# Tracys technique discussion...



## Flying Crane (Aug 5, 2006)

Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun.  We should be having some of our own discussions.  So here goes:

Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
Leveling the Clouds - Second Brown #4

All defenses against a punch from 12:00, and all begin identically.  Their primary difference is in how they finish the opponent.  

In my opinion, this kind of repetition is not necessary.  If you understand the initial defense, you should be able to adjust and finish the opponent however you see fit.  

Does anyone see a reason to maintain separate techs like these, when they are so similar?  Would it make more sense to combine them into one basic tech and simply explore different finishing options based on variations in the scenario?  

Any thoughts are welcome.


----------



## Doc (Aug 6, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun.  We should be having some of our own discussions.  So here goes:
> 
> Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
> Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
> ...


Well good old Al wanted to boast he had more techniques than you-know-who, so he made every slight variation possible into a separate technique. Now I have never understood Al's compulsion to separate and "out do" Parker. In my opinion the works of Al Tracy have always stood on their own as significant accomplishments - but whatthehell, that's Big AL.


----------



## Jim Hanna (Aug 6, 2006)

Its a matter of learning protocol.  Within the Tracy's curriculum a student is given many concrete examples that illustrate possible solutions to self defense scenarios.  Redundancy is a valid and worthwhile teaching tool.

For example, one can study poetry in an effort to learn how to write poetry.  So, you learn about iambic pentameter by studying one poem.  Then you learn about alliteration in another poem, etc.  

Eventually you have all the concepts and rules of poetry and can explain them quite fluently.

But you still can't write a poem.   You have developed the understanding but not the ear.  You develop the ear by reading several poems in iambic pentameter, etc.

My kenpo has a poetic quality to it.  It has an instinct that is not easily defined through science, just like many of the other chinese martial arts.

Regardlessly, whether your kenpo is "concrete example based" or "concept driven" it is still a lifelong endeavor.  There are no shortcuts.

Jim


----------



## Dave Simmons (Aug 6, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> Its a matter of learning protocol. Within the Tracy's curriculum a student is given many concrete examples that illustrate possible solutions to self defense scenarios. Redundancy is a valid and worthwhile teaching tool.
> 
> For example, one can study poetry in an effort to learn how to write poetry. So, you learn about iambic pentameter by studying one poem. Then you learn about alliteration in another poem, etc.
> 
> ...


 
Jim very nice analogy!

Doc's comment made me look up an old typed up technique manual. The manual was compilated by Jim Travino (San Jose dojo) there are 40 techniques per level. Travino's manual is 1965. At that time Tracy's was still in the Parker organization. The dojo was in the KKA.


----------



## Doc (Aug 6, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> Its a matter of learning protocol.  Within the Tracy's curriculum a student is given many concrete examples that illustrate possible solutions to self defense scenarios.  Redundancy is a valid and worthwhile teaching tool.
> 
> For example, one can study poetry in an effort to learn how to write poetry.  So, you learn about iambic pentameter by studying one poem.  Then you learn about alliteration in another poem, etc.
> 
> ...


Well we don't disagree Jim.


----------



## Doc (Aug 6, 2006)

Dave Simmons said:
			
		

> Jim very nice analogy!
> 
> Doc's comment made me look up an old typed up technique manual. The manual was compilated by Jim Travino (San Jose dojo) there are 40 techniques per level. Travino's manual is 1965. At that time Tracy's was still in the Parker organization. The dojo was in the KKA.


That was during the period when Parker had virtually made the split and Parker had turned over the KKA to the 'yudanshakai' and transitioned to the beginning of his first Chinese, than 'American Perspective.' This is when he dropped all the foreign language references, while Al continued using terms like 'dojo,' 'dan rankings,' etc. while Parker issued 'degrees.' Parker never had more than 32 techniques per belt. Al chose to maintain a Japanese tradition so he placed himself in the Mitose Lineage while Parker was first Chinese and then American in his philosophy. Given good teachers, neither is better than the other, and I still stand by my comment that Al did great things on his own, but was always trying to 'outdo' and get out of the shadow of Ed Parker. I have some of those Tracy 'manuals' somewhere. They were essentially just cliff notes of techniques with sometimes four or five 'techniques' on one page. These 'manuals' actually preceded much of the later Parker material.


----------



## KenpoDave (Aug 6, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun. We should be having some of our own discussions. So here goes:
> 
> Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
> Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
> ...


 
Not everyone will explore all the finishing options.  Maintaining them as separate techniques sort of mandates that they do.  

Here is a similar theory...kenpo is known among other martial arts as a "weak" kicking style.  Right or wrong, that is the opinion.  My instructor created a separate kicking curriculum, and added it to the belt charts.  In the Tracy System, his students and their schools are known as top kickers.

All those kicks already exist.  But, not everyone explores them.


----------



## Dave Simmons (Aug 6, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> That was during the period when Parker had virtually made the split and Parker had turned over the KKA to the 'yudanshakai' and transitioned to the beginning of his first Chinese, than 'American Perspective.' This is when he dropped all the foreign language references, while Al continued using terms like 'dojo,' 'dan rankings,' etc. while Parker issued 'degrees.' Parker never had more than 32 techniques per belt. Al chose to maintain a Japanese tradition so he placed himself in the Mitose Lineage while Parker was first Chinese and then American in his philosophy. Given good teachers, neither is better than the other, and I still stand by my comment that Al did great things on his own, but was always trying to 'outdo' and get out of the shadow of Ed Parker. I have some of those Tracy 'manuals' somewhere. They were essentially just cliff notes of techniques with sometimes four or five 'techniques' on one page. These 'manuals' actually preceded much of the later Parker material.


 
The fact is that GM Parker relied on his black belts to retain and store the Kenpo techniques etc. The original techniques were 40 later revised to 32 by Parker. Gm Tracy has everything recorded...not cliff notes but filmed and so forth.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 6, 2006)

Any thoughts on the techniques themselves?  Do ya like 'em?  Do ya not like 'em?  why or why not?

Personally, I like the basic "Arm Hook" initial movement.  I do the defense a bit like a Taun Sau from Wing Chun, but it's very similar to how I was taught to do it in Tracys.  I do like the different finishing portions of some of these techs.  Regardless of my thoughts on the repetious nature of the techs, over all I think this "family" of techs contain some solid ideas.

Input?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 7, 2006)

Has anybody else heard the "Al Tracy dies and goes to heaven" joke?

Regards,

Me.


----------



## Daremo_23 (Aug 7, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Has anybody else heard the "Al Tracy dies and goes to heaven" joke?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Me.


 
i like a good joke, please enlighten me(us).....


----------



## MJS (Aug 7, 2006)

*Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation on topic.  

-Mike Slosek
-MT Super Moderator-*


----------



## KenpoDave (Aug 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on the techniques themselves? Do ya like 'em? Do ya not like 'em? why or why not?
> 
> Personally, I like the basic "Arm Hook" initial movement. I do the defense a bit like a Taun Sau from Wing Chun, but it's very similar to how I was taught to do it in Tracys. I do like the different finishing portions of some of these techs. Regardless of my thoughts on the repetious nature of the techs, over all I think this "family" of techs contain some solid ideas.
> 
> Input?


 
I like 'em.  Almost all of them.  There are very few techniques in the system that I just don't like, but I do find value in them.

Regarding the Arm Hook "family," you have hit here on the idea of repetition, in my opinion.  Separating them out forces each "separate technique" to be worked on it's own merit before being integrated into the "family group," so to speak.

I have found, over the years, that many techniques fit into more than one grouping, and fear that teaching them from that perspective may limit the student's ability to see the broader picture.

The criticism fro Doc is that Al Tracy was trying to create more and more to outdo Parker, yet, Doc also mentions that Ed Parker took alot of techniques out of "original kenpo" in order to make his system more of a concept driven curriculum.  An argument could be made that Al Tracy preserved what Ed Parker deleted, resulting in Tracy's having "more."

Back to the repetitious nature of the Tracy System...another critique from Doc about AK is the "motion kenpo" thing.  Seems to me that Ed Parker may have pared his system down to what he thought was necessary to teach the concepts, yet many instructors of the style use the curriculum and teach it as a concrete example style.  

My critique is that this seems to cause many to simply spin their wheels interpreting and re-interpreting Ed Parker's stuff vs. exploring kenpo.  They seem to be "stuck in the books."  The same, I'm sure, can be said of some Tracy's instructors, but many that I know have evolved to a more concept driven approach using the Tracy curriculum as a base.

Which, I think, ought to be the point.  I think any good, complete system ought to allow it's practitioners to evolve beyond the confines of the structure while at the same time, providing solid, effective, "complete" teaching for those who don't.


----------



## Jim Hanna (Aug 7, 2006)

I like this family of techniques.  Its really difficult to discuss on a forum because we all need to be out on the floor, working and then discussing.  Otherwise you end up with a short doctoral thesis post, which is generally too verbose for me.

I've heard it said that when Mr Parker was asked about a technique, he would respond:  "show me how you do it".

One of the tips that I picked up from Mr Tracy, when he was asked the same question, was:  "lets get out on the mats and see".

If you (the reader) know the missing sections of Book Set, you will see the "seizing hands"  and "accelerating parries", that are illustrated in the techniques of this topic...more repetition, more redundancy.  I love it.

Jim


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun. We should be having some of our own discussions. So here goes:
> 
> Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
> Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
> ...


 
I have always like these techniques and do not see them as redundant.  It is just another way to skin a "cat"  Pardon the pun.  Tracy Kenpo teaches the additional "what if" techniques while EPAK was pared down and the studeent was taught to explore the "What if's" with their instructors and on their own.  They are taught to graft their material to fit their needs.

Each teaching philosophy has its pros/cons and I think the type of student also determines the best teaching method.

As for the 3 specific techniques, I look at each one of them as what damage/control can be inflicted. 

Just my opinion. 

I like both.


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 7, 2006)

Realistically, I think, regardless of which school of thought we come from, EPAK or Tracy, we each tend to develop a set of our own "favorite" techniques, perhaps even subconsciously, that we would use in a given situtation.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, I've always enjoyed, and used on, at least one occasion that I will admit to, Sowing the Seeds.  It was quite a number of years ago, and I do not remember all the details, but I do recall that it was devastating and the knuckles on my left hand were sore for about a week thereafter.  And so, Sowing the Seeds, became one of my burned in or favorite responses.

In the reality of the fight, with either system, unless one works out day in and day out, every day, for hours at a time, s/he is not going to ever be able to, reliably, pull out every variation in a real situation... 

I sometimes wonder if a system of "limited" responses to given situations might not work as well?  (See my post elsewhere regarding the original material that SGM Parker, and Chuck Sullivan put on film).

Just thoughts...


----------



## fmusto (Aug 8, 2006)

Isn't sowing the seeds against a right punch and leveling the clouds against a left punch?


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 8, 2006)

fmusto said:
			
		

> Isn't sowing the seeds against a right punch and leveling the clouds against a left punch?


 
After Form 4 you have both sides.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 8, 2006)

fmusto said:
			
		

> Isn't sowing the seeds against a right punch and leveling the clouds against a left punch?


 
I've always done all techs on both sides.


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 8, 2006)

In actual Tracy Karate, you should, ostensibly, be doing all your techniques from Yellow on up on both sides.  There is great debate as to wether or not this is necessary, or even good for you, so to speak.

When I began training in the way back, we had to show proficiency with all the techniques on both sides.  My question then, and still is, why do we need both left, and right side techniques if that is the case.  Once again, fodder for some cannons (Michael, feel free to jump in here... LOL)

I think it has been shown that learning a technique on the right side and on the left requires two different parts of the brain, and one isn't as efficient as the other at doing this particular thing.  Having said that, however, I am not clear on where I read this or the origin.  Else, I would provide a link to it.

Please, anybody, feel free to clarify my muddled thoughts here.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 8, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> In actual Tracy Karate, you should, ostensibly, be doing all your techniques from Yellow on up on both sides. There is great debate as to wether or not this is necessary, or even good for you, so to speak.
> 
> When I began training in the way back, we had to show proficiency with all the techniques on both sides. My question then, and still is, why do we need both left, and right side techniques if that is the case. Once again, fodder for some cannons (Michael, feel free to jump in here... LOL)
> 
> ...


 
I have always believed this to be true.  I always just assumed that while a technique was taught against "a right punch", or "a left punch", that was just to have a standard reference when teaching and discussing the tech, but in reality you need to be able to effectively execute it on both sides.  The notion of having separate and distinct techs to be done against a right punch vs. a left punch, for example, just doesn't make sense to me.

I have seen people suggest that since most people are right handed, the system is designed for right handed people.  This takes into account the fact that the right hand is stronger and has better coordination, so the techs are designed to capitalize on this.  So, in theory, a defense against a left punch is designed to use the right hand in a dominant way, but would require a different solution to a defense against a right punch, which would also be designed to use the right hand in a dominant way.  But to simply flip the tech into its mirror image would then change so that the left hand is used in a dominant way and that goes against the theory.

Nice theory, but I believe you never know how things are going to happen, and what other circumstances you may need to deal with.  Perhaps your right hand is injured and unuseable.  Perhaps you are blindsided and have no chance to bring your right hand into "proper" use.  Perhaps you are simply left handed, so the entire system is unworkable for you.  I don't buy it.  Practice both sides, don't distinguish between a right or a left punch only, with regard to your choice of techs.  Of course your dominant side will always be better, but still work the weak side to develop as much ambidextrousness as possible.


----------



## Ray (Aug 8, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Perhaps you are simply left handed, so the entire system is unworkable for you. I don't buy it.


I am left handed.  Whatever you practice will become natural for you...you won't change from a right-handed writer but your techs will be the same as a right-handed person if you practice the "right side" of the tech.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 8, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I am left handed. Whatever you practice will become natural for you...you won't change from a right-handed writer but your techs will be the same as a right-handed person if you practice the "right side" of the tech.


 
OK, there's one vote for the lefties.  I still don't believe there is a "right side" for a technique, tho.


----------



## Doc (Aug 8, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> OK, there's one vote for the lefties.  I still don't believe there is a "right side" for a technique, tho.



Over the years there have been significant misconceptions regarding the efficacy of right and left side training. A great deal of discussion exists relative to whether forms performances, and self-defense techniques are or should be right, left, or balanced in teaching and training execution.

The simple truth is all are correct in certain respects, and the confusion like many other topics, comes from the progenitor himself. Mr. Parker spent a considerable amount of time looking into the concept and reached some rather interesting conclusions in our own research and discussions.

As a forms example, in most versions of Ed Parkers Short Form Two, it does indeed include the physical left side in its right side  presentation. But, it is still considered, by Ed Parkers definition, to be the right side, or what he quietly called right side brain dominant.  However you do not reverse the synaptic and cerebellar pathway responsibilities for movement until the mirror image  is performed.

This is what Parker meant by left side. The physical left is only motion or movement, but the true left side is an opposite or reversal of brain dominance and control. Thus all forms encompass in some manner right and left side, but to begin from the opposite side or mirror image reverses all mental functions and changes muscle response significantly enough to have significant influence on function.

Whether this is necessary in teaching is dependent on how you teach or train. Ed Parker created a series of conceptually right-handed techniques. He himself was not ambidextrous, nor was he working to become that way. His goal was physical self-defense competency in the interaction of the activity. And those who borrow sport concepts like cross training seem to put more value into ambidexterity than those who concentrate on self-defense as he did.

Although in his commercial schools he encouraged left & right training for a variety of reasons, he recognized in self defense, competence was more important than performing left and right equally well. He knew that practicing both sides can yield benefits, but he also knew right & left would never be equal. Either way the operative phrase is "mirror image execution, to activate both sides of the brain to create balance in any kind of physical training."

In Ed Parkers self-defense philosophy however, training should be based on a curriculum of well thought out systematically principled and progressive techniques. The mechanisms inherent in the process are designed to emphasize *situational effectiveness with ambidexterity irrelevant to function.* Movements should be performed on both sides to demonstrate effective basic skills generated by both sides of the brain with their own unique synaptic pathways. *But, self-defense techniques are about competence and effectiveness within the sequence first, and emphasis must be place there as the top priority.* 

Of course basic skills should be raised to an acceptable level of effectiveness, but the goal of balance in the execution of self-defense techniques in their mirror image is unnecessary, time consuming, and not physically possible when it comes to equity.

The teachers who preach this both sides technique execution perspective, themselves are not equally proficient on both sides. Most traditional styles and disciplines and even western boxing have techniques and moves used *only from the left or right side*. 

Most styles promote a left side forward to allow use of the right (strong) hand and leg from the rear. Even when the techniques, change they still favor the right side. Even in those schools that promote equal side proficiency it is never, nor is it possible to actually be achieved. The reasons it is not possible are physiological involving a mental interaction with the bodys ability to perform. 

Each side of the body is controlled by opposite sides of the brain. For example, when learning a left kick, a synaptic pathway must be created, or established through the right side of the brain and vice versa. No matter how you train, the left and right pathways will never be identical in function. Even though the two sides of the brain function together, they do not have identical ways of performing the same function. 

They may produce identical physical movement, but how the movements are produced and controlled from the brain are very different. Additionally the human body is not mathematically symmetrical in the true sense of the term. It is normal in human anatomy for one leg or arm to be longer than the other, and even different in diameter. Every muscle, tendon, cartilage, and even hair growth varies from side to side. World-class athletes do not stride, jump, throw, or move the same on both sides of the body. 

What is even more interesting is when an athlete is trained to be exactly symmetrical in their execution; it has been shown that physical
performance actually declines overall. The body may be visually aesthetically symmetrical, but not precisely physically or mathematically. 
Most have unreasonable expectations with regard to weak side performance. 

If we anticipate we can train the weak side to perform equally with the strong, we are mistaken. Because of how the brain works, you cannot attain the exact same degree of skill on both sides. It would be like attempting to teach yourself to write equally as well with both hands. You may achieve an acceptable level on the weak side but the strong will always be better and dominant. Human beings have a natural physical preference to have a dominant side that is predetermined at birth. 

Even in cases where a person has activity dedicated dominance, they are always opposite of each other. I have a student who writes on one side, throws on the other, and still in baseball, bats opposite his dominant throwing side. But these activities are still functionally dedicated. He cant write, bat, or throw equally with both. This dominance is so strong in human behavior; it cannot be overcome by external training.

In the Chinese Martial Science, students are taught opposite most other later martial art disciplines with the strong side forward for practicality. In examining the basic idea of most techniques, they can be executed on the prescribed side or they can be executed in what Mr. Parker, called "Half Mirror Image."  That is, a technique may be designed for one side attacking, however just because the attacker uses the other side or mirror,  doesnt mean you have to react in kind with a mirrored response.

The self-defense techniques "Thrusting Salute" and "Buckling Branch" as kicking defenses are both interchangeable whether the right or left kick is used in the attack. In "Thrusting Salute" the attack is a front kick with the right leg, and you respond with the prescribed Default Solution to that particular assault. When the attack of a left front kick is used in "Buckling Branch," the attacker is now using the Mirror Image Assault of Thrusting Salute. However if you respond with the Default Solution to "Thrusting
Salute," you are in a Half Mirror Image Solution response. These attacks, although mirror opposites of each other, can be responded to with the exact same right-handed response. 

This type of training only requires one side be developed significantly to be functional. The opposite side can and will also be developed, but performing a different function. In another example, in the attack for "Delayed Sword" (a right hand), you defend by stepping back with the left foot and executing with your front (right) hand.  Attacking Mace (again an attacking right
hand), does just the opposite, defending by stepping back with the right foot. Both techniques are developed independent of each other on opposite sides of the body, but they both function quite well with either right or left side dominance. 

Although all of Parkers interpretations of his art tend to be right-handed, students with left-handed dominance can, and do flourish. But no matter how well you perform in symmetrical forms, the dominant side will always be more coordinated and controlled. However, in a fight or confrontation of significant stress, and given the choice, you will always have a preference for one side over the other.

In closing, remember all interpretations of Ed Parkers American Kenpo should be about self-defense first. Many, specifically in America, have confused, through clever marketing, sport training with self-defense training. Cross training  and symmetrical performance borrowed from sport training and tradition-laden disciplines, must take a back seat to practical function and applications in reality. 

For the same reasons of symmetrical dominance, with the addition of mechanical efficiency, please consider any passive non-action while opposite body parts are moving as dysfunctional in human anatomical movement, and violates this balanced perspective of anatomical movement as well.

The Ed Parker euphamistically used "Slap-Check"  (or pak sao in Chinese), and all its many subcategories and functions are always in some manner active. There are never 'passive' hands in human movement, which negates the 'Positional Check" as dysfunctional. To achieve certain balanced skills, it is imperative that both sides of the body be active and functional at all times, and never ever passive. 

True ambidexterity is a myth and although it is worthy of pursuit, it should not overshadow the quest for practical application first. They dont 'fight'  in tournaments they 'compete.'  On the street, right or left is irrelevant to survival. You should be capable of using both sides of your body, but not necessarily the same way nor equal. Ed Parker was right handed, and so are the systems he created and influenced, but because of its design, 'lefties' do just as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 8, 2006)

Thanks for the post, Doc, I appreciate the thoughts.  

I certainly understand what you are saying, and I never expected to reach true ambidextrousness in training or using the techs.  I understand that the body does not fully work this way, and the dominant side will always be better.  

Nevertheless, I personally find benefit in training both sides more or less equally.  For my own reasons, which I cannot fully articulate, i just feels "correct" to me to do so.

I see both sides of this issue within the Chinese arts that I study.  The hand sets in Wing Chun execute techniques on both sides almost 100%.  The Fu Hok form from Hung Gar is mostly done with techs on both sides.  Yet the Tibetan White Crane, Shaolin, and Tai Chi Chuan material are primarily one-sided forms.  But I have read where some Tai Chi Chuan practitioners suggest that once one is competent with the form on one side, he should also practice on the other side.  So I definitely see both sides of this in other venues.

At any rate, I understand where you are coming from, but I will continue to train both sides.  If some out there believe this is a foolish position to take, well, rest assured, I am fully informed and do so under my own free will.


----------



## Doc (Aug 8, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Thanks for the post, Doc, I appreciate the thoughts.
> 
> I certainly understand what you are saying, and I never expected to reach true ambidextrousness in training or using the techs.  I understand that the body does not fully work this way, and the dominant side will always be better.
> 
> ...


Not foolish, just a preference.


----------



## Jim Hanna (Aug 8, 2006)

What's interesting is that there are several near identical conversations (as to this topic) among police firearms instructors.

When under the stress of shooting a tactical course, many officers will shoot a pistol with their right hand, using their right eye, even from around a left side barricade.

The whistle blows, and the officer is reminded to shoot left handed, left eye, and use the barricade for cover, thusly exposing less of his head and body to any incoming rounds.

The compulsion to shoot from the dominant side is that powerful.

Jim


----------



## Doc (Aug 8, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> What's interesting is that there are several near identical conversations (as to this topic) among police firearms instructors.
> 
> When under the stress of shooting a tactical course, many officers will shoot a pistol with their right hand, using their right eye, even from around a left side barricade.
> 
> ...


Hey Jim, how you doing Bud? I was trained as a rangemster at the FBI Rangemaster School, and they were very adament about that as well. Under intense stress the only way you use your non-dominant hand is when the dominant is not available. The secret is to train specific functions for the off hand that the body will embrace, however the dominant hand in shooting will always be activity dedicated under extreme stress.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 8, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> What's interesting is that there are several near identical conversations (as to this topic) among police firearms instructors.
> 
> When under the stress of shooting a tactical course, many officers will shoot a pistol with their right hand, using their right eye, even from around a left side barricade.
> 
> ...


 
I find this interesting, but I would also be interested to know the frequency and duration of this type of training.  If it is infrequent or short-lived, that problem will never be overcome.  I suspect this kind of firearms training doesn't happen several times a week, year after year, the way martial arts training does (or at least should).

In martial arts training that is done regularly, over a long period of time I think you will see different results.  While again the offhand will never reach the same level of proficiency as the dominant hand, and the dominant hand is the ideal choice when push comes to shove, still I will bet that proficiency and comfort in execution with the off hand can improve noticeably due to regular and consistent practice.

I practice Chinese sword.  While I practice much more with my right hand, I do spend some time on a regular basis practicing with the left.  Of course my right hand is much more comfortable with the weapon, but my comfort with my left hand has dramatically improved over the years, to the point where I can wield it with modest proficiency left-handed.  

The same is true with my staff and spear practice.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 9, 2006)

Doc doesn't like sparring but despite my respect for him I still do it because it's fun. I've found that in the Left lead position I spar more like a kick boxer with the Straight right hand/Cross and rear leg kicks my dominent moves. With the the Right side forward I fight a forward hand and leg style, still right dominant. In the heat of battle I find it very difficult to lose my right dominant style regardless of which leg is forward. I assume that in a life threatening position this right dominance would become more pronounced.

A similar phenomena happens if I try to train a technique on both sides. the emphasis and timing of the technique changes and despite the fact that the techniques are mirror images they are not really the same technique any longer.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Aug 9, 2006)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Doc doesn't like sparring but despite my respect for him I still do it because it's fun. I've found that in the Left lead position I spar more like a kick boxer with the Straight right hand/Cross and rear leg kicks my dominent moves. With the the Right side forward I fight a forward hand and leg style, still right dominant. In the heat of battle I find it very difficult to lose my right dominant style regardless of which leg is forward. I assume that in a life threatening position this right dominance would become more pronounced.
> 
> A similar phenomena happens if I try to train a technique on both sides. the emphasis and timing of the technique changes and despite the fact that the techniques are mirror images they are not really the same technique any longer.
> 
> ...


Yes sir you are right (about the dominance of one side of the body) .

However I do like sparring, just not the kind most are familiar with. Most sparring is built around limited sport applications, which induce bad body mechanics and conditions you to respond to attacks with mostly ineffective sport responses. I concur it can be fun and the cardio is beneficial, but we get the same out of our methodology, and it stays with street response parameters that my law enforcement students appreciate and use effectively. I did my share of sparring over the years, and physically paid the price for it with bad body mechanics that took me years to overcome. I trained and sparred regularly with many of the great fighters of the B.K.F. including guys like Lenny Ferguson whom I recruited from my old school, (Ark Wong) and some of the go arounds with people like Al "Hot Dog" Harvey are legendary. So I've been there and explored it, and despite the fun, it is not the martial science I teach passed on by Mr. Parker so it had to go.

"Sparring" in SL-4 is taught similarly as self-defense techniques, with students drilling principled responses to external stimuli. We call these extremely physical exercises A.O.D. and A.O.T. (Anticipated Offensive techniques or Anticipated Offensive Drills). Taught as drills, they allow students to move back and forth to improve their spontaneous reactions, read and recognition skills, and explore induced negative posture. Taught as techniques they allow for completely extemporaneous responses to anticipated assaults. For us, this bridges the gap between forms, sets, and self defense techniques. There is a difference between being surprised with a punch or push, and anticipating and being prepared. In the philosophy taught to me by Mr. Parker, when you truly are in the moment and 'anticipate' an imminent attack, your response(s) should be different. Surviving the Initial Assault should be easier, and should preclude the pushes, hugs and holds found in self defense techniques. After all, if a jerk announces through word or deed, he's going to 'kick your butt' you should be prepared to quickly and precisely dispatch his intentions, without lengthy 'extended' responses.

As a side note, it is quite a thrill to have so many medical professionals and M.D.'s as respected "fans."


----------



## KenpoDave (Aug 10, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> What's interesting is that there are several near identical conversations (as to this topic) among police firearms instructors.
> 
> When under the stress of shooting a tactical course, many officers will shoot a pistol with their right hand, using their right eye, even from around a left side barricade.
> 
> ...


 
As I see it, there is value in practicing both sides.  Mainly for activation of the left and right brain, which, I believe helps in developing spontaneity.  I also believe that in a surprise attack, you will simply react without getting to choose the reaction.  If they have been trained both sides, then you are more likely to have a spontaneous available finish.

However, approximately 80% of the people in the world are right handed, so it follows that approximately 80% of the people in the world that attack with a punch will attack with a right punch.  For the purposes of self defense, I do not feel it is AS useful to learn defense against a right punch mirror image as if they were for left punches.


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 10, 2006)

I will use the analogy of baseball.  I am able to hit lefty and righty.  When I played in my younger days, I used to try to hit righty because all the other kids did.  My brother and I both throw righty, but nature puts us on the left side of the plate.  I can golf righty.  I can kick a football lefty or righty.  For so long I concentrated on batting righty that it also became second nature.  But they serve different purposes.  If I want power, I bat lefty.  If I need to place the ball somewhere specific on the field, I bat righty.  To this day I think that has helped me in other sports.  I can snowboard, surf and skateboard regular or "goofy foot".  

Not sure if that makes any sense, but I feel the more i practice both sides in training, the better I get at the "unnatural" side.


----------

