# Snaking Talon



## Kenpoist (Jan 27, 2005)

This is my first thread - so I hope to get some good input!

I am looking to see what other applications are being taught for this technique to make it more practical and efficent.

The traditional technique starts out with your right hand looping in a figure eight to defend against a front 2 hand push (I find the figure eight to be time consuming).  I have tried to vary the initial block with a two handed inward parry, but you now are grabbing the wrong hand, which defeats pulling your opponent off-center for the kick.

Next your right hand pulls down on opponets right wrist while we perform right front snap kick -  (no issues on this one) - 

After kick the technique calls for moving into front twist stance to set up for the two rear kicks (reverse chicken kick). I find that once we start the twist and attempt to perform first rear left back kick - you are now opening yourself to 1) blind technique and 2) potentially making yourself vulnerable in the twist (i.e. cross yourself up).

My best attempt with the kicks is to strike the knee with the first - thus dropping your opponents body and delivering the second kick to the ribs.

I would appreciate any insight and your comments.


----------



## dubljay (Jan 27, 2005)

How much have you experimented with this technique... 10 times... 100 times... I found it awkward at first too, but soon was comfortable with the figure 8 pattern. The figure 8 is something you will see forever more, it becomes more apparent and used in techniqes to come. 

 I found that the reason the figure 8 was awkward for me was I was making the pattern too large. Close your circles a bit more. dont make it too wide otherwise you waste time by taking your hand too far from your opponents arms. 

 IMO if you do a double inward parry the technique becomes too much like snapping twig from purple belt (also for a push, though for a one handed attack) Try applying snapping twig to a left right punch combination while keeping the same body mechanics and see what you get. I spent about 3 hrs breaking this down analyzing snapping twig and came up with 2 variations.

 Also having both hands out to do a parry violates the 180 rule. One hand must be 180 degrees from the other as a guard (i.e. one hand high the other low). This also applies to distance from the body. One hand is out, the other must be kept closer as a guard. It doesnt mean that the close hand is inactive or not engaged... but if both hands are out from the body they must travel back to protect against an attack. 

  -Josh-

 PS welcome to the forum and happy posting.


----------



## Seabrook (Jan 27, 2005)

The "snaking" part of the move aids in the torque for the heel palm break to the elbow and the simultaneous front kick to the groin. Also, when you grab the opponent's wrist and pull diagonally down, it cancels the attacker's height, width, and depth. 

A lot of people do snaking talon without the arm break but I find that it helps counter-balance the front kick. 


Jamie Seabrook
http://www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com/


----------



## Shodan (Jan 27, 2005)

Hello and welcome!!

  I learned this technique for punches- left followed by right straight or round punches towards the face.  With the figure 8 one-arm parries, be sure to keep your right (parrying arm) elbow low, vertical and fairly close in to your body- it's not a huge movement- just enough to catch and redirect the punches.  The first, we do from a right neutral bow, moving into a right cat stance with the second parry.  As you re-direct the second parry, you grab the wrist (right to right) and pull it straight in and down to your right, weighting the opponent's front foot and delivering a right front kick to the mid-section.  Right foot still in the air, you plant back towards 5:00 in a right front twist stance.  Your right hand still grasps the opponent's wrist and now you match the direction of your right leg- pulling the wrist at a 45 and down as you move into your twist stance.  Now, you immediately execute a right rear kick to the mid-section and cross out.  I have seen the chicken kick variation but didn't originally learn it that way.  It was executed just as you pull them down on the 45 and plant your right foot, you pick up your left foot (sort of a bounce-step motion) and hit their head (if it is there) with the bottom of your left foot before you then do the right back kick.  Didn't have much luck with the chicken kick variation myself, but I have seen others be able to pull it off.

  Hope that helps some.......sometimes a different version can be mixed with what you currently have to help out.

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## pete (Jan 27, 2005)

welcome fellow kenpoist...

snaking talon is a good one for a variety of applications, including the left/right combination, two hand push or two hand grab.

the descriptions given are all good, and i also agree with Seabrook to engage a left palm heel to the attackers right elbow... but, prior to the snap kick while pulling back into a transitional cat.  it definitely works as a forward counter balance (yang) during the pull back (yin) action.  also, it puts you in a good position to follow him in with a forward wrist press if he's able to retract his right arm back.

i also agree with shodan's emphasis on maintaining the hold on the right wrist as you go into the right twist.  this allows you to pull him into or twist him further downward during the back kick.

as far as the back-chicken kick goes, there is no need for it if you retain his wrist and pull him in, but if you lose your grip, the chicken kick is there to divert his attention and open a clear target.  try to practice it both ways, but shodan is correct... its pretty awkward to combine them.

i like to run a drill, using snaking talon and dart... dart, for those who don't know is a old technique against a left jab where you parry the left punch down with your right, check it with your left, as you continue to circle your right as you shuffle up with a right eye gouge. its a quick tech.  anyways, if the left comes and there is no right punch coming (or you beat him), do dart. if the right punch comes in, continue the circle into snaking talon.  

ohhh... another tip for the 'snaking' part, is to keep your elbow down and your wrist open.  violating either of those will make the motion feel even more awkward and leave you open to getting yourself locked up!  get the movement going from your belly.

good stuff...hope this helps a bit....

pete.


----------



## Doc (Jan 27, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> This is my first thread - so I hope to get some good input!
> 
> I am looking to see what other applications are being taught for this technique to make it more practical and efficent.
> 
> ...



The back "chicken kick" is anatomically incorrect and should not be done. The extension of one leg while landing and supporting with the other will cause significant stress to the lower lumbar, and strains the hip flexors.

The more important question is why would you defend against an attacker, incapacitate him, then twist and turn away from him misaligning your body while still in contact with your attacker, and execute such an idiotic balance threatening, body twisting, stupid (my view) action.

But then again if you like it ...


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 27, 2005)

I was under the impression with this technique the three kicks were: Left front kick, right side kick, and then left back kick. Does anyone else do Snaking Talon this way?

  - Ceicei


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 27, 2005)

Right front kick, Left back kick, Right back kick so as to be able to execute a right front crossover cover out.


----------



## Kenpoist (Jan 27, 2005)

I appreciate the responses.  

My current instructor has a different view of some of these techniques than my former instructor (EPAK) - whereas several techniques are modified from his experience in TRA-CO and Nin-Po.  Though it has been over a decade since I trianed in Kenpo, I am happy to once again be training in Kenpo.  I'll try the different suggestions and see what works best for me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 29, 2005)

1. Uh...sorry, but while rear chicken kicks ain't my fave rave, they're not necessarily anatomically hopeless. part of the trick is NOT to "drum majorette," the kick...don't try to fire (never launch) the second kick with the first fully extended, but bring the first foot sharply back and down...in other words, treat it as two plain old back kicks rather than two fancy somethings.

2. The kicks may be modified. Try a "gauging step," with the left rear foot, assuming that the attacker retreats and crossing that gap with the left foot before you kick with your right.

3. Assume that the grab/dropping your weight yanked the attacker's head down; try a left heel kick to the face/right back kick and cover out...

4. #2 and # 3 represents opposite ends of a spectrum; it may be in between that you'll find yourself wanting to be.

5. I particularly hate the ending to this technique. Sigh. Guess some practice remains in order.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 30, 2005)

I have also practiced the technique at a seminar against a left right combo (with Mr Planas), but I am in total agreement about the back chicken kick, I prefer to plant each foot in turn, and then have the advantage of one leg pushing my 220 lbs through the other leg into the opponent, I personally don't think hopping produces the same amount of penetration.


----------



## Doc (Jan 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Uh...sorry, but while rear chicken kicks ain't my fave rave, they're not necessarily anatomically hopeless. part of the trick is NOT to "drum majorette," the kick...don't try to fire (never launch) the second kick with the first fully extended, but bring the first foot sharply back and down...in other words, treat it as two plain old back kicks rather than two fancy somethings.
> 
> 2. The kicks may be modified. Try a "gauging step," with the left rear foot, assuming that the attacker retreats and crossing that gap with the left foot before you kick with your right.
> 
> ...



The chicken kick by definition requires that the second kick be launched while the first is extended. Anything else is simply "two kicks." Done as a "chicken kick" to the rear they are anatomically incorrect, although to the front is acceptable. This "kick" was created by Jim Mitchell in an effort to create a 3rd kicking set that was all "chicken kicks" to the front, side, and rear. Ultimately it was rejected by Mr. Parker although some still use it.


----------



## Brother John (Jan 30, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> The chicken kick by definition requires that the second kick be launched while the first is extended. Anything else is simply "two kicks." Done as a "chicken kick" to the rear they are anatomically incorrect, although to the front is acceptable. This "kick" was created by Jim Mitchell in an effort to create a 3rd kicking set that was all "chicken kicks" to the front, side, and rear. Ultimately it was rejected by Mr. Parker although some still use it.


Thank you for the insight Mr. Chapel!! Very interesting to know the history. 
I'm glad I was NEVER asked to do that kick. I could see how it'd be 'incorrect'.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

Well, I kinda hate this kinda response, but I learned the kick that way from Mr. Tatum and my own first teacher, who...oh, never mind. I also happen to know one of Jim Mitchell's students pretty well; I'll ask him. But in brief, I'd suggest that the folks I learned the kick from pretty much know what they're doing.

More to the point, I agree that the 2nd kick has to be started as the second's still off the ground, if it's a chicken kick; I'm just saying that the first foot should be back and headed straight down before the second kick's thrown, because a) with the first leg extended, the second kick doesn't seem very strong; b) with the first leg extended, the second kick does indeed seem an anatomical mess...at least from what my back says to me, when I try it that way. I know that other styles throw those kicks other ways, but...

I can't seem to get Kicking Set 2 though my head, so I'm not qualified to comment in detail...but the problem certainly wasn't the rear kicks being a strain on my back. I might also note that the front kicks are frequently done by students, in my more-limited experience, with precisely the "drum majorette," problem that I mentioned. 

I'd also note that the way I described the kicks seems to help with a) taking the opponent off-balance; b) getting the idea of the gauging step down; c) getting the idea of modifying the chicken kick, so that a heel to the face can be followed by a full-on back-kick.


----------



## Kenpoist (Jan 30, 2005)

Ref the cross over - I do it is a nature of habit from my previous Parker only training.  My current instructor has a broader style back ground (Ninjitsu etc) and is working on my changing the cross over to a  switch out stance or drag step  - something different.
His experience is if you get a good fighter as your opponent - they can tie you up as your crossing your feet.  If the attacker is already on the ground - than a cross over is good.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Doc (Jan 30, 2005)

One of the biggest area of confusion in martial arts "basics" is a true understanding of the methodologies and body mechanics associated with kicking.

For many years "teachers" with no true understanding of human body mechanics have taught "basics" as they understand them. Many of these ideas are culturally based as much as they are just misunderstandings of how the body functions. 

A true teacher must facilitate methods that are not only effective, but at the same time, do not impose a significant risk of damaging the body in their execution. Most teachers have no clue, not because they don't want to, but because their education has been limited in most instances to a teacher who simply passed along what he was taught, or who himself made modifications with no regard to what long term effect it might have on the human body.

Some of the "best" kickers have all had significant problems from improper kicks. Most of those problems manifest themselves with hip and knee problems. The Grandmaster of Hapkido at the time was the by far the best kicker I had ever seen in my life, Sea Oh Choi. I watched him teach Bruce Lee how to kick. The last time I saw him he was on crutches from double hip replacement surgery. Bill Wallace, Chuck Norris, Gene and George Takahashi all had hip replacement surgery. From Kenpo my good friend Mr. Bob Liles one of kenpos great kickers even today and a Kenpo Senior, and Brian Hawkins have also had hip replacement surgery along with a host of others with additional hip and knee problems.

None of these gentlemen set out to injure themselves intentionally kicking improperly. Over time improper body mechanics will catch up with you and all of these teachers are/were effective kickers. 

Its not just the martial arts. In western sports immediate effectiveness is often promoted over long term health benefits. Boxing, baseball pitching, kick boxing, football, even bowling can present significant physical problems over time for short term success. The opposite spectrum presents basketball shooting, swimming, and other hand eye coordination and body activities that demand proper mechanics that present no negative long term effects. Funny how over the course of a lifetime a basketball player can shoot tens of thousands of jump shots with no shoulder problems.

The martial arts in the western hemisphere is still quite young and its commercial appeal has produced a host of "teachers" who profess to be experts in body mechanics with no background to make such claims other than what they themselves were taught. My nephews strength and fitness coach when he was playing football at U-Dub got him to the Rosebowl and and a ring, but he was teaching an incorrect methodology for the bench press, that I recently changed. My brother has had three shoulder surgeries doing the same thing. It never occurred to any of them it was the methodology that caused the problem because what they were dong was working.

For kicks, I had a simple way of looking at it. I didn't do any kicks that Parker didn't do. He told me which kicks were bad for the body and I believed him as others believe their teachers. My hips and knees are almost sixty and still work pretty well I'm told. So in my estimate the key is not who taught you, or even whether what you do at the moment is effective, but for how long. Just a thought ... let's just say if you insist, you're in pretty good company with some other pretty prominent people who turned out through no fault of their own, to be wrong. But then again if you really like it ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 30, 2005)

I insist. 

And I insist because, done the way I describe them, the rear kicks don't seem to be a problem--and I'm on the high side of fifty. And what I described certainly wasn't mindlessly sticking your feet out there. And I was taught rather carefully to think about long-term effects....including those of hyperextending one's knee, landing on a stiffened leg, and stomping the mat. And I was taught that good form not only helps generate power (one of my objections to the sloppy chicken kick, front or back, is the lack of power), but protects the kicker.

And, in fairness, I wasn't taught to pound out four zillion of these things a day. 

And in fact, the way I described the kicks in the technique open up other options that straightforward chicken kicks.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 31, 2005)

I practice this technique against both as a push and against the boxer's L. jab-R. Cross combination.  

 As I retreat from the 1st punch, I execute more of a inward-downward handsword, only my hand is curled in to have a different angle of incidence (and the arm is very relaxed and "heavy") which usually causes their left arm to drop "dead", and appears to have a significant 1st strike pain check.

 Then stepping off line from the right-cross by continuing into the cat stance, I do all sorts of variations, contingent on the exact attack and position of the opponent and his arm. My favorite is probably the "creating of a target" following my first "parry" or "strike."  By leading their right punch toward my face with my arm postions checking other areas (open ended triangle with left hand high and right at about sternum high, I am able to do almost a Protecting Fans outward parry, with my right momentarily hooking/checking his arm such that a break occurs as my right arm does the outward parry, which I angle toward 5:30 slightly, to strike at the nerves directly above the elbow.

 (I spent to many years knocking his right arm away (inward handsword-outward handsword), or entangling his arms (snaking), so although I do teach those, my preferred is above, hurting him with every touch.)

 I then fall into the pattern as most people do it, checking height and width by striking the elbow as I rotate their arm for the most efficient angle, while pulling and kicking to the groin, or inside of the leg. 

 I do "twist", but as I do this, I pull his hand in, still checking width, and position his hand against my hip as I rotate, (which puts mucho pressure against the wrist), and if I do it correctly it breaks the wrist, and opens the body for the spinning rear kick.  If I miss this I check or "throw" their arm down and at an angle which prevents their reorbiting the left toward me.

 Although I do remember and like Kicking Set #2, I think all chicken kicks are about Range, at least for me, so I utilize it as a gauging step, if needed, for the second kick (usually not needed as they are seldom within any kind of range for me to do a second back kick after I do a spinning back kick).

 I am not pretending this is the IDEAL, nor is it what I initially teach. But once you have the basics, I open the door for WHAT-IF's, and for me, a more destructive version.

  -Michael


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 31, 2005)

Being that I can't get out of bed and start my day without a handful of Advil for my low back, hips, and knees, I'm apt to side with Doc on the anatomical alignment bandwagon. I've mentioned before that someone needs to revisit the basics with an eye towards efficient biomechanics. Much of what is repeated from one generation of instructors to the next is the anatomical version of "urban legend". I see it in the gym; I see it in the studios.

Just because one or more oldsters do it that way, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. Asking your body to do movements that FEEL awkward, especially if it's a move you've done many times before and it still don't feel right, means you're in violation of simple neurological warning signs your body gives you.

Hand on stove = pain? It's your body screaming, "Stop what you're doing! It's bad for you". In that case, we have the collective sense to pick the hand up off the stove. But what if the insult is more subtle? Small, grating or grinding injuries that don't cause searing pain, but certainly send small messages that "What you're doing ain't right: Stop it." 

A bumper bender is less dramatic than an embassy explosion. I have patients from both ends of the extreme, and they all bear the consequences of insults and injuries in their bodies, visible on plain film x-ray, and traceable back to specific events. CTD's, or "cumulative trauma disorders", are those that come not from a single dramatic/traumatic event, but rather from multiple exposures to minor, barely detectable insults and injuries. With the passage of time, they add up, and create disabilities as real as those created by having a pallette of cement bags dropped on your head.

I encourage you to follow your hearts, even if they are misinformed. That way, when you're walking with the assistance of orthopaedic devices, at least you will feel in congruence with your own beliefs. And that kind of internal consistency helps as a salve to get through those sleepless nights, caused by pain, brought on by poor mechanics in motion.

Regards,

Dave.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 31, 2005)

I quite agree. But I am also saying that these chicken kicks, the way I was taught them, sure don't seem to be a strain on my back or hip at all....which the "drum majorette versions damn sure are. And, they open up the range of possibilities for the technique. 

Incidentally, these rear kicks are elsewhere in the base system; for example, if memory serves, there's the two-man technique "Parting of the Snakes."


----------



## kenpoworks (Jan 31, 2005)

Hey, Doc,
"me old china"
Just give them the rope and they tie themselves up.
You crack me up.
"dumb is forever" yo, ho, ho!
Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 31, 2005)

I quite agree about the necessity of training hard but training as safe as possible; personally, I'm in this for the long haul.


----------



## Doc (Jan 31, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Hey, Doc,
> "me old china"
> Just give them the rope and they tie themselves up.
> You crack me up.
> ...



Thanks Mate! See you in May.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 31, 2005)

I am reminded of the differences between "effective" and "efficient". Many moves are, in fact, effective for the field of combat, or as technical applications of kenpo concepts. If "efficiency" refers to the ability to get the maximum effectiveness from an application with a minimum of damage to ones self, and the greatest recruitment of anatomical mechanisms within that framework, there is much in the main body of kenpo that is deadly effective, but not very efficient. Not mechanically, mind you. The history of CTD's in kenpo is too prevalent to believe we have it all right, just because it's how we were handed it and it looks good. Kinda like a motion version of urban legend.

Kenpo is, in my mind, the most efficient system available for consumption. Still, it continues to be propogated by persons with little or no training or experience in the academic physical disciplines.  I can't help but wonder how our collective core cirriculum would change if the body of practitioners was suddenly inundated with kinesiologists, PT's, PhD's in biomechanics, etc. Parker was a genius, both as an idea man, and as an applications man. But he was not infallable (heresy?), and I suspect that even his motion in kenpo could have been improved through conclusions drawn by referencing the perspective of a different starting point.

What if kenpo was developed not to be the baddest and fastest kid on the block, but rather to be the most long-lived kid on the block? Something we are doing is bad for our bones. It behooves the current and next generation of seniors to bend heir wills to identifying and remedying these issues, while honoring the spirit of kenpo, before we pass on a damaging product to future consumers of our preoccupation.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

It's the weirdest thing. I keep saying, a) train safe, b) the chicken kicks don't seem to be any problem, done as I was taught; c) I'm over fifty.

Oh, and it's worth keeping in mind that as a system emphasizing low kicks and keeping yer feet on the ground, kenpo can cut a lot of the typical martial arty injuries.

Oh, and it's useful to teach students not to stomp when they switch, cover, etc.


----------



## howardr (Feb 1, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> The history of CTD's in kenpo is too prevalent to believe we have it all right



CTD's:

Cumulative Trauma Disorder?

Connective Tissue Disease?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...Oh, and it's useful to teach students not to stomp when they switch, cover, etc.


Help me out here. Why not? Seems to me to be an excellent way to help the body find stability in structure, as opposed to the "sneaky foot slides" commonly seen in kenpo and other arts. Kinda has the effect of aligning the body against the forces of gravity, particularly after it has been intentionally misaligned to cover distance in the odd, modified gates we use to cover space or change position (i.e., foot maneuvers).

As a source of CTD, I don't _personally_ imagine it being any harder on the body than walking.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

Stomping really IS bad mechanics; repetitive trauma to feet, ankles, and right on up the chain, as I learned as a brown belt whose feet--like those of many brown belts--hurt all the time. It's also unnecessary, though of course a good foot stomp is part of kenpo from at least, "Scraping Hooves," on.

Oh yeah--and when people are switching, they're jumping too high if their feet come way off the mat and slam down--it takes too long, and hurts over time..


----------



## howardr (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Stomping really IS bad mechanics; repetitive trauma to feet, ankles, and right on up the chain, as I learned as a brown belt whose feet--like those of many brown belts--hurt all the time. It's also unnecessary, though of course a good foot stomp is part of kenpo from at least, "Scraping Hooves," on.
> 
> Oh yeah--and when people are switching, they're jumping too high if their feet come way off the mat and slam down--it takes too long, and hurts over time..



Well, I guess part of this revolves around just what we mean by "stomping." Stomping, I admit, sounds pretty bad. It conjures up for me at least, someone excessively slamming their foot to the ground. If this is what you are referring to when you reference "stomping," I'm sympathetic. However, it is possible to use a mechanism with the foot that might be mistaken for a "stomp," which is non-injurious but lends to immense benefit for body alignment and stability.

Stomping correctly, i.e., at the right time and place, can provide much benefit. However, what would seem to be a simple, almost soft, placement of foot at the proper time and place can yield the same benefits without employing excessive downward force. At first, I think, students have a need to use a more forceful stomp in order to get the feel and understanding of the  underlying mechanism, internal structure and result sought. But, at same point (hopefully sooner than later), a much lighter, and certainly non-injurious, "stomp-lite," can and should be adopted.

I see this as an issue much like that of the "slap-check." While someone can certainly injure themselves by self-hitting, slap-checks done properly yield tremendous benefit, and do not produce injury (in fact, they prevent it).

So, I guess my underlying theme is that we may all be on the same page here, we might just need to clarify usage a bit.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 1, 2005)

I'd say stomping the ground is kinda bad compared to stomp kicks, which are meant to land on a cushy absorbant person.


----------



## kenpoworks (Feb 1, 2005)

I can still remember the time I heard the sound and felt the vibration of Mr. Parker 
settling once heard and felt never forgotten, it was  a "what was that"! moment.
Mimics of Mr. Parker "stomp" for affect, students of Mr. Parker settle for effect.
Doc is well worth listening to on this subject he will entertain and educate you at the same time, he is the only one whom I (in my limited experience) have had qualified explanation from about this "phenomena"
Rich.


----------



## TChase (Feb 2, 2005)

Ed Parker could shake a cement floor when he settled.


----------



## kenpoworks (Feb 13, 2005)

Wow!...to feel is to believe


----------



## kenpo3631 (Feb 13, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> The chicken kick by definition requires that the second kick be launched while the first is extended. Anything else is simply "two kicks." Done as a "chicken kick" to the rear they are anatomically incorrect, although to the front is acceptable. This "kick" was created by Jim Mitchell in an effort to create a 3rd kicking set that was all "chicken kicks" to the front, side, and rear. Ultimately it was rejected by Mr. Parker although some still use it.



Thanks Doc! I have been told Mitchell did many things, but this is one of the first times on this post I have seen one of the Seniors confirm it. Thanks!


----------



## Doc (Feb 13, 2005)

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> Thanks Doc! I have been told Mitchell did many things, but this is one of the first times on this post I have seen one of the Seniors confirm it. Thanks!



Yes sir, there was about a 1 year period when Jim was available and Parker allowed him to express himself on some of the curriculum. In fact Jim and some of his students demonstrated his interpretation of the entire commercial curriculum on video for Mr. Parker (behind the camera) that included the Kicking Set 3, (2 for most), and even the extensions. That's not to say Parker adopted it, but Parker was always interested in others perspective and how they interpreted the information because that curriculum is by definition, "soft" and instructor based fluid. 

It was during this window that Jim was allowed to pose for the pictures for volume 2 of Infinite Insights demonstrating the stances shot by Jim Grumwald. Ultimately Parker was very dissatisfied with Jim's presentation of the stances and vowed to re-shoot the pictures on subsequent reprints, and Jim didn't appear in any of the following volumes.

Most of the Parker projects were done by his family (primarily Edmund when he became old enough) and whomever among his students was available at the time. Some projects required a significant time commitment for perhaps months with essentially the same person(s) for continuity. This was not always possible for many.

Of course Parker passed away before he could re-shoot the series utilizing more modern computer technology that he envisioned and talked about extensively with Edmund in the late eighties.


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 14, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Yes sir, there was about a 1 year period when Jim was available and Parker allowed him to express himself on some of the curriculum. In fact Jim and some of his students demonstrated his interpretation of the entire commercial curriculum on video for Mr. Parker (behind the camera) that included the Kicking Set 3, (2 for most), and even the extensions. That's not to say Parker adopted it, but Parker was always interested in others perspective and how they interpreted the information because that curriculum is by definition, "soft" and instructor based fluid.
> 
> It was during this window that Jim was allowed to pose for the pictures for volume 2 of Infinite Insights demonstrating the stances shot by Jim Grumwald. Ultimately Parker was very dissatisfied with Jim's presentation of the stances and vowed to re-shoot the pictures on subsequent reprints, and Jim didn't appear in any of the following volumes.
> 
> ...


Mr. Chapel,

We haven't met but I have read a lot of your posts, articles, ect.

I have a question for you:

Do you teach Kicking Set 2 and what is your take on the set? Sorry, this should probably be a new thread, but since it came up - I thought I would get your input on it.

Thanks,

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## pete (Feb 14, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> i like to run a drill, using snaking talon and dart... dart, for those who don't know is a old technique against a left jab where you parry the left punch down with your right, check it with your left, as you continue to circle your right as you shuffle up with a right eye gouge. its a quick tech. anyways, if the left comes and there is no right punch coming (or you beat him), do dart. if the right punch comes in, continue the circle into snaking talon.
> 
> ohhh... another tip for the 'snaking' part, is to keep your elbow down and your wrist open. violating either of those will make the motion feel even more awkward and leave you open to getting yourself locked up! get the movement going from your belly.


i had the pleasure of running this drill again just this past friday night, and discovered another lesson learned here is for the defender to lead rather than anticipate.  

pete.


----------



## Doc (Feb 14, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Mr. Chapel,
> 
> We haven't met but I have read a lot of your posts, articles, ect.
> 
> ...



No sir, I do not. What most call Kicking Set 2 would be for us Kicking Set 3. Mr. Parker included a simple "Elementary Kicking Set 1" that existed before the first kick set, so-called "Orange Kicking Set." We never stopped using it, and it is perfect for a beginner. These are the two kick sets we use. (Elementary & Orange called 1 & 2 for us).

Although I am not 100% sure, now that you've brought it up, the first time I heard of that set was when it was demonstrated by Jim Mitchell on that video, (hated it) and I haven't seen it since. It is entirely possible he came up with that one as well. I know he was working on all of the "number 2" sets for Mr. Parker in San Diego and put them on the video. I'll have to do a search of my memory banks, and review the video for a definitive answer on its creation.

We don't do any of the Jim Mitchell "2" sets. That particular set is Anatomically contradictory.

I look forward to meeting you one day sir,

Thanks for jogging the creeping "oldtimers" syndrome.


----------



## Michael Billings (Feb 14, 2005)

I do the "Orange Kicking Set" or Exercises, in addition to Kicking Set #1 and Kicking Set #2.  Anatomically correct or not, the set has some interesting things to teach, primarily in terms of gauging range.  I do not teach the set until 2nd Brown, and by then the kicks and most of the kick combinations themselves, have already been learned.  

 As always Doc is a great source of the history of EPAK. 

 -Michael


----------



## Doc (Feb 14, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> I do the "Orange Kicking Set" or Exercises, in addition to Kicking Set #1 and Kicking Set #2.  Anatomically correct or not, the set has some interesting things to teach, primarily in terms of gauging range.  I do not teach the set until 2nd Brown, and by then the kicks and most of the kick combinations themselves, have already been learned.
> 
> As always Doc is a great source of the history of EPAK.
> 
> -Michael



I agree sir, (about what it teaches) and there are some interesting aspects that could be used, but I don't believe they should be used as presented in the entirety of the set. Besides like you say, the effective elements are covered in the techniques ultimately anyway.

I am going to find those tapes and take a look to refresh my memory.


----------



## Seabrook (Feb 15, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> No sir, I do not. What most call Kicking Set 2 would be for us Kicking Set 3. Mr. Parker included a simple "Elementary Kicking Set 1" that existed before the first kick set, so-called "Orange Kicking Set." We never stopped using it, and it is perfect for a beginner. These are the two kick sets we use. (Elementary & Orange called 1 & 2 for us).
> 
> Although I am not 100% sure, now that you've brought it up, the first time I heard of that set was when it was demonstrated by Jim Mitchell on that video, (hated it) and I haven't seen it since. It is entirely possible he came up with that one as well. I know he was working on all of the "number 2" sets for Mr. Parker in San Diego and put them on the video. I'll have to do a search of my memory banks, and review the video for a definitive answer on its creation.
> 
> ...


Mr. Chapel,

A couple of things. Your right - even though Mr. Parker had the set listed in Volume 5 of the Infinite Insights series, I find that many Kenpo associations don't teach it. And to be honest, those that do, I have yet to see someone perform it very well. That's interesting about Kicking Set 2 being anatomically contradictory.

About sets - Lee Wedlake and Huk Planas state in their 201 book that the Kenpo sets are Star Block Set, Finger Set, Two Man Set, Coordination Set, and Kicking Set. Kicking Set 2 (as well as Stance Set 1 & 2, Striking Set 1 & 2, Coordination Set 2, Finger Set 2, Staff Set, Form 7 and 8) were all approved my Mr. Parker although he didn't require everyone to learn and teach them.  

I teach all of the sets but am interested in the why's of those that don't. Like I said, even though we haven't met, I've got tremendous respect for your abilities and knowledge, and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Doc (Feb 18, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Mr. Chapel,
> 
> A couple of things. Your right - even though Mr. Parker had the set listed in Volume 5 of the Infinite Insights series, I find that many Kenpo associations don't teach it. And to be honest, those that do, I have yet to see someone perform it very well. That's interesting about Kicking Set 2 being anatomically contradictory.
> 
> ...



I haven't forgotten you sir. Give me a moment to give you a decent reply.


----------



## Doc (Feb 19, 2005)

> Mr. Chapel,
> 
> A couple of things. Your right - even though Mr. Parker had the set listed in Volume 5 of the Infinite Insights series, I find that many Kenpo associations don't teach it. And to be honest, those that do, I have yet to see someone perform it very well. That's interesting about Kicking Set 2 being anatomically contradictory.
> 
> ...



Well sir, although I have a tremendous amount of respect for Huk, he does come to the table with a considerable preference for some of the material he helped to create. Of course, this plays out in his being very knowledgeable of that information as well. Not unlike my own position with regard to the anatomical interpretation of essentially the same material.

Most of the twos were created as busy work to flesh the curriculum much later in the late seventies, and even into the early eighties. Most of it never caught on with teachers who never learned it, or by this late in the game, didnt want them, and some rejected them because they knew where they came from.

Most, who bought into these things, opted for the extensions, clubs, and knives over sets that didnt appear to offer much more than their singular counterpoints.

Although Parker had started work on more useful sets, he never completed any of them, instead giving students what they wanted in weapons and tournament competition vehicles.

The majority of these are not used in our curriculum because they are anatomically incorrect and instead are based on motion as its central theme. Something I was taught to avoid as mindless exploration. Obviously as a stand-alone component, it is a different story. However in comparison, the more detailed oriented and functional anatomy based method is much more effective and skills, once learned, are permanent producing internal energy for a lifetime.

If you have specific questions I will be more than happy to answer you sir.


----------



## pete (Feb 19, 2005)

Dr. Chapel, 

i fail to see how 'motion' would the central theme of Stance Set 2.  in my most humble opinion, this is all about developing anotomical structure.  yes, its true that the stances used in this set are found throughout the numbered forms, but just as Stance Set 1 isolates the stances, Stance Set 2 does so with more advanced stances to teach balance, centering, rootedness, and stability. under the watchful eye of a knowledgeable instructor, a student can be corrected to feel the proper alignment of each stance and go on to apply them throught the system. 

  is this possibly an exception to your statement?  if not, please explain why this particular set, Stance Set 2, would be 'mindless exploration' and/or 'anotomically incorrect'...  thanks~ 

pete.


----------



## Doc (Feb 19, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> Dr. Chapel,
> 
> i fail to see how 'motion' would the central theme of Stance Set 2.  in my most humble opinion, this is all about developing anotomical structure.  yes, its true that the stances used in this set are found throughout the numbered forms, but just as Stance Set 1 isolates the stances, Stance Set 2 does so with more advanced stances to teach balance, centering, rootedness, and stability. under the watchful eye of a knowledgeable instructor, a student can be corrected to feel the proper alignment of each stance and go on to apply them throught the system.
> 
> ...


First as a point of information there as been at various times at least three different stance sets. The original stance set was depicted in Mr. Parker's second book finished in 1962, "Secrets of Chinese Karate." Than another weas created later to take its place when the commercial system was born. This second set was followed up much later by the infamous "two." (Three in our curriculum becasue of the existence of another structure creating "Elementary Stance  Set" Mr. Parker approved.)

The only exception to the "conceptual motion" rule was the first set not included in the motion kenpo curriculum, and even then only if taught properly.

Structural integrity is a subjective term and relative in motion kenpo. In comparison none of the curiculum is structurally sound because none of the proper body mechanics are taught that support the proper execution thereof. 

This is particularly true in stances, which as you know, form the foundation for essentionally everything. The entire curriculum of which you speak is based on getting practitioners "moving" or in motion and is the central theme for everything. Structural integrity is never addressed, and I have proved that for many years now with various highly accomplished well known motion kenpo instructors. They all failed. 

Many realizing this have defected or at a minimum, have found it necessary to study other arts that grapple to compensate for the inevitibility of structure collapse which usually results in becoming unitentionally horizontal.

Stances are easily challenged. Simply have someone push you at the shoulders with the intent to move you across the floor in the direction of the stances intended structural stability. If you move, it is not present. If you can hold your ground without contorting your body, then that stance for that jiffy-second in time has found structure. The key is to maintain it in all you do, as you perform whatever function is called for.

Thanks Pete.


----------



## Soulman (Feb 20, 2005)

Dr Chapel,
I am interested in what you describe as your "Elementary Kicking Set". 

Would you mind sharing with us what the differences are between the two sets, (Elementary#1 and Orange#2) or maybe even give an outline of how to execute your kicking-set-1?

I currently study the EPAK-24 system - would "my" Kick-set#1 be at all related to what you teach as your kicking-set#2?

Thanks,
Soulman


----------



## Doc (Feb 20, 2005)

Soulman said:
			
		

> Dr Chapel,
> I am interested in what you describe as your "Elementary Kicking Set".
> 
> Would you mind sharing with us what the differences are between the two sets, (Elementary#1 and Orange#2) or maybe even give an outline of how to execute your kicking-set-1?
> ...


Kick Set 1 is a simple four sided set that allows the teaching of sophisticated structural mechanisms and their transitions, and provides the base of all kicks utilized in the first chart course (yellow - 101). Additionally it also forms the base for additional basic hand mechanisms that also create structural integrity and provides experience in their proper use, and can include at a later time what is commonly seen in basic sparring activities. It only has essentially two kicks, a front kick and a roundhouse but explores all of the many relationships and combinations of these kicks inconjunction with proper hand positions and the variatious relationship combinations possible front and rear and the associated footwork and stances to achieve structural goals. On its face, it appears very simple however proper execution is more difficult than imagined when all mechanisms must be adhered to, to form a sound physical foundational base for the curriculum and continued structural integrity. A classic example of what Mr. parker often called, "Sophisticated simplicity."


----------



## parkerkarate (Mar 3, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> This is my first thread - so I hope to get some good input!
> 
> I am looking to see what other applications are being taught for this technique to make it more practical and efficent.
> 
> ...



Very interesting.
At the begging try to do a left inward parry once you strart looping you right hand like a snake (thus snaking talon.) This will make his arms cross, which will make the technique both easier and quicker. For the rear chicken kick, after you do the front cross over reverse, spin around as usual with your left hand up checking your face. But as you are spinning make shore your right fore arm is checking the opponents right arm. So you will have to let go for a split second. Once you have spun like in the end of Circling Windmills, if you know that technique yet, you check his right arm with the palm of you left hand to make shore he is still there. Than fallow through with your rear chicken kick.
Hopefully that makes sence and helps.

Salute,
David


----------

