# Ideal Attacks



## Dominic Jones (Sep 12, 2002)

After reading a few posts.  In my opinion, It seems that most people in kenpo agree that learning the Ideal Technique is a good idea.  They then continue their technique training by following two main paths;

1.  Go on to learn new Ideal Techniques to provide answers to new attacks. 

2.  Modify the original technique to cope with the new attack.

But anyways, back to the Ideal Technique and it`s Ideal Attack.  Is this Ideal Attack, really ideal?  For example:

Step through thrust punches are used.  
Frontal wrist grabs are made.

(I don`t know how you give the Ideal Attack, but I`m interested to find out)

I understand its possible to modify the attacks and to examine what-if attacks but isn`t this moving away from the Ideal Attack?

Logically the Ideal Technique should include the Ideal Attack.


Any comments welcome.  Cheers Dom


----------



## Rainman (Sep 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Dominic Jones _
> 
> *After reading a few posts.  In my opinion, It seems that most people in kenpo agree that learning the Ideal Technique is a good idea.  They then continue their technique training by following two main paths;
> 
> ...



More like fixed attack for a fixed response.   Five Sword will work fine for an attack to HZ1/QZ2 when the method is circular.   When the attacking Method is Linear use a technique that is designed to intercept a linear attack.  Staying with the same zones as already mentioned the tek attacking mace fits the profile.    

For me this theory works very well.   It is also to develope a conditioned response wich will have some value in your free fighting exercises due to posture recognition... but as the skill level goes up-   One of the most important things techniques do is teach you to play zone defense from a contact penetraition point of view.   

From the 4th range- perhaps some else will give your their views.


----------



## Doc (Sep 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Dominic Jones _
> 
> *After reading a few posts.  In my opinion, It seems that most people in kenpo agree that learning the Ideal Technique is a good idea.  They then continue their technique training by following two main paths;
> 
> ...



You've just made the point I've been pounding for years. Those are not "ideals." In MK the ideal must be formulated by the head teacher based on the 'IDEA" of an assault. Someone like yourself can easily see those things don't make sense in a self-defense art. We haven't done step throughs in over 25 years and have never done frontal wrist grabs. But then I started before there were "manuals" and have never used any of them.

If you are doing self-defense and you walk up to a guy and "hand him your wrist"  so you can snatch it back before he grabs it tight, and think you're doing self defense then ...........


The "ideal techniques" in MK, as I posted before, are not in any book, they are in the head of the teacher. The techniques in the books are IDEAS not IDEALS. BIG misunderstanding. Some teachers for many reasons have chosen to pass the responsibility back to the manual for what they don't know, or what they don't want to do.

Ed Parker said, "If 10 guys read the manuals and do the technique you'll get 10 different interpretations." If the manuals were "ideal" the techniques would work as is, then a student could study variations on the theme. Does it make sense to have all these manuals with a bunch of techniques that don't work? Of course not. 

HISTORICAL FACTS: The manuals were only a "guide" for teachers to use to formulate an ideal. Originally students were not supposed to even have the manuals, only teachers. Students had a list of techniques and requirements on a small booklet in the school for study purposes. Then Ed Parker offered a "Red Book Binder" with the crest on the front to teachers and heads of schools. Everybody wanted them so he sold them and just the manual component. After that, everybody then had the manuals and "teachers" of lesser knowledge let the manuals become the "Bible." Even "ideas" that didn't make sense. Here's a shocker. Ed Parker was wrong sometimes, and he was the first one to admit it. That's how he got so smart.


----------



## Doc (Sep 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Hey, I heard that!


----------



## Rainman (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> Hey, I heard that! *



Doc,

What are your views (in context with this thread) about fourth range constituents.    So here is a scenerio:  Attack is a bumping bear hug from behind arms pinned.   When the first part of squeezing the peach is chopped the adjustment is already there and the technique can go about its business.   Bump and Lift/throw with arms pinned?   Thoughts?

Thankyou
RM:asian:


----------



## Doc (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



I'm sorry sir, (old age you know) could you be a bit more specific whay you want from me.


----------



## Rainman (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> I'm sorry sir, (old age you know) could you be a bit more specific whay you want from me. *



I figured it out- it came down to energy redirection or allowing his energy to put the entire tek into action for Squeezing the Peach.

I was looking for something that deals with a bump/pin from behind.   Looking at unfixed attack vs. fixed responce from obsure zones in the fourth range... What do you think about a rear tackle or grab (the reverse attack for hooking wings and ram attacks)?

Thankyou
RM  :asian:


----------



## Doc (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Tackles and hugs are significantly different because of the intent of the attacker. Absorbing the Body Momentum, Misaligning your opponent, and a significant inducement of Negative Body Posture are the keys to surviving a bear hug front or rear. Unfortunately. explaining it without a physical presence is difficult.


----------



## Rainman (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> Tackles and hugs are significantly different because of the intent of the attacker. Absorbing the Body Momentum, Misaligning your opponent, and a significant inducement of Negative Body Posture are the keys to surviving a bear hug front or rear. Unfortunately. explaining it without a physical presence is difficult. *



No sir I believe those concepts gave me what I needed.   Absorbtion is something I am working on, so as they bump you stretch them... works for me.

Thankyou
RM:asian: 

PS can you give some examples of Negative Body Postures and Positive Body Postures?


----------



## Doc (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Wow. I can't believe you got that from what I said. I take it back, it's obvious you are an "intelligent thinker." Although it is difficult to explain what happens when you do that, understand it misaligns the hip joint and unbalances them. Once accomplished, don't give it back to them. Force them to maintain that created posture. It is Negative. He is in a slight stoop, knees bent, weight forward, shoulders over his toes, and exerting force with his arms in an effort to lift or shift.

In this instance, Positive Posture is the same except feet are together, chin up, and your free arms are pushing one hand on top of the other down on top of his hands. All very important.

Tell me what you think.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> ...




Do you consider these postures in all attacks besides these bear hug positions? If I were to look at it from my interpretation of what you posted, in delayed sword the attacker ends up in a  negative position. That's probably an obvious one but if some how you were misaligned during this point maybe the attacker was kicked in the stomach.  Would that be considered putting the attacker in a positive posture? Looking back to when I wrestled in school most guys stood just slightly forward with their butt down in a good stance. It looks as though the attacker could be in that same position. Or once again are you just describing the bear hug situation only? I'm interested in your thoughts.
Salute,
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Doc (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



It is across the board on everything you do in some form or another. Having a background in wrestling helps you to understand. Bad body mechanics and postures show up immediately.

You can even induce Misalignments and Negative Postures without physical contact by tapping into"Startle Reflex" and other intuitive bodily defense mechanisms and Spatial Distortion. It is not difficult and is incorporated into a good curriculum. In the beginning my lower level students do everything the upper division does. The difference is the upper understands it, and does it better. You don't have to understand something to execute, but you do need a solid curriculum and teacher to see that you're doing in correctly. All that matters in the beginning is, it works.

The cool thing is proving it to skeptics in person.


----------



## Rainman (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Yes sir I understand.  When the hips are pushed in any direction that dissallows the spine to stretch from the top of the brain stem to the coccyx (first misalignment) it allows for easy unbalancing.  Once that connection is broken all he has left is arm strength.   That will dissapate with  strategically placed strikes to cavities further disrupting internal bodily flow.    That is how I view zone cancellation and how I have it work.   Kill the chi, kill the strength and dilute the retaliatory response.   Then it comes down to feel for obscurity and posture recognition (in either circumstance positve or negetive) so as to take advantage or create to take advantage of.

I have a fair amount of the theory-some of the concepts and not enough practice.    Most people I have ever seen (if they really do) cancel zones with speed and power instead of exact placement of the strikes.  So when I say bludgen people to death that is what I am speaking of.   For me that would be part of the "big man theory".   I am not so it is this way for me.   I believe personal strength, speed and power generation are mucho important but not the end game.    The concepts you provided are an excellent addition to what I have.

Thankyou
RM:asian:


----------

