and all-encompassing.  I don't claim to understand the "what if" or "formulation" stuff yet.  I can't.


----------



## satans.barber

> _Originally posted by Scott Bonner _
> 
> *How do you get this website to post in pieces like that?  I'll put Kenpo3631's comments in quotes and then reply.
> *



You have to include it in tags, it parses them in a similar way to HTML. The tags for quoting are QUOTE and /QUOTE, with square brackets around each. Obviously I can't give a literal example as it will get parsed anyway.

Ian.


----------



## GouRonin

> _Originally posted by Scott Bonner _
> *Would that really be true?  I don't associate getting struck in the groin with opening my hand.  If anything, my childhood memories involve rolling around with hands tightly clenched across my tummy. *



May I suggest you find someone you don't like and practice this repeatedly until you have enough evidence to prove or disprove your theory.
:rofl:


----------



## Mace

Scott,
 I think you are right on with your what if questioning. What if my first move didn't work is only one example of what if questioning. I teach the attack for this tech as more of a roundhouse or diagonal attack because I think that is what you will be more likely to see these days. Checking may be written for an overhead, but with FMA and stick fighting becoming more and more practiced, you'll be lucky to see an overhead. The times are changing from when it was written. Also, with televised martial arts, whether tv or movie, people have a better idea how to use a weapon. I really think you would see a baseball pitch style attack, on the 45 downward, rather than an overhead which is not a natural motion for the shoulder if done with speed. Just my thoughts.
Respectfully,
Mace


----------



## kenpo3631

> "Your opponent has many weapons to include two arms and two legs. If you step to 1:30 you are walking into the opponents back up weapon."



It works on the clock principle...if you step to 1:30 his left fist will br there to meet you.



> With the parry and block, you do move out of the way, as well, since you are shooting over to that cat stance. And, yes, I see the wrist grab as a nice bonus, not a requirement.



I read this alot. I teach and have been taught that the block...is actually a position check. In essence you you are moving and putting your hands in a guarding position, just in case the roundhouse gets in there.




> That it is a beginners tech may be why it is written for overhead club instead of roundhouse club -- it's easier to deal with overhead than round.





> Didn't you say you teach your students that the attack is a roundhouse club? How do you teach them to deal with it? Or was that someone else?



I teach it for an overhead, and we incorporate the roundhouse in to the base technique.




> No, I haven't been hit by an escrima stick, but I don't have to get hit with the stick. If the stick hits, I failed.



 Sorry. I didn't mean to sound condensending 




> BTW, I think we have a slightly different idea of what "what if" means. I think you are seeing it as "what if the first step didn't work". I, possibly because of my limited experience dealing with "what if's", see it as dealing with a lot of things, including "what if the guy is feingting, what if the first move doesn't work, what if the guy is throwing a combo, what if..." and a dozen other things. Basically, taking the movement already learned and finding other situations where it will work, situations where it won't, ways to counter it, and what to do if it is countered. My understanding may be too vague and all-encompassing. I don't claim to understand the "what if" or "formulation" stuff yet. I can't.



You're right we are looking at it different, but your points are completely valid...that's the beauty of Kenpo. Don't ever run out of questions... :asian:


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

Don't know but it seems some have forgotten the name and theme of the technique, CHECKING The Storm.     I've been taught that you need not touch the arm swinging the club, that you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking, of course followed by the right side kick the their right knee, followed by a right looping backnuckle.      Of course I've seen about a thousand different variations on this technique to the point where some exclude it from their teaching.    Me, I like to know them all for the comparison.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Kirk

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> 
> *you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking*



hehehe ... I like the way you worded it.  I'll jot that description
down in my notes! :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> 
> *Don't know but it seems some have forgotten the name and theme of the technique, CHECKING The Storm.     I've been taught that you need not touch the arm swinging the club, that you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking, of course followed by the right side kick the their right knee, followed by a right looping backnuckle.      Of course I've seen about a thousand different variations on this technique to the point where some exclude it from their teaching.    Me, I like to know them all for the comparison.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde *



Clyde,
Well put... I have never met you but I have heard you are a good guy. 

I am hoping to get to the IKC's next year. Hope to meet you.

PS- Is Kevin Jean still working with Mr. Tatum?


----------



## Scott Bonner

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> 
> *Don't know but it seems some have forgotten the name and theme of the technique, CHECKING The Storm.     I've been taught that you need not touch the arm swinging the club, that you simply move up your circle and kick em the jimmy while your hands are cking, of course followed by the right side kick the their right knee, followed by a right looping backnuckle.      Of course I've seen about a thousand different variations on this technique to the point where some exclude it from their teaching.    Me, I like to know them all for the comparison.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde *



Very good point.  Thanks.


----------



## donald

Blindside,

             Ideally I have maintained contact with the offending arm, and if he has managed to hang on to his weapon. I will use(ideally) opposing force to remove said weapon with the checking left . To clarify, (ideally) this tech is against a "overhead" club attack. To which I have intially responded to by stepping to 3 pm into a left 90* cat stance, while executing a r.inward parry,l.outward knifehand block/check, which converts to a hooking check to the inside of the offending forearm, and as previously stated. If the weapon is still there after his beating. I will remove it as mentioned/described.

Salute


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by donald _
> 
> *Blindside,
> 
> Ideally I have maintained contact with the offending arm, and if he has managed to hang on to his weapon. I will use(ideally) opposing force to remove said weapon with the checking left . To clarify, (ideally) this tech is against a "overhead" club attack. To which I have intially responded to by stepping to 3 pm into a left 90* cat stance, while executing a r.inward parry,l.outward knifehand block/check, which converts to a hooking check to the inside of the offending forearm, and as previously stated. If the weapon is still there after his beating. I will remove it as mentioned/described.
> 
> Salute          *





> which converts to a hooking check to the inside of the offending forearm



Is that the old "waiter's hand" check you are referring to?

How do you use it in that technique? When I practice this technique the guy is trying to split me in half right down my centerline, so the club is always well past the point where I can effectively use a check like that.:asian:


----------



## donald

3631,

       Not a waiter's block, but morphs from an open hand EOB. Into a hooking crane block to attempt to maintain control of the offending appendage. Then you just flow through the technique as previously discussed. I hope I've answered your question?

Salute :asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *In the mid eighties I learned Checking the Storm with a front chicken kick.
> 
> Why was it changed from the original way it was taught (besides creativity from an EP Student...heard that one already:shrug: )?
> 
> In the current version, how many people deliver the side kick to the opponent's left leg and why? :asian: *



Checking the Storm like the other techniques in the series that were changed was out of line with the skill level of the beginner student. Ed Parker did not create this technique initially and when certain information came to light, he immediately wanted it changed. The reasons are, this technique is particularly lethal, attacking the lower centerline, and the chest area possibly hitting a particular nerve cavity when the opponent is in the right (wrong) posture. Like other techniques he "changed," many still do older versions taught to them by instructors who stop "changing" and were satisfied with what they learned.

This technique has the potential, even in practice with a minimum of contact, of creating ventricular fibrillations. The chicken kick itself is a good kick to use however not to practice for a couple of reasons. The trauma to the spine when done properly is multiple repetitions prohibitive, and the control issues associated with its potential lethality at that level. 

The alternate version is anatomically incorrect and requires your initial kicking leg to move backwards, plant and clear for a right kick and back-fist. The hips will be misaligned, and prolonged execution will yield negative results in the hips. In our curriculum we still use the double kick but not as a Chicken Kick. Additionally students are instructed where to place their hands to cover the nerve cavity. We are also fortunate to have an esteemed emergency room physician and at least one paramedic, as students on the floor most evenings so we usually have immediate medical assistance should it ever become necessary.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *SB,
> I have to agree with Mr Broad here, you asked some very good questions that everyone could benifit from. We are all here to learn.
> The what if's for techs are virtually endless, but here is where I've gone with checking the storm. What if the attacker has a clue about using the club or puts some speed and authority behind his strikes. I've found with a foam club ( much to my dismay) that almost all the time if your attacker is running even mildly realistic with the overhead and then inward strike you are going to get hit. Hard. And it stings with the foam club, forget it being a real stick or bottle. Now some may argue that stepping off to 3 and firing out the kick will negate the club, but I haven't seen it done at good speeds without the defender getting whacked with the stick. Just my findings, take em for what they are worth.
> As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.
> Respectfully,
> Mace *



With a foam club that is unerstandable. However when you add a real club with significant heft to it (which is why he picked it up) you'll find the extra weight on the end of the arm in conjunction with a committed strike will not facilitate a change of direction very easily. Our students are instructed to full commit and hit the floor with the club to insure students get the idea to move. They rae further instructred to recover from the strike and  swing horizontally (if they can). If the first kick is executed correctly to the correct place, the secondary strike will not be possible. Guaranteed. We demonstrated it repeated with novice recruits and martial artist alike in the academy. Mr. Lance, shade your first kick about 3/4 inches to the RIGHT side of his centerline ABOVE the groin in the bladder area. Never kick the groin.


----------



## WilliamTLear

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *SB,
> I have to agree with Mr Broad here, you asked some very good questions that everyone could benifit from. We are all here to learn.
> The what if's for techs are virtually endless, but here is where I've gone with checking the storm. What if the attacker has a clue about using the club or puts some speed and authority behind his strikes. I've found with a foam club ( much to my dismay) that almost all the time if your attacker is running even mildly realistic with the overhead and then inward strike you are going to get hit. Hard. And it stings with the foam club, forget it being a real stick or bottle. Now some may argue that stepping off to 3 and firing out the kick will negate the club, but I haven't seen it done at good speeds without the defender getting whacked with the stick. Just my findings, take em for what they are worth.
> As to the X block found in obstructing, there's another one where you probably will get cracked in the head with the stick. The wrist still has mobility when the block is executed and force alone will probably bring the club to the top of your head. Again, just what I've found at good speeds.
> Respectfully,
> Mace *



Mace,

I have found that if you block at or above the elbow in Obstructing the Storm with the "X" Block as you call it, the stick can't really get to your head. While stepping toward your attacker, get a little more depth with that initial block and you will probably find the same.

When blocking on the inside of an opponent's arm, do so below the elbow -- never above it.

When blocking on the outside of an opponent's arm, do so at or above the elbow -- never below it.

I find that the above principles apply to verticle action as well as horizontal action. You may find the same.

I hope this helps,
Billy Lear :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson

If I could offer a couple of comments on this string--which I liked reading--both would have to do with teaching the technique to beginners. 

Sure, there are all sorts of "what-ifs," to be considered, and I particularly agree with the posters who noted that the attack can easily be modified into a roundhouse swing. However, what's the base tech teaching? I'd argue it's to get the hell out of the way, off line, up the circle, etc. etc...and that this dovetails with the way that previous yellow belt techniques (and Short 1) teach retreating first. In other words, I think that Checking the Storm first teaches, and foremost teaches, don't stand under a club.

The second thing I'd note (and it's something I'm struggling with myself) is that a lot of our problems with techniques come out of our tendency to prioritize the hands: we start motion with the upper body, we think of power in terms of the shoulders, we keep worrying about getting the hands into the right position...when in fact it's that first step to the side that counts most. It's just that, together with some of the other posters, I keep worrying about getting the hands to "fit," when I haven't moved to where I should be. And when I do, the hand problem usually goes away...

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> *If I could offer a couple of comments on this string--which I liked reading--both would have to do with teaching the technique to beginners.
> 
> Sure, there are all sorts of "what-ifs," to be considered, and I particularly agree with the posters who noted that the attack can easily be modified into a roundhouse swing. However, what's the base tech teaching? I'd argue it's to get the hell out of the way, off line, up the circle, etc. etc...and that this dovetails with the way that previous yellow belt techniques (and Short 1) teach retreating first. In other words, I think that Checking the Storm first teaches, and foremost teaches, don't stand under a club.
> 
> The second thing I'd note (and it's something I'm struggling with myself) is that a lot of our problems with techniques come out of our tendency to prioritize the hands: we start motion with the upper body, we think of power in terms of the shoulders, we keep worrying about getting the hands into the right position...when in fact it's that first step to the side that counts most. It's just that, together with some of the other posters, I keep worrying about getting the hands to "fit," when I haven't moved to where I should be. And when I do, the hand problem usually goes away...
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert *



Sir,

I have to agree with you completely. 

MOTION-KENPO has a structured LESSON PLAN with THREE PILLARS. 

1. The Head Instructor or Teacher (Keeper of the Concepts)
2. The Web Of Knowledge
3. The Technique Manuals

Primary and most important is the Head Teacher of a group of students regardless of rank. They are responsible for the Knowledge of the Lesson Plan and a clear understanding of the purpose of the lesson plan as well as Mr. Parkers Concepts to guide them in the implementation of the Lesson plan. This is where the weakness lies in Motion-Kenpo.

The LESSON PLAN is designed primarily for the TEACHER. Each situation technique is suggested by and taken from the WEB OF KNOWLEDGE in the LESSON PLAN. The HEAD TEACHER is then supposed to examine the ideas presented in the TECHNIQUE MANUAL.  The HEAD TEACHER then utilizes THEIR KNOWLEDGE of ED PARKER CONCEPTS and designs an IDEAL RESPONSE based on the ideas in the TECHNIQUE MANUAL that's workable and also teaches a basic skill. Additional physical TAILORING is allowed for individual students who may have a particular physical deficiency with the LESSON PLAN lesson, but is NOT supposed to be done for personal preferences.

Unfortunately many instructors who were either taught incorrectly or misunderstood the lesson plan, and mistakenly engage in the commonly misplaced practice of the "what if" from the beginning with students. Students therefore are inundated with inappropriate options when they should instead be learning the simple lessons of the teacher created "ideal" technique well enough to be functional. This counterproductive "what if" mentality stays with the students and ultimately teachers and permeates Kenpo. According to Parker What ifs should not be considered at the First Phase. Parker said this was important to be taken well into black belt because the lessons are interrelated. Lessons at lower ranks are examined compounded, reversed, mirrored, prefixed, and suffixed at higher levels IF the lessons remain fixed and consistent. Theefore higher lessons reinforce lower lessons if consistently taught.

I find it ironic many Kenpo students constantly talk about "what ifs as they conjure up more "Grafting" options while the so-called "ideal" technique, which is where students should be, no longer exists only because teachers dont create or allow them to exist. That's why students and now teachers alike seek solutions in "tailoring," "what ifs," "grafting," and even the study of other arts to fill perceived holes. The holes do exist, but they are not in Motion-Kenpo but in the Head Teachers knowledge base to implement the Lesson Plan. 

Until teachers use the Lesson Plan correctly, basic skills will not be learned and as now, students will seek their own answers wherever they can find them. These type discussions bear that out. Hordes of students from the same art, all with lineage to Ed Parker and a consensus is difficult to find within some groups. Differences are acceptable but a Head teacher of a group is responsible for functional consistently among their group.

Teachers must do their job. The Teacher created "ideal" technique should be functional and emphasize and teach specific skills at every level. As long as instructors don't do their job, students will continue to talk about what doesn't work, more than what does.

Ed Parker was the only "expert" and he knew he couldn't be everywhere. He wanted his art to proliferate why he continued to evolve, and solidify, what was supposed to eventually be a "strict hard curriculum."  That is why the Motion-Kenpo Lesson Plan was created. There is nothing wrong with Motion-Kenpo with competent instruction and the proper use of the Lesson Plan as Ed Parker intended.

What most are unaware of is Parker "imported" the first tier instructors to implement the Motion-Kenpo Lesson Plan from other arts so it worked. Since then the "teachers" are now products of the Lesson Plan itself and have never been subjected to a strict curriculum. Therefore their weakness is passed on to the next generation of "teachers" who have even less information. (And so on)

As you know a "lesson plan" is only a guide to insure the curriculum follows a logical and progressive path for the student, but ultimately the teacher is responsible for the implementation of the information.

But a strict "hard" verbatim curriculum is even more dependent on the teachers skill and knowledge so Parker knew the next step would more than likely require a new generation of teachers.  It is a sad fact that once significant rank is given, students are no longer interested in curriculum they feel is beneath them, and neither do they embrace the idea of "relearning" something they think they already know.

Students of all levels think they can learn basic and advanced materials through videos and personal exploration. You can't even learn basketball through video. Until students learn the lesson that there is much more to learn, and you cant learn it on your own, Motion-Kenpo will languish at the hands of many mediocre teachers who should be students themselves.

This problem was created by Ed Parker and he knew that under the Lesson Plan Method, His Art would ultimately began to feed upon itself and lose people to other arts. Unfortunately he didnt live long enough to bring the strict curriculum forth to show you just how great American Kenpo really is. As good as some think it is, it is ten times better than that.

That is not to say all Motion-Kenpo teachers are bad. There are many good teachers in Kenpo, but not as many as the bad ones.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Rob_Broad _
> 
> *As I like to put it, "we are all just glorified white belts" *



Amen to that sir.


----------



## Mace

Thanks for your post Billy, that is something that I had considered.
Doc stated:


> With a foam club that is unerstandable. However when you add a real club with significant heft to it (which is why he picked it up) you'll find the extra weight on the end of the arm in conjunction with a committed strike will not facilitate a change of direction very easily.


With a baseball bat or tire iron this may be the case, but with a broken pool cue or car antenae (have witnessed both) this is not the case. Thank you for your input though, its food for thought.
Respectfully,
Mace


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *Thanks for your post Billy, that is something that I had considered.
> Doc stated:
> 
> With a baseball bat or tire iron this may be the case, but with a broken pool cue or car antenae (have witnessed both) this is not the case. Thank you for your input though, its food for thought.
> Respectfully,
> Mace *



What if, what if, what if.. 

The Lesson Plan says the attack is with a  CLUB for a white belt. Once you go down the "what if road" you never get back because no matter what the answer. you can always say "what if." The Lesson Plan and Web of Knowledge exists to define the attack at the first level of training. The problem is everyone is trying to experience all the levels at the same time. I do not blame students for that mindset, but it is extremely counterproductive to a sound learning experience and creation of significant basic skills.


----------



## kenpo3631

> Mr. Lance, shade your first kick about 3/4 inches to the RIGHT side of his centerline ABOVE the groin in the bladder area. Never kick the groin.



Thanks...I'll give it a whirl 

PS- Any reason why I shouldn't kick the groin directly?


----------



## Blindside

> I do not blame students for that mindset, but it is extremely counterproductive to a sound learning experience and creation of significant basic skills.



Hi Dr. Chapel,

At what point do your students begin to branch out into these "what ifs."  Could you give me some idea of when you introduce this into your lesson plan?  Either by belt or by average time in the system.

Thanks for your time,

Lamont


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> Thanks...I'll give it a whirl
> 
> PS- Any reason why I shouldn't kick the groin directly? *



Well first of all Sir, I am not really saying you shouldn't kick the groin directly. Motion-Kenpo survives on these "soft tissue" strikes to the groin, eyes, throat, etc. because it's targeting is always general, and these type of strikes at least issure a level of functional destruction no matter what, even though the reaction may not be "immediate." It is important however we realize this may not work, and there is a more effective method.

But back to the groin. Females first of all require a more specific strike for effectiveness, and it coincides with the same targets for men.  But, striking a male in the groin does not guarantee either the reaction or timeliness of a reaction. Under certain circumstances, groin strikes to males can be ignored for a period of time. Emotions, adrenal dump, mental state of mind, personal resolve, and chemical intoxication etc., have and can overcome a strike to the groin. Therefore this strike is not a high percentage sophisticated target. Under unemotional classroom conditions they will always work, but in the dirty world of street self defense, a different philosophy of specificity must prevail.

Additionally, the generally accepted reaction where a person bends forward at the waist and "bows" his head is not the initial reaction if the strike is immediately effective. That is at best a secondary reaction. Persons struck in the groin significantly "Explosively" loose height with the knees buckling and the buttocks dropping, and the chin moving upowards, with the back straight. Bending forward and dropping the chin is a secondary response that may occur much later if at all.

In my earlier response Sir, I may have given you the wrong impression. It's not 3/4 but 3 or four inches to the right of centerline above the groin but below the lower abdomen. In our curriculum we almost never attack the testicles because the other mechanisms work so well and are more specific.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> 
> *
> 
> Hi Dr. Chapel,
> 
> At what point do your students begin to branch out into these "what ifs."  Could you give me some idea of when you introduce this into your lesson plan?  Either by belt or by average time in the system.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> Lamont *



Lamont Sir, how are you doing? 

In answer to your question, "what if's" are rare in our classes, and are non-exsistent at the first level of learning (through black).  In the beginning students are tempted to ask certain questions but, they soon learn that if they are just patient, the question will ultimately be answered by the curriculum at a time when the answer will be more useful to them. We handle those initial inquiries by simply saying, "Let's focus on you performing this skill really well, before we answer questions not in this lesson." The idea is to teach specific basic skills from varius perspectives as a student moves through the various courses. Taking things out of context only muddies the process and confuses students despite their curiosity.

If you were to study piano, the teacher will have you learn the notes and work on command of the keyboard. If you brought up the question of how to improvise, the teacher would say, "Don't you think you should learn to play all the notes first?"

But I understand what the Motion-kenpo teachers have done. Focusing on the many possibilities makes them look knowledgeable, satisfies the students curiosity, but teaches nothing beyond the hypothetical and fosters no real skills. Teachers have chosen to focus on techniques, instead of examining the Web of Knowledge and create "ideal" techniques that work based on the "manuals." Head teachers have to do their job, stick to the lesson plan, and make students effective no matter what the level. That also includes teaching good basics as well. Instead "slef-defense techniques" and there many variaations are the centerpiece of most teaching. Instead it should be the application of really good basics with an in-depth examination of the assaults outlined in the Web Of Knowledge.

As far as "what ifs" at higher levels, my students realize that most of their questions have either been answered, or are about to be answered. Most of the questions are not about "what if" but technical questions about "how" to accomplish a specific action. The curriculum is so rich and specific with information, we just don't have a reason to "what if." I know that sounds strange to those indoctrinated in Motion-Kenpo, but remeber MK is an anomoly and the only art that does that. In a way, it has to because of it's commercial nature but ..........

Good to hear from you Sir.


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> Well first of all Sir, I am not really saying you shouldn't kick the groin directly. Motion-Kenpo survives on these "soft tissue" strikes to the groin, eyes, throat, etc. because it's targeting is always general, and these type of strikes at least issure a level of functional destruction no matter what, even though the reaction may not be "immediate." It is important however we realize this may not work, and there is a more effective method.
> 
> But back to the groin. Females first of all require a more specific strike for effectiveness, and it coincides with the same targets for men.  But, striking a male in the groin does not guarantee either the reaction or timeliness of a reaction. Under certain circumstances, groin strikes to males can be ignored for a period of time. Emotions, adrenal dump, mental state of mind, personal resolve, and chemical intoxication etc., have and can overcome a strike to the groin. Therefore this strike is not a high percentage sophisticated target. Under unemotional classroom conditions they will always work, but in the dirty world of street self defense, a different philosophy of specificity must prevail.
> 
> Additionally, the generally accepted reaction where a person bends forward at the waist and "bows" his head is not the initial reaction if the strike is immediately effective. That is at best a secondary reaction. Persons struck in the groin significantly "Explosively" loose height with the knees buckling and the buttocks dropping, and the chin moving upowards, with the back straight. Bending forward and dropping the chin is a secondary response that may occur much later if at all.
> 
> In my earlier response Sir, I may have given you the wrong impression. It's not 3/4 but 3 or four inches to the right of centerline above the groin but below the lower abdomen. In our curriculum we almost never attack the testicles because the other mechanisms work so well and are more specific. *



Excellent! I will try it out. Thanks for the insight Mr. Chapel:asian:


----------



## Mace

Doc,
 As you have achieved that rank that you hold and are knowledgeable in the advanced concepts of American Kenpo, I will only offer these last opinions and from this point differ to you.
 I have witnessed Checking the storm, Evading,  and Obstructing performed with the prescribed attack with the defender wearing kendo armor. A club was used, but I guess that it did not have the "ideal" weight and heft. My sticks are only slightly heavier than foam ones and move almost at the same speed, fast. I will have to check the web of knowledge to see how many ounces each stick should "ideally" weigh. Anyway, thank God for the armor because the abuse that the defenders forearms and head took was not pretty. The questions that sprang from this were not "what if", but "how". How do we get out of the line of attack without offering up our arms, head, or body to the stick, primarily on the initial attack but also on a follow up as can be done in Checking. I guess this practical examination of the techs is wrong, but I can live with that. I know that the techs that are taught to yellow belts in my association will save their lives as is. And its not checking the storm but a replacement. 
 As for focusing on basics and not techs, I'm going to assume that was not directed at me, even though I seem to fall in the "motion Kenpo" category. My classes hammer on the basics. Methods of execution, angles, paths, grafting of execution, dimesional striking, forward projection and on and on are all taught through the color ranks, at a level that is compatible with the student and belt. These are then examined within the the framework of the techs as ideas of motion. This is probably wrong as well, but that's okay with me too.
 Anyway, thank you for the insights, I'm bowing out from here. These are just my opinions, and as I've stated, I'm probably wrong.
Mace


----------



## Blindside

Thank you for your in depth response Dr. Chapel,

Lamont


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *Doc,
> As you have achieved that rank that you hold and are knowledgeable in the advanced concepts of American Kenpo, I will only offer these last opinions and from this point differ to you.
> I have witnessed Checking the storm, Evading,  and Obstructing performed with the prescribed attack with the defender wearing kendo armor. A club was used, but I guess that it did not have the "ideal" weight and heft. My sticks are only slightly heavier than foam ones and move almost at the same speed, fast. I will have to check the web of knowledge to see how many ounces each stick should "ideally" weigh. Anyway, thank God for the armor because the abuse that the defenders forearms and head took was not pretty. The questions that sprang from this were not "what if", but "how". How do we get out of the line of attack without offering up our arms, head, or body to the stick, primarily on the initial attack but also on a follow up as can be done in Checking. I guess this practical examination of the techs is wrong, but I can live with that. I know that the techs that are taught to yellow belts in my association will save their lives as is. And its not checking the storm but a replacement.
> As for focusing on basics and not techs, I'm going to assume that was not directed at me, even though I seem to fall in the "motion Kenpo" category. My classes hammer on the basics. Methods of execution, angles, paths, grafting of execution, dimesional striking, forward projection and on and on are all taught through the color ranks, at a level that is compatible with the student and belt. These are then examined within the the framework of the techs as ideas of motion. This is probably wrong as well, but that's okay with me too.
> Anyway, thank you for the insights, I'm bowing out from here. These are just my opinions, and as I've stated, I'm probably wrong.
> Mace *



Hold on there Mr? Mace, don't be so quick to assume you're wrong. Everything you said is reasonable and sounds good to me. I was not directing anything toward you personally for obvious reasons. I speak in general terms about the state of different facets of the arts. I addressed your point about the "club" because it is an argument I hear fairly consistently from those who have been indoctrinated to the "what if mindset." Within the context of most Motion-Kenpo teachings, this mindset is fairly engrained but students will always reflect what and how their teachers have taught, and that includes Mr. Parker.

Back to the "club." Mr. Parker and I had a discussion about what constitutes a "club." I think you alluded to the "sticks" I see many use in Kenpo. These are not "clubs" and weapons of this type are used fairly commonly in many of the Filipino Arts and are quite at home and are derived from those arts. That is the "stick" did not find it's way into the art, the art derived a use around the "cultural stick." where this lightweight, flexible, and durable item was geographically plentiful and available. Because of their adopted design into the arts, they are extremely fast and are of a weight that allows them to be "whipped" and in many instances within the execution, can actually exceed the speed of the human hand throught this "whipping motion." these are specifically NOT clubs.

A club is something by it's very nature has a significant weight to it to facilitate its use as a "bludgeon." Something so heavy that it's very weight itself is the weapon when used against another person, which is why it is being used in the first place. Ed Parker described it as "... something so heavy that if you dropped it, you wouldn't want it to land on your foot." (He smiled when he said that) But he went on to say, "Anything that you can manipulate as fast as your hand itself, would not be considered a club." Additionally when your body has to move or manipulate something of substantial weight, it has to make adjustments that slow it down to prevent injuring itself. It also requires a significant "commitment" to move its mass to use it as a weapon. Therefore once you start your action, the weight of the "club" that you accelerated to use as a weapon, now becomes a liability if your opponent moves. You must complete the motion, stop, recover and begin again.

Think of a baseball player attempting to 'check' his swing at the last moment. Because the object (bat) has significant weight (club) and he is making a fully commited attack (swing), it is very difficult for a trained athlete who does this on a regular basis to stop his action. If he were "swinging" toward the ground allowing gravity to be more of a factor, he could not stop, nor change direction. When a person uses a "club" to swing at your head, he's not trying to get your attention. He's fully commited and as Parker says, "He's trying to give you a split personality." All things considered, getting out of the way will be a lot easier because he will lose that speed that is the problem when he wields a true club with a commited action.

So overall Sir? you and I don't seem to have too much of a disagreement. I thank you for pointing out that a more comprehensive definition of a club was definitely needed for these type of conversations. I always say, it is important that we be on the same page with the same understanding before we can really communicate. Keep examining the techniques. that is what you're supposed to do.Thank you for the opportunity and interaction. Your points are all well taken.


----------



## Mace

Your definition is appreciated and points are also well taken. Have you found that you need to alter what you do when dealing with a "stick" as opposed to a "club"? Does your curiculuum address the possibility of both attacks or at least differentiate between the two? Also, do you think that a lighter or heavier weapon will more than likely be encountered on the street? I know I can find examples of both in my truck.  
Respectfully,
Mace
(not sure if you were asking, but yes I'm male)


----------



## Blindside

This may be an aside, but if the definition of the club is something "that you wouldn't want to drop on your foot."  How do you explain the club form.  I've heard that the "kenpo club" is different than an escrima stick because it is tailored to you.... yada yada yada.  Dr. Chapel, your definition is significantly different than most, and honestly one that I buy more than most.  If so, why did (or did he) Mr. Parker call the sticks used in Form 7 kenpo clubs?

Anyone?

Lamont


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> 
> *This may be an aside, but if the definition of the club is something "that you wouldn't want to drop on your foot."  How do you explain the club form.  I've heard that the "kenpo club" is different than an escrima stick because it is tailored to you.... yada yada yada.  Dr. Chapel, your definition is significantly different than most, and honestly one that I buy more than most.  If so, why did (or did he) Mr. Parker call the sticks used in Form 7 kenpo clubs?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Lamont *



Sir, well actually he didn't. It was a term that was carried over from his original work in progress.

The origin of the "Club" Forms/Sets is an interesting one. Originally the Club Set was a single weapon utilized with the long portion of the club extending down from the baby finger side of the hand when held naturally. This is what Parker called the "closed position." 

This was in a effort to address methods not found in other arts. He had a very unique method for using a club this way that helped to manage its weight, and gave it flexibility and effectiveness. This method Parker orginally began sharing with his friends in law enforcement. He was absolutely fascinated by law enforcement weapons and procedures as well as empty handed strategy. It was never supposed to be a "double weapon." He began working later on formulating a single handed weapon with the position reversed with the long extended portion on the thumb side like holding a conventional club. 

But understand the weapon had "club weight" so the weak hand assisted in its uses and implimentation creating a single weapon manipulated by two hands, much like what he knew of the the Chinese broadsword. Taking these methods and converting them to American Kenpo with a club was the goal. During this process the pressure for more weapons and their forms was strong from the commercial schools for competition. Considering he had the largest tournament in the world, he couldn't ignor this and added "Weapons Forms" to the IKC.

Weapons were beginning to be a big part of competition in tournaments and the only other weapon previously addressed suitable for competition from American Kenpo was from the "Staff Set." The "Knife Set," was not generally known. Parker began changing what he was working on to accomodate the demand. At first he was going to modify the form so it was two weapons. A club held as previously mentioned (closed) and a stick held in the conventional (open) way. The club was used in many ways like a heavy shield defensively, but could also strike underhanded with considerable weight, while the stick was like a "foil" or rapier that could be moved and whipped. This created and offense and a defense with two weapons that disorientated your opponent because they both traveled at different speeds. This was straight out of Chinese Weapons.

Parker himself only believed in "practical" modern weapons and saw no usefulness (in general) in traditional weapons. After all, his is a self defense based art which meant any weapon must be something readily available. A broom handle staff, yes. Two sticks of the same size and weight, cut to fit your arm length? No, (unless they are in your pocket when you're attacked.) But the commercial schools demanded "competition forms" which also for a brief period had Parker scrambling to add a Nunchauku Form/Set as well. These weapons were never a part of Ed Parker's self defense philosophy, but demand forced him to spend time on that very popular segment of Motion-Kenpo, and its commercial viability could not be ignored.

Ultimately the pressure caused Parker to just abandon his club plans because his plate was so full.  So what did he do to satisfy the masses? He took techniques that were already in existence, strung them together, and then he added "clubs" (sticks) to the hands. What could be more simple? It was easy for him and it satisfied everyone and served a purpose for him in his endeavor to create Ten American Forms. "Knife Set" was moved to and re-named Form 8 and the "Club Set" was dropped, re-created, re-named and surfaced as Form 7, not "club form." So you see Form 7 is not "Club anything" anymore. By changing "philosophy" to a more "Kenpo Kali," it made everyone happy, but moved him away from the self-defense philosophy (club) to a more competition vehicle with limited self defense application.

Additionally there is no such thing as "Kenpo Sticks," and he hated that term. He would say, "There is only Kenpo with sticks in your hands."

As it should be. Great question Sir.


----------



## eternalwhitebelt

Wow Doc, excellent post.  You and I finally agree on something.  What next?


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Mace _
> 
> *Your definition is appreciated and points are also well taken. Have you found that you need to alter what you do when dealing with a "stick" as opposed to a "club"? Does your curiculuum address the possibility of both attacks or at least differentiate between the two? Also, do you think that a lighter or heavier weapon will more than likely be encountered on the street? I know I can find examples of both in my truck.
> Respectfully,
> Mace
> (not sure if you were asking, but yes I'm male) *



The gender issue was only because a female with a male sounding name was on another forum and I called her "sir." Then a "***** stirer came in to a 2 party issue and suggested I should apologize for not recognizing she was female. Duh! to assume most here are male (unless their name is Shiela) is normal. If you're not, say so.

Anyway, we make a difference between the club and stick, and in fact so should you if you use Parker's Web of Knowledge. All of the "overhead" strikes are "clubs." All the lateral strikes are lighter stick like weapons (except one) and must be delt with differently. The overheads you attempt to avoid and get out of the way. The lateral swinging attacks we block by getting inside. (with one exception which we do the same after avoiding the first swing).

The reasons are simple. Anatomically when you use a weapon  with weight with one hand, it is easier and more likely that you will use it in an overhead fashion. You'll get it up in the air and use gravity to help you in striking. If you use two hands on an active target you will swing laterally like a baseball bat swing. "Returning Storm" is that exception and it is really a two handed heavy club attack which is why you avoid it first.

My experience in the street is pretty extensive, but it really depends on the circumsatnces. If a guy is near his home or gets out of his car, he's going to bring something fairly substantial (wouldn't you?) Baseball bats, and tire irons are pretty common when the encounter starts with one in a vehicle. Walking down the street or otherwise usually will find lighter weapons, but interestingly, most in these situations if they cannot find something with heft will use empty hands or revert to something large like a trashcan or flee. "Kali like" weapons used offesively or defensively on the street are non existent. Most under immediate circumstances given the option of picking up a bat or a stick, will op for the bat, (and that includes most kenpoist).

The "Kenpo fanatsy" of 2 guys squaring off with sticks and blades is non existent on the street. Even the Uniform Crime Statistics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which keeps stats on attacks for the country, say that the statiscal data for "skilled" knife assaults other than forward thrusting or overhead are insignifcant.

Skilled knife fighters sneak up behind you and kill you. 2 guys with knives and skills will not fight each other unless it is a life and death situation. Otherwise, whatever the disagreement is, it isn't worth it.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by eternalwhitebelt _
> 
> *Wow Doc, excellent post.  You and I finally agree on something.  What next? *



Well sir, I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. I encounter people all the time across the country who have been "told" things about me and what I do that are not true. This tends to shape things in their minds. Once I get a chance to interact, most people at least understand my point of view even if they don't agree, and see I really don't have any extra motives. I'm not empire building, and I have all the rank I can use. Some of the stories are pretty wild. As an example a very prominent Kenpoist was told recently I learned "nerve strikes from George Dillman." I never met the man.

Let's just keep working on it sir. I just love Kenpo, and promised my best friend I would always be open and honest and share my expereinces.  :asian:


----------



## Kirk

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> As an example a very prominent Kenpoist was told recently I learned "nerve strikes from George Dillman." I never met the man.
> *



Very interesting, that you've never met him.  If I had to wager a
guess, I would've guess that you two have talked for hours over
a couple of adult beverages.  Have you done any comparative
studying of his techniques?


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *
> 
> Very interesting, that you've never met him.  If I had to wager a
> guess, I would've guess that you two have talked for hours over
> a couple of adult beverages.  Have you done any comparative
> studying of his techniques? *



Yes I have. You see Ed Parker knew him well and always said nice things about him, but we never met. But that wasn't unusual. There were people in kenpo I had little or no contact with as well.

Anyway, there is no comparison in the techniques. Mr. Dillman uses essentially the same principles from TCM but in a completely different way. His applications are based on his knowledge of point locations (for which he is awesome) and Okinawan Kata Bunkai because that is his primary source from Ota, Sensei.

Ed  Parker dictated very modern and specific "American Kenpo perameters" of application that are from a more "modern" Chinese perspective and much different from the Okinawa Form Indexed method. Ed Parker believed (as I do) that Okinawa Kata hold some of the information regarding sequence etc,, but do not show or teach actual application as He (we) would use it in American Kenpo. That does not affect its effectiveness for those who apply it well. It's just not the "American Kenpo Way" as I use and teach it.


----------



## Mace

Thanks for all the info.
Respectfully,
Mace :asian:


----------



## jazkiljok

excellent series of posts Doc. great insights--



> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Ed  Parker dictated very modern and specific "American Kenpo perameters" of application that are from a more "modern" Chinese perspective and much different from the Okinawa Form Indexed method. Ed Parker believed (as I do) that Okinawa Kata hold some of the information regarding sequence etc,, but do not show or teach actual application as He (we) would use it in American Kenpo. That does not affect its effectiveness for those who apply it well. It's just not the "American Kenpo Way" as I use and teach it. *




Dillman was a great revolutionary thinker and reintroduced a very  effective aspect of the arts back into the mainstream MA.

but his recent forays into gender mystics, no touch k.o's and other far flung theory are so removed from practical self defense that his seminars have begun to resemble "self improvement" group sessions-- i'm sure he's just one step away from bringing in the hot coals... 

question-- do you employ any special hand configurations (the pecking crane hand, spear hand/finger, single knuckle, double knuckle, etc.) that we see more commonly in the chinese arts to attack the points?


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by jazkiljok _
> 
> *excellent series of posts Doc. great insights--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dillman was a great revolutionary thinker and reintroduced a very  effective aspect of the arts back into the mainstream MA.
> 
> but his recent forays into gender mystics, no touch k.o's and other far flung theory are so removed from practical self defense that his seminars have begun to resemble "self improvement" group sessions-- i'm sure he's just one step away from bringing in the hot coals...
> 
> question-- do you employ any special hand configurations (the pecking crane hand, spear hand/finger, single knuckle, double knuckle, etc.) that we see more commonly in the chinese arts to attack the points? *



Well, that's an interesting observation. One I might add I've heard from several prominent people I trust. I had a conversation with my friend Richard Norton who spoke with him most recently at a gathering about the "five elemental sounds" and their "no touch" applications. From the conversation, his perspectives seemed to be a bit "off base" as I understand it. It does sound like you been following pretty close. "Gendar Mystics." I wish I had thought of that one. It is a very accurate description. May I use it? Nevertheless, he is very knowledgeable about point locations and Okinawa Kata Bukai.

As far as hand configurations, yes we do depending on the application. Additionally, as you know each point/cavity it accessed in different ways depending on the desired effect as well the application. Striking methods usually use different hand configurations than manipulation positions. Some points can only be reached by a "rubbing" action that also requires specific hand positions. Sometimes the single hand position may also be used in mutiple ways. 

Thanks for the kind words, good questions and some interesting observations in general.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> The "X" block is a thread all in its own...
> 
> However, if used it is a great transitional way of rerouting the overhead club.
> 
> I don't really care for the Technique just b/c both my hands are up in the air (violates the high/low theory) and leaves my body wide open for a possible strike with one of my opponents back up weapons.:asian: *



In my personal unerstanding of AK, there is no such thing as an "X block."


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> In my personal unerstanding of AK, there is no such thing as an "X block." *



Strike that, redirect...ummm, the upward cross block...


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> Strike that, redirect...ummm, the upward cross block... *



Well sir, I knew I would get a bite but, I didn't think it would be you.

As I was taught, there is no "X cross etc. block" in American Kenpo. In actuality, the block is a singular "upward block" (or downward) defense with an "off hand catcher." 

The same applies for the lateral "universal block and vise" It is and inward block or a downward block with the off hand acting as a control medium "catcher" for Control Manipulations.

Both hands are NOT deployed simultaneous but can give the impression it is similar to the traditional "X" block because at one point the forearms do cross. The American kenpo methodology I use is similar to Chin na, but as usual Parker modified and updated it for modern self defense use. A clue to it's proper use is in Long 1.


----------



## jfarnsworth

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> Well sir, I knew I would get a bite but, I didn't think it would be you.
> 
> As I was taught, there is no "X cross etc. block" in American Kenpo. In actuality, the block is a singular "upward block" (or downward) defense with an "off hand catcher."
> 
> The same applies for the lateral "universal block and vise" It is and inward block or a downward block with the off hand acting as a control medium "catcher" for Control Manipulations.
> 
> Both hands are NOT deployed simultaneous but can give the impression it is similar to the traditional "X" block because at one point the forearms do cross. The American kenpo methodology I use is similar to Chin na, but as usual Parker modified and updated it for modern self defense use. A clue to it's proper use is in Long 1. *



Thank you Dr. Chapel for many insight on this thread. I've enjoyed reading this more than one time over. My question is this. In Obstructing the Storm, doesn't this technique use the cross block up position? I realize it won't stay there for more than a second. You redirect and step up with the foot immediately but the cross block up position is on my kenpo curriculum basics list. I'm just curious about your thought on this.
Thank you
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> 
> *
> 
> Thank you Dr. Chapel for many insight on this thread. I've enjoyed reading this more than one time over. My question is this. In Obstructing the Storm, doesn't this technique use the cross block up position? I realize it won't stay there for more than a second. You redirect and step up with the foot immediately but the cross block up position is on my kenpo curriculum basics list. I'm just curious about your thought on this.
> Thank you
> Jason Farnsworth *



Well Sir, I've seen it in various interpretations of the lesson plan, but actually the answer 
is still "no" for me as I was taught. Technically if it is done correctly, you should actually 
be capable of defending your self with only one hand. In "Obstructing the Storm," You're 
not supposed to block the club (as I understand it) so why would you need two hands to 
commit to a/the block? Look at the title of the technique. "Obstructing," not "blocking" the Storm.

I know why it's presented this way in the Technique Manuals. It's a simplistic "idea" that 
almost anyone can pick up on quickly, but a more sophisticated instructor would give you 
more information. Remember the information contained in the Motion-Kenpo Lesson Plan by 
design, had to be very simplistic to be workable for the vehicles lowest common 
denominators, and is written that way. Everything is conceptual and/or simplistic ideas to 
be expanded upon by the teacher.

The true knowledge repository is in the Head Instructor of a group. The sophistication of 
the art is not within the writing, it is in the teachers knowledge to interpret the lesson 
plan at different levels according to the student's abilities and understandings. 

Unfortunately, most teachers now are products of the lesson plan itself, which was not 
designed to make teachers, but reasonably competent (read lowest common denominator) 
practitioners. It's a self-defense lesson plan administered by a "teacher," not an 
"Instructors Course." In education they always separate courses to give you some 
understanding of a subject from those that are supposed to give you information to "teach" 
the subject. Everyone has taken Kenpo 101 , now they think they can "teach" Kenpo.

Oops! No rant intended. There are just so many great students out there that deserve more 
and better information.

Anyway the attack comes from 12 and you step toward the attacker into a left neutral bow 
so the attack is shaded to your right. The defensive hand is the right hand executing an 
upward block from the rear. Executed correctly your hand should be angling toward 10:30 
and upward at a 45 degree angle. With proper timing this will deflect the "committed 
attack" off to your right causing your attacker to fall forward from his own weight and 
momentum. That is the block that defends. students should practice this at first to become 
competent in the defense first. when you can defend your self this way without using your 
left at all, then you are ready for part two. This is important because this defense, 
presented here for the first time, repeats itself in many ways over again in the hard 
curriculum. Besides, in my opinion, you should be capable of deflecting the attack alone and 
moving away with no further response.

It takes timing, however once you feel you have been successful in the block "deflecting" his 
attack, you now execute a left (forward hand) upward block. This block angles upward at 45 
degrees and outward toward 1:30.

Important: the second upward block doesn't block, it only slows the hand down for a split 
second to allow the first blocking hand the opportunity to "seize" the wrist. That is why the 
second hand doesn't block but actually "catches" or momentarily controls the descent of the 
weapon.

From here the description becomes more difficult in this medium but I'll try. So now we 
have "seized" his right wrist, and our left controlling block is in contact with his forearm. 
His own downward pressure and momentum will allow you to "roll" your arm 
"counterclockwise" (back toward you) while still maintaining contact with the forearm, as 
you "roll" over the top of his arm to apply pressure to his arm and to keep him accelerating 
to downward.

I have my students practice this from that point singularly after learning the one hand 
deflection. 

Both students get in position. 

Defender: Left neutral bow, right upward block in place, and left upward in place.
Attacker: right foot forward, place his arm as if he had just been "blocked." Then the 
attacker pushes down against the defenders arms with as much weight as he can.
Defender: Now you can practice the "seize" of the wrist and the rolling of the forearm into 
an arm bar to a takedown alone. Then you just put the two together.

There are some other things we do as well but this is the beginning. Let me know if this helps, and describe your experiences, good or bad and we'll see what we can do.


----------



## jfarnsworth

The next time I get into class I will try to execute the technique this way. 
Salute,
Jason Farnsworth



Dr. Chapel could I ask another question to you. It just came into my mind. After reading your post on the cross block up, I was reminded of Defensive Cross. If I'm not mistaken (maybe I am, b/c it's been a long day for me) doesn't this "supposedly" use the cross block down to block the leg (for a split second) as the left hand rides back to the right ankle to drag the person out. I was just curious about your thought on this opposite. 
Humbely,
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> 
> *The next time I get into class I will try to execute the technique this way.
> Salute,
> Jason Farnsworth
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Chapel could I ask another question to you. It just came into my mind. After reading your post on the cross block up, I was reminded of Defensive Cross. If I'm not mistaken (maybe I am, b/c it's been a long day for me) doesn't this "supposedly" use the cross block down to block the leg (for a split second) as the left hand rides back to the right ankle to drag the person out. I was just curious about your thought on this opposite.
> Humbely,
> Jason Farnsworth *



Good question, but no the answer is the same. There is no cross block in Kenpo. One hand defends then the second hand "captures." to be a "X" block, both hands would have to be deployed simultaneously.

In "Defensive Cross" the mechanism is the same as "Obstructing the Storm." The left hand blocks and the right hand controls so the initial block can then capture. Try it, deploying one than the other.

Good question. I see you have your thinking cap on. You're not only asking good questions but, your questions are drawing logical comparisons to see if the conceptual idea holds up under scruitiny. Anytime you guide or capture and use both hands, from "Captured, to Defensive, to Raining," they are always deployed in succession never simultaneously. Sometimes the timing may be tighter than a simple syncopation and end up being Mora beat, but it's still the same in my experience.


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> Good question, but no the answer is the same. There is no cross block in Kenpo. One hand defends then the second hand "captures." to be a "X" block, both hands would have to be deployed simultaneously.
> 
> In "Defensive Cross" the mechanism is the same as "Obstructing the Storm." The left hand blocks and the right hand controls so the initial block can then capture. Try it, deploying one than the other.
> 
> Good question. I see you have your thinking cap on. You're not only asking good questions but, your questions are drawing logical comparisons to see if the conceptual idea holds up under scruitiny. Anytime you guide or capture and use both hands, from "Captured, to Defensive, to Raining," they are always deployed in succession never simultaneously. Sometimes the timing may be tighter than a simple syncopation and end up being Mora beat, but it's still the same in my experience. *



Dear Yoda,

What do you think about the attack for cross of death.   The cross is employed simultaneouos with the intent to block blood and possibley air.   And I would be most interested in your opinion for defensive cross.  As I understand it- there is a trapping -striking redirect.  I have never thought about doing it as say 1/4 beat timing for the sicsor type application.

Thankyou
RM:asian:


----------



## kenmpoka

Firstly, I'd like to thank Doc for sharing
his knowlegde of Kenpo. He has certainly made a few techniques run a lot smoother and more effective for me. THANK YOU.

Secondly, It just make sense to use quarter beat timing and double blocking even for a cross block.

In the old days when you would build up on knuckles and conditioned wrists, the "x" block was really a block and a jamming strike, specially against the shins. Or double sword strikes to the joints. Or used to trap attacking limbs to throw, redirect, or to pull. That is why the fists must be in vertical position (Palms facing sideways)

   :asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> Dear Yoda,
> 
> What do you think about the attack for cross of death.   The cross is employed simultaneouos with the intent to block blood and possibley air.   And I would be most interested in your opinion for defensive cross.  As I understand it- there is a trapping -striking redirect.  I have never thought about doing it as say 1/4 beat timing for the sicsor type application.
> 
> Thankyou
> RM:asian: *



Hey I'm taller than Yoda 

Anyway, Sir You guys are really thinking. But consider this. "Cross of Death" is a offensive use of the mechanism. However even so, my good friend Gene LaBell will tell you one hand "Seizes" control, and the other "strikes" before locking up. Notice that on offense the mechanism essentially reverses itself. Instead of defending first and then moving to control, you control first than move to offense. 

To defend on "Cross of Death" you must stop the second hand, because it is a knockout,  striking the Vagus Nerve at the Carotid Artery. The Vagus nerve is very important because it controls Sinus Rythym. In our interpretation of the technique we employ an inward block to "check" the second hand. this technique is like "Squatting Sacrifice" in many ways. Squatting is a "throwaway" created to teach you some things that are possible AFTER the man is down. 

However the "ideas" for "Squatting" in the Technique Manuals are ludicrous and WILL NOT WORK. You cannot bend down and Seize a man's leg while he's is actively holding you in a rear bear hug. You will get supplexed. if you sit down on his leg, you Pin it to the ground, so you can't lift it if you do bend down. This particular assault is addressed in other techniques, that's why I said it is a "throwaway." However our interpretation is completely different.

In "Cross of Death"  you should react to his first hand. If he were to complete the assault, you will be knocked out. I teach it not as a "choke" but as a "grab and strike to choke" which is what it is. 

Sidebar: Both of these techniques "ideas" are wrestling/grappling based from the early era.

I'm not sure what you mean about "Defensive Cross," maybe you hadn't read the other post yet. Let me know.

Honest, I am taller than Yoda Sir.:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenmpoka _
> 
> *Firstly, I'd like to thank Doc for sharing
> his knowlegde of Kenpo. He has certainly made a few techniques run a lot smoother and more effective for me. THANK YOU.
> 
> Secondly, It just make sense to use quarter beat timing and double blocking even for a cross block.
> 
> In the old days when you would build up on knuckles and conditioned wrists, the "x" block was really a block and a jamming strike, specially against the shins. Or double sword strikes to the joints. Or used to trap attacking limbs to throw, redirect, or to pull. That is why the fists must be in vertical position (Palms facing sideways)
> 
> :asian: *



You sir are absolutely correct. Someone like you who has a broader martial education realizes even in traditional arts it is not just basically a "cross" of the wrist to block.

Thnak you for the compliment and you are welcome. Whenever I have time I will always share my experiences and knowledge (as long as they don't run me away) There are no secrets, only things we don't know. American Kenpo is even better than we think it is.


----------



## jfarnsworth

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Good question. I see you have your thinking cap on. You're not only asking good questions but, your questions are drawing logical comparisons to see if the conceptual idea holds up under scruitiny. Anytime you guide or capture and use both hands, from "Captured, to Defensive, to Raining," they are always deployed in succession never simultaneously. Sometimes the timing may be tighter than a simple syncopation and end up being Mora beat, but it's still the same in my experience. *




Thanks again,
Now, when I got up this morning I notice another technique that I thought used the same action. This was Capturing the Storm. I was taught to use the cross block up then ride it back to the elbow hyperextension and wrist lock. Do you once again employ one hand "and then" the other hand? Again, curious on your view although I'm sure it's still the same. 
Salute,
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Thanks again,
> Now, when I got up this morning I notice another technique that I thought used the same action. This was Capturing the Storm. I was taught to use the cross block up then ride it back to the elbow hyperextension and wrist lock. Do you once again employ one hand "and then" the other hand? Again, curious on your view although I'm sure it's still the same.
> Salute,
> Jason Farnsworth *



You are correct :asian: same concept. Right, left, right. Once you work one out, we can talk about another. Mr. Parker says, "Man who put to much on plate, can't eat all he has."


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> You are correct :asian: same concept. Right, left, right. Once you work one out, we can talk about another. Mr. Parker says, "Man who put to much on plate, can't eat all he has." *



Dear Yoda,

Didn't see the other post- Works for me.  One question cross of death- so the attack is definitetly an offensive Kenpo technique in and of it self?   That would hold true for all the grappling type attacks but not so much for some of the other attacks that seem to be singular in nature... would this be correct?

Thankyou
RM:asian: 

PS for example sword of destruction- Oh yeah Yoda- only looks small.   

PPS  Squating Sacrifice is dependant on rooting but not with the feet so much as the entire self.   When that is done the person would be extremely hard to pick up, if at all even possible.    I would say it uses some very advanced concepts to be executed with any success against an experienced grappler.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> Dear Yoda,
> 
> Didn't see the other post- Works for me.  One question cross of death- so the attack is definitetly an offensive Kenpo technique in and of it self?   That would hold true for all the grappling type attacks but not so much for some of the other attacks that seem to be singular in nature... would this be correct?
> 
> PS for example sword of destruction- Oh yeah Yoda- only looks small.  *


*
Absolutely. techniques are supposed to be studied from both the offensive and defensive perspectives, otherwise neither can be learned properly.*



*



			PPS  Squating Sacrifice is dependant on rooting but not with the feet so much as the entire self.   When that is done the person would be extremely hard to pick up, if at all even possible.    I would say it uses some very advanced concepts to be executed with any success against an experienced grappler.
		
Click to expand...

*
That is a serious observation. You are correct, however "rooting" as you call it cannot take place for our purposes with the legs spread so the technique would be negated anyway. There is "Misalignment Technology" that has to come into play here, but you're right. Did you use the phrase "Advanced Concepts?" I got in trouble when I put that on our patch. You're right on the money Sir. "Ummm, Good Jedi, you make."

"These are not the techniques you're looking for, move along."


----------



## brianhunter

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> That is a serious observation. You are correct, however "rooting" as you call it cannot take place for our purposes with the legs spread so the technique would be negated anyway. There is "Misalignment Technology" that has to come into play here, but you're right. Did you use the phrase "Advanced Concepts?" I got in trouble when I put that on our patch. You're right on the money Sir. "Ummm, Good Jedi, you make."
> 
> "These are not the techniques you're looking for, move along." *




Is it just me or all good kenpoist star wars fans :xwing:


----------



## jeffkyle

I am a good kenpoist?


----------



## brianhunter

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> 
> *I am a good kenpoist? *




Yeah....but only when you do your hair like the princess and say help me obi one konobe over and over


----------

